FULL TEXT Search

Rejected - likely explanations for the [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-63)] growth rate decline and variability are covered in Chapter 7 TS-197 A 8:24 8:24 Change "ppm" to "ppb".

is equally valid to assume that the rises are natural as has been demonstrated by The limitations in using stomatal indices as proxies for e.g. ref. Rorsch A, Thoenes D and Courtney RS, (E&E v10 no2 (2005). global CO2 are explained in response to comment And the statement saying “The concentrations of these gases also increased … SPM-138 were much slower than those in the last century. [2.3, 6.4]” is another use of selective data.

time. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-9)] SPM- A 6:31 6:31 Warming.....

Text says there is an effect, not that it 954 5 8 “differences in the magnitudes of model simulations and observed changes are accounts for all changes observed not understood” then there cannot be any valid basis for the assertion that “human influences are likely to have contributed to” the modelled effects. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-23)] SPM- A 11:1 11:1 Insert after Do not understand comment 955 5 5 [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-2223)] SPM- A 11:1 11:1 The first sentence is difficult to sustain in light of thermodynamic principles and Rejected, see underlying chapter for details.

The measurements demonstrate that the human emissions mix with the air (which is not surprising) and do not “provide evidence” of anything else except that they can be used (with poor resolution) to partition carbon fluxes. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-59)] TS-174 A 7:14 7:24 Do you need to say at the start of this bullet that ~30% of our atmospheric emissions are Text is now substantially revised and taken up by the biosphere?