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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
121
SPM-
122
SPM-
577
SPM-
578
SPM-
579
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
(Government of Environment Canada) empirical
evidence
available in the
modelling
literature.
7 B 8 4 8 5 What is the exact meaning of this important sentence? A sentence
with content similar to note 9 on page 11 MUST be added here as
well for perspective.
(Jean-Pascal van YPERSELE, Université catholique de Louvain
(Belgium))
7 B 8 4 8 4 Before "Costs for multigas stablisation", shouldn't the adjective "
Cumulated (over 2000 to 2050) " be used?
(Jean-Pascal van YPERSELE, Université catholique de Louvain
(Belgium))
7 A 8 5 8 15 In sentences units are shown in ppmv, while in Figure SPM. 5
stabilization level is shown in W/m2. This is confusing. Units in
Figire SPM. 5 should be changed to ppmv. (The same comment
should be applied to Figure TS. 15 (p. 27 of TS).
(Mitsutsune Yamaguchi, Teikyo University)
7 A 8 5 8 6 Explain the outer ends of the range. E.g., under which
conditions/assumptions are the costs around 1 % (or even
negative!) and under which conditions/assumptions 5 %?? (re
Uncertainty Guidance Note). The SPM mentions only the inclusion
of non-CO2 options as a reason for low estimates. Is this the only,
or most important reason? At least in TS, but preferably also in
SPM. This would be an improvement over the TAR, whereas the
results as such are not that much different.
(Rob Swart, MNP)
7 A 8 5 0 0 "Costs for [..] stabilisation at 650ppm are generally below 2%"
where page 11 line 21 says "..stabilisation around 650 ppm show
global GDP loss below 0.5%". Is the difference due to to the time
horizon : 2050 vs 2030? These statements are confusing the way
they are presented now
ACC; add annual growth rate
reduction between brackets
REJ: applies also to costs in a
specific year
ACC; W/m2 to be dropped
DISCUSS how to provide
additional clarification in
caption; all studies are multigas
should also be mentioned
See A-572
(3)
3 Accept. Text to
be revised to
give greater
explanation of
key assumptions
(3) Ch 3
proposal
Page 150 of 348