FULL TEXT Search

If this sentence is not to be deleted then I suggest addition of the equally valid sentence that says; “Anthropogenic forcing may have increased the risk of flying pigs”. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-24)] SPM- A 11:2 11:2 Insert after "anthropogenic forcing" "which might not imply an influence of Rejected, not the meaning of anthropogenic forcing 981 1 1 greenhouse gas emissions" [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-2227)] SPM- A 11:2 11:2 Insert after "Anthropogenic forcing" "which might not imply an influence of See SPM 981 982 1 1 greenhouse gas emissions" [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-2228)] SPM- A 11:2 11:2 The language is not precise with regard to the likelyhood.

Hence, it is invalid to attribute any causes - anthropogenic or otherwise - to “the observed warming of northern hemisphere over the last 50 years” [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-25)] SPM- A 11:3 11:3 After the inclusion of the new chapeau (last comment) delete the text in line 32 Text has been clarified 998 2 5 to 35 completely.

If such concerns were raised then they would be mistaken. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-34)] SPM- A 13:4 13:4 Add to this sentence something like " and with conditions detrimental to high- Reject.

The statement that, “Present atmospheric levels of methane are unprecedented in at least the last half million years.” is a blatant lie. Delete it. [Richard S Courtney] 2-38 A 14:9 14:17 The statements in the paragraph on Page 2-14 Chapter 2 Section 2.3.2 Lines 9 to 17 are Comment not scientific in nature such arrant nonsense that they are not worthy of mention and, therefore, the paragraph should be deleted.

The inherent errors Rejected, see chapters 8 and 10. 1023 2 2 of the simulations are not known so the outputs of the simulations cannot be “quantitative” (a result is not quantitative merely because it is presented as a number). [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-26)] SPM- A 11:4 11:4 Model intercomparisons may not represent the full range of structural Reject comment.

.” [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-50)] TS-124 A 6:17 6:18 Replace "unprecedented in at least' with "thought to be grteater than that of" Rejected, no basis for change given.

.” [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-55)] TS-153 A 6:48 6:49 Change "was almost" to "had been essentially" and change ", before" to "prior to" Text edited [Michael MacCracken (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 152-65)] TS-154 A 6:53 7:55 TS Comment: Delete this paragraph because it is untrue.

Nonsense of the kind in lines 26 and 27 causes doubt concerning the scientific competence and the integrity of the authors of the draft. [Richard S Courtney] 2-24 A 8:27 8:27 Replace “These forcings could be significant on local scales” with “These forcings could We do not agree. Text retained be significant on global and local scales” because the statement in the draft Report is incorrect in that it suggests changes to non-radiative effects (e.g. latent heat transfer) are not significant globally.

. ” [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-46)] TS-99 A 5:48 5:48 Insert before "carbon" "water vapour" Rejected - the sentence is about long [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-1905)] lived species that are emitted and as covered in Chapter 2 anthropogenic water vapor emissions are not significant.

This emphasized by the sentence of the TS (p TS-8 lines 31-32 that admits the uncertainties concerning natural sources. [Richard Courtney (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 49-65)] TS-203 A 8:27 8:28 how can we know the sum of the emissions better than we know the individual Sentence added for clarification components?