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

Chapter-
Comment
para
426 T
1
SPM-
427
SPM-
428
SPM-
429
SPM-
430
SPM-
431
SPM-
432
5
T
1
5
T
1
5
T
1
5
T
1
5
T
1
5
T
1
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
chart e.g., global mean temperature increase above pre-industrial
vs. multigas concentration stabilisation level. The two columns,
probability of staying below 2 (and 3) degrees C above preindustrial
at equilibrium, do not provide any additional value and
are very confusing. Related footnotes (2,3,4,5, and 7) are too short
for professionals and are too complicated for policy makers. It may
be useful to discuss what is the correct temperature for the planet.
(Government of Environment Canada)
A 6 0 6 0 Table SPM1. For Class E, "Peaking level for CO2 emissions", the
end year of 2090 seems out of place (ie should be later) compared
with the end year for the other classes.
(Government of Environment Canada)
A 6 0 0 0 table SPM.1, suggest to invert rows 2-6 and change classes to be
coherent with the proposed changes in figure SPM.5
(Government of The Netherlands)
A 6 0 0 0 table SPM.1, columns 2 and 3, rows 2 and 6: it is unclear why the
top respectively bottom radiative forcings are given for a
stabilisation range, where a radiative forcing range is given for the
other stabilisation ranges in rows 3-5; this seems to be inconsistent
with table TS.4
(Government of The Netherlands)
A 6 0 0 0 table SPM.1, column 8, rows 6: shouldn't this read "exeptionally
unlikely"; collumn 10, rows 5 and 6: it seems not logic that peaking
for 930 ppme would need to occur before 2090, while peaking for
785 ppme could be postponed untill 2100
(Government of The Netherlands)
A 6 0 6 0 Table SPM 1, column 9. The descriptions are unclear, please
clarify. E.g. what is the meaning of "Likely to as likely as not", or
of "About as likely as not to unlikely".
(Government of Finland)
A 6 0 0 0 Table SPM 1: It should be made clear here and throughout the SPM
whether the multigas stabilisation scenarios as well as the
anthropogenic addition to radiative forcing include only long lived /
well mixed GHG (as covered by the Kyoto Protocol) or if short
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
ACC expanding footnotes
DISCUSS; this should reflect
the literature assessed
UNCLEAR
DISCUSS; W/m2 column to be
dropped (to simplify); ranges
should reflect literature (see also
A-427)
See A-418
DISCUSS; this is caused by the
literature; chapter 3 to consider
if more selective use of studies
is justified to get a more
meaningful result
REJ; this is standard IPCC
terminology; uncertainty annes
to be added
ACC
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
3 Noted. See
comment SPM-
421.
(3)
3 Noted. See
comment SPM-
421.
(3)
Page 106 of 348