Government Comments on the Final Draft of the SPM IPCC Working ...

<strong>Government</strong> <strong>Comments</strong> on the Final Draft of the SPM
IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report
Batch
Page:line
No.
From To Comment
figure SPM-4 is effectively representative of the regional averaged temperature changes.
[Govt. of Argentina (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2024-6)]
SPM-497 A 8:12 10:22 Section: Understanding and attributing change
- Suggest including Figure TS-23
[Govt. of United Kingdom (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2022-13)]
SPM-498 A 8:12 10:22 Understanding and attributing climate change. What about the growing body of work on detection and attribution of climate
change in rainfall and river flow records?
[Govt. of United Kingdom (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2022-26)]
SPM-499 A 8:12 14:18 Some climate projections are given with no specification of their likelihood (es: contraction of snow cover extent SPM-12,
line 16 to 17). This happens several times in the text. Maybe a sentence should be added in Note 5 SPM-1 saying that in some
cases results are certain, and in this case no likelihood is specified for the result, or likelihood should be added in all cases.
[Govt. of Italy (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2012-21)]
SPM-500 A 8:14 8:15 The first sentence concerning detection of climate change, (which is repeated at TS page 33, lines 3-4) does not clearly match
the glossary definition and may be confusing for policy readers. Suggest that the glossary definition is repeated: "Detection of
climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a
reason for that change".
[Govt. of Australia (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2002-82)]
SPM-501 A 8:14 8:15 "Natural variability" needs to be clearly defined somewhere in the text (as in footnotes on p.1). Policy-makers will generally
assume that natural variability is a function of non-anthropogenic drivers - rather than the concept of "unforced variability"
introduced later in section (SPM10 line 19).
[Govt. of Canada (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2004-35)]
SPM-502 A 8:14 8:34 The term 'unforced variability' line 34 and in some other places is not clear. It seems to mean here 'non anthropogenic' while
the same term page 10 line 19 used for the past 700 years means 'internal variability' (i.e., without volcanic and solar
forcings). Thus there is some incoherence.Please define clearly 'natural variability' and 'unforced variability' . For the
definition of detection, "natural variability" should be replaced by "internal variability" in consistency with Chapter 9
definition of detection (see in particular page 5, lines 54-56). Volcanic eruptions are said to have contributed to the observed
past variability. Is this considered forced variability ?
[Govt. of France (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2010-28)]
SPM-503 A 8:14 8:15 This definition of climate change is not in agreement with Note 1 on Page 1, that defines climate change in IPCC usage
[Govt. of Italy (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2012-4)]
SPM-504 A 8:14 8:15 This sentence does not appear to be fully consistent with the definition of "Climate Change in IPCC usage" as provided in
footnote 1 on page SPM-1. Its construction may be rechecked and modified appropriately, if deemed desirable.
[Govt. of Pakistan (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2017-4)]
SPM-505 A 8:14 8:15 The statement «Climate change is said to be detected when there is only a small likelihood that observed changes might have
occurred solely due to natural variability» is to be excluded or adjusted according to the basic concept: “Climate change in
IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity" (see
Page 54 of 99