Skip to search form

RESULTS: 21 - 30 of 38

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 46. 46

Much less confidence is warranted for regional climate changes since the modeling and understanding of regional climate change is still rather primitive. [Andrew Lacis] 9-319 A 12:8 Obvious overlaps with Chapter 2. There is a need for a "box" relating key material in Put in a table and explicity mention Ch.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 159. 159

Mixing the two processes does not lead to improved understanding of either changes, so this statement is not physical problem. applicable. However, header has been [Andrew Lacis] changed to not set these two concepts against each other, and physical properties havebeen better explained. 9-1199 A 57:23 Should the title of this section be: "Transient climate response vs. equilibrium climate Title has been revised.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 161. 161

Jones] 9-1219 A 58:51 58:55 This is probably more a case of reverse engineering than actual information on climate We agree and have drastically sensitivity. shortened the description of this result. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1220 A 58:51 Section 9.6.2.2: this section suffers from too many different numbers, which make the We disagree that numbers are a section unreadable.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 18. 18

In any case, it is hardly a scientifically credible description to be attached to observational data. [Andrew Lacis] 9-75 A 3:4 3:7 Very well said. I am pleased that you, and IPCC, are still making good use of my Noted. informal "betting odds" approach to assessing levels of liklihood of climate-warming outcomes(J.D.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 139. 139

[Michael MacCracken] 9-1071 A 51:18 52:49 This discussion should be moved to Chapter 4. Discussed with Chapter 4 (Phillip [Andrew Lacis] Mote). We will reduce description of observed changes and concentrate more on their understanding. 9-1072 A 51:18 Section 9.5.4.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 163. 163

[Michael MacCracken] 9-1233 A 59:20 60:3 It would be highly desirable if a GCM with the same model physics would be able to Not clear why the reviewer thinks this model both current climate and the climate of the LGM. is not the case. [Andrew Lacis] 9-1234 A 59:21 59:21 Change "gases" to "gas concentrations" Text edited. [Michael MacCracken] 9-1235 A 59:21 59:24 Ice sheets are a feedback, not a forcing in the forcing definition.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 52. 52

While the simplified model approach can produce useful results and insights, strong caveats need to be expressed. [Andrew Lacis] 9-361 A 13:33 Insert “fairly” before “well known” Not accepted [Vincent Gray] 9-362 A 13:39 13:39 Columns and lines of table 9.2.1 do not contain the identification of what is reported, so Caption revised.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 69. 69

More relevant may be formulating the question in terms of inter- annual variability of current climate versus past climates. [Andrew Lacis] 9-500 A 20:50 20:50 Change "zone" to "zones" done [Michael MacCracken] 9-501 A 21:0 9.3.3 Seems to overlap substantially with chapter 6.

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 17. 17

The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted. [Andrew Lacis] 9-68 A 3:1 The abstract is overall OK. However, I believe you should state the objectives of the We feel that the ES is not the place to chapter, and explain the difference between "observation" and "detection".

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Papers; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Papers: Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, 2005-2007; Expert Review Comments on First-Order Draft, Chapter 9. ESPP IPCCAR4WG1. Environmental Science and Public Policy Archives. Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass. page 31. 31

That is why the equilibirum temperature response for doubled CO2 is about 2.7 degrees C, instead of 1.2 to 1.3 degrees C, where the latter is the equilibrium global mean temperature response if there are no feedback effects operating. [Andrew Lacis] 9-200 A 5:21 5:22 I think the summary needs to include a statement that the best estimate of climate Accepted. sensitivity is 3 K.