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

Chapter-
Comment
para
SPM-78 5
T
1
SPM-79 5
T
1
SPM-80 5
T
SPM-
451
1
SPM-81 5
T
1
SPM-
452
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
B 6 1 6 1 Table SPM 1. Consider using bold text font for title phrase lead in
to Table SPM 1. Consider labeling first cell something like “Class
(Level of Stabilization)” Footnote 4. This is very technical for a lay
reader. Would it help/is it possible to explain what this means in
more lay terms ? U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
B 6 1 0 0 Footnote 2 of Table SPM 1—replace “is different from” with “is
___% to ___% above”. Rationale: “Different” is not informative
to policymakers – it does not say whether realized temperatures in
2100 is higher or lower than equilibrium temperature. It is much
better to provide real information using the confidence band
approach based on WG1 information relating projected realized
temperature change in 2100 to equilibrium temperature change for
each stabilization level. Perhaps a rephrase such as “Note that
global mean temperature may not actually reach equilibrium until
well after concentrations stabilize.” U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
B 6 1 6 0 Authors should consider whether there are clearer ways to
communicate the uncertainty. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
6 A 7 3 0 0 The IEA's estimate of $16 trillion was not only for energy supply in
the narrow sense, but includes substantial investment in
infrastructure for distributing energy as well. Suggest adding:
"energy supply AND DISTRIBUTION till 2030 …"
5
T
1
(Harald Winkler, University of Cape Town)
B 6 15 6 0 Perhaps a rephrase such as “Note that global mean temperature may
not actually reach equilibrium until well after concentrations
stabilize.” U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
A 6 0 0 0 Table SPM 1: last column will be misinterpreted by policy makers.
The large range in changes in emissions is not self-explaining. To
prevent a feeling of „nothing needs to be done, no urgency“ it is
necessary to divide the too large range of multigas concentration
stabilisation levels into e.g. sub-levels A1 and A2, with eg 375-450
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Identical B-77
ACC “is higher”; TIA suggested
rewording, but retaining current
notion
UNCLEAR
ACC
See B-79
See A-434
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 112 of 348