FULL TEXT Search

., as represented by changes in water vapor and cloud distributions in response to temperature changes, and (3) transient and time scale processes and rate of heat transport into the deep ocean. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1259 A 60:37 60:38 Delete from “Thus inceases” on line 37 to “findings” on line 38 Rejected. Similar findings from [Vincent Gray] different lines of evidence do increase confidence.

cycle and its natural varibility is actually understood before venturing opinions about whether the impact of external influences is emerging. [Andrew Lacis] 9-179 A 4:49 5:4 this strikes me as being quite speculative. Redrafted. [Jerry Mahlman] 9-180 A 4:49 Replace “emerging” with “equivocal” Rejected.

The climate system simply hasn't had time to respond to the accumulated GHG radiative forcing. [Andrew Lacis] 9-350 A 13:5 13:23 These two paragraphs discuss and distinguish "bottom-up" and "top-down" estimates accepted (better, "forward" and "inverse" calculations) of radiative forcing.

All this has to be accounted for in the observed temperature record, as of course it has been in many climate change simulations conducted with climate GCMs that include all of the relevant physics and climate forcings. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1316 A 63:12 Replace “probablity” with “chances” Why? [Vincent Gray] 9-1317 A 63:14 63:14 "Unlikely": this is too weak when compared with the findings in the rest of the chapter.

The reviewer provides no [Vincent Gray] evidence or reasoning for suggesting this change. 9-90 A 3:14 3:16 Just how does "anthropogenically influended" atmospheric circulation differ from "non-We don’t understand reviewer’s point. anthropogenically influenced" atmospheric circulation? [Andrew Lacis] 9-91 A 3:14 Replace “have likely” with “might have” Rejected. The reviewer provides no [Vincent Gray] evidence or reasoning for suggesting this change. 9-92 A 3:15 Replace “becoming” with”thought to become” Rejected.

If blame needs to be attributed, then explaining the observed increase in GHGs should suffice. [Andrew Lacis] 9-297 A 10:4 Insert after “paleo-reconstructions” . However, some recent studies have found evidence Rejected. This is a summary of TAR that temperatures comparable to or or greater than those current today occurred in the results. 11th and 15th centuries [Vincent Gray] 9-298 A 10:11 Insert after “observations”; “after adjustment of model parameters” Rejected.

Batch From To Comment Notes 9-503 A 21:12 21:12 What are considered to be "external" forcings in this context? This paragraph does not exist any more, [Andrew Lacis] and when needed reference has been made to section 9.2, where forcing are defined for these periods. 9-504 A 21:15 21:17 Ice sheet forcing is a feedback - not a direct radiative forcing.

There is no reason to ignore this information - this is what helps us to understand what is, and what has been happening in the climate system. [Andrew Lacis] 9-255 A 7:44 7:55 I am not sure that the new definition of detection is explained particularly well. If we take We now to the glossary definition.

If written well, "attribution" will become a self-evident conclusion that is based on the facts presented. [Andrew Lacis] 9-59 A 1:1 1:1 In the discussion about regional trends, there was no reference to Douglass et al. (2004) Noted. This reference has been who showed that current climate models do not capture the zonal trends in atmospheric reconsidered.

[Kenneth Carslaw] 9-119 A 3:46 3:47 Attribution analyses are fine, but there is no substitute for physics. Agreed. The chapter is based largely on [Andrew Lacis] physically-based attribution studies. 9-120 A 3:46 3:51 This is a very well written and convincing statement. Noted. [Jerry Mahlman] 9-121 A 3:47 3:47 The use of the phrase "clearly indicate" reads to me as indicating certainty or virtual Redrafted.