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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
114
SPM-
557
SPM-
558
para
6
F
4
6
F
4
6
F
4
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
B 7 27 8 0 Number 550 in the calculations, but 500 in the graph. Can same
number used? The authors should verify that the correct numbers
were used. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
A 7 0 0 0 The information on energy supply options in Figure SPM.4 from
the IMAGE and MESSAGE models does not appear to be
consistent with the mitigation costs and potential of energy supply
in Chapter 4 (section 4.4 p. 72). In addition, as stated in my
comments above on Section 4.4, I believe the potential emission
reductions from "other renewables" significantly underestimates the
what is technically and economically achievable. Wind and solar
have the potential to make much greater contributions than both
fossil CCS and nuclear from both a technical and economic
standpoint through 2100. Studies the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and US DOE illustrate a much greater potential for
these technologies through 2050 that are more cost-effective than
fossil with CCS or nuclear. Advanced renewable energy
technologies such as offshore wind, geothermal hot dry rock, ocean
thermal and wave energy, and nanotechnology for solar could also
make a major contribution that I doubt are included in the IPCC
analysis
(Steve Clemmer, Union of Concerned Scientists)
A 7 0 0 0 Figure SPM 4. The following points remain unclear: 1) The Figure
presents the results of four different data sets: two models
[IMAGE] and [MESSAGE] as well as two different levels of
radiative forcing (4.5W/m2 and 3W/m2). The colors used to
represent the two models should be more distinct in order to
distinguish between [IMAGE] and [MESSAGE]. 2) Within the
Figure, it should be noted that 500ppmvCO2-eq and 650ppmvCO2eq
correspond with 3W/m2 and 4.5Wm/m2, respectively.
Furthermore, it is felt that information based on only two models is
insufficient and in addition to the above revisions, analyses by other
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
ACC; change W/m2 into conc
Accepted
(4)
Accepted but
W/m2 will be
deleted.
(4)
REJ; ch 4 is on period to 2030;
Accepted.
this is 2000-2100
Figure will be
modified.
(4) three more
models to be
added in the
figure.
See A-434; improve lay-out See SPM 434 A.
(4)
Page 143 of 348