stated. Model resolution, inputs, reactive chemical mechanisms, emissions assumptions, and removal mechanisms, and residence times should be more clearly presented. In addition, there is insufficient detail about how the experiments were run. It is not possible to decipher what radiatively active species are predicted (emissions) vs. those prescribed (concentrations) and how they vary temporally and spatially. The technical detail could either be included in a table in Chapter 3 or described in the text of Chapter 3. The more general information about the models used could be included in the introduction (see reviews of specific chapters for suggestions).

  1. Details about statistical methods employed are lacking. At present there is no discussion about how statistical significance was determined. The statistical significance of certain trends is discussed and judgments are made about the relative significance, yet there is no description of how this was calculated. This information could be provided in an appendix and should clearly describe the statistical approaches used to determine the relative significance of trends and explain the rationale behind why judgments were made.

  2. Many of the figures and captions presented could be improved for ease of interpretation. The figures presented in the report do not have similar scales or projections, which makes comparison of the data difficult. In addition, key points that are made in the discussion are not necessarily obvious from the present figures. For example, it is not entirely clear that the pattern of temperature response to short-lived species is of similar magnitude and distribution as the pattern of long-lived species. A graphic comparison of the temperature response to short-lived species vs the response to long-lived species should be presented.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement