SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
404
SPM-
405
SPM-
406
SPM-
407
SPM-
408
SPM-
409
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
biological CCS, NOT to new understanding of the C-cycle. This
would avoid a possibly perceived conflict with the last sentence
about the need for more stringent mitigation.
(Rob Swart, MNP)
5 A 5 9 5 11 The sentence about later peaking of CO2 is somewhat misleading,
because it neglects to emphasise that this is because if you have
more gases to play with, and hence the peaking of any single gas
can be delayed to achieve the same overall outcome (whereas the
TAR stabilisation scenarios only ever considered stabilisation of
CO2 only). Suggested rephrase: "Recent studies since the TAR,
using multi-gas reduction strategies, show that peaking dates for
CO2, for a given stabilisation level, can be later if several gases are
considered than if stabilisation has to be achieved by reductions of
CO2 only."
(Andy Reisinger, TSU IPCC Synthesis Report)
5 A 5 9 5 9 replace "peaking" by "passing the peak"
(Aviel VERBRUGGEN, University of Antwerp)
5 A 5 9 5 9 earlier': very vague
(Government of Belgium)
5 A 5 9 5 15 In this text we would prefer the term start "to decline" rather than
"peaking dates". The comparison with the results from TAR could
be better explained. Is it possible to say something more qantitative
e.g. for an example with 450 ppm?.erpk aagenerally looks rather
wage, and appears more like a general introduction to Table SPM-
1. Since the table contains much interesting information, we
propose that some key messages that can be deducted from table
SPM 1 or the main report are presented in the text.
(Government of Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)
5 A 5 10 5 11 For "…a given stabilisation level, can be later than indicated in the
TAR." Is it possible to quantify how much later?
(Government of Environment Canada)
5 A 5 10 5 11 But what does a later peak imply for rate of reductions needed
thereafter? Clarify.
(Government of Environment Canada)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
TIA when merging heading text
with para 5. Text dropped
because of confusion.
REJ; bad English
TIA when merging heading text
with para 5
TIA when merging heading text
with para 5
TIA when merging heading text
with para 5. Text dropped
because of confusion.
REJ; info is in table 1
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 101 of 348