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
SPM-570 A 9:24 9:24 The last part of the sentence seems to imply that reality is responding even more forcefully to global warming than the models
simulate. However, another possibility is that the larger flow fluctuations could be decoupled from global warming and just
associated with natural variability. This aspect is not well captured in the present formulation.
[Govt. of Sweden (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2019-22)]
SPM-571 A 10:1 10:3 Syntactically challenged sentence. Restructure as follows: “For the most extreme hot nights, cold nights, and cold days,
temperatures are likely to have….” Otherwise it might be misread to mean the number of cold nights and days have increased
with global warming!
[Govt. of United States of America (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2023-63)]
SPM-572 A 10:2 10:2 For consistency with Table SPM-1, the start of this sentence should read, "It is more likely than not that anthropogenic forcing
has increased…."
[Govt. of Australia (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2002-94)]
SPM-573 A 10:2 10:2 The very weak word "may" should be replaced by a likelihood statement.
[Govt. of Belgium (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2003-43)]
SPM-574 A 10:2 10:3 The sentence "Anthropogenic forcing may have increased the risk of heat waves." does not use appropriate uncertainty
language. Table SPM-1 assigns "more likely than not" to this statement. The sentence should be changed to "It is more likely
than not that anthropogenic forcing has already increased the risk of heat waves."
[Govt. of European Community (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2008-13)]
SPM-575 A 10:2 10:2 Change "may" to "more likely than not"? The latter seems more consistent with the underlying material
[Govt. of Germany (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2011-19)]
SPM-576 A 10:2 10:3 Change “Anthropogenic forcing may have increased the risk of heat waves” in order to use consistent probability/likelihood
language with table SPM-1, where it says “more likely than not”.
[Govt. of Germany (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2011-20)]
SPM-577 A 10:2 10:2 Replace ‘may’ by one of the standard likelihood statements.
[Govt. of Netherlands (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2014-28)]
SPM-578 A 10:2 10:2 In the light of recent developments, some weight could be added to this sentece, for example "there is some scientific
evidence that anthropogenic forcings have increased the risk of heat waves".
[Govt. of United Kingdom (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2022-31)]
SPM-925 B 10:2 10:3 The wording "Forcingmay have increased the risk of heat waves" lacks the clarity of interpretation in terms of likelyhood. It
would be very helpful to improve clarity also in the context of linkage between change in radiative forcing and heat waves.
Perhaps an indication in terms of LOSU might be a more appropriate solution?
[Govt. of Austria (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2025-5)]
SPM-579 A 10:2 The term "may" is not in the scales of likehood presented in note 5 page 1. As the probability of having more heatwaves is not
quantified the text should be more affirmative on this point. We propose to say instead :"Anthropogenic forcing is likely to
have increased the risk..." , or even, following chapter 9.4.3.3. "to have significantly increased the risk"
[Govt. of France (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 2010-36)]
SPM-580 A 10:6 10:7 Statement at the top: “There is now increased confidence in the understanding of the climate system response to radiative
Page 61 of 99