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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
602
SPM-
603
SPM-
604
SPM-
605
SPM-
606
SPM-
607
SPM-
608
SPM-
126
para
7
F
5
7
F
5
7
F
5
7
F
5
7
F
5
7
F
5
7
F
5
7
F
5
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
A 8 13 8 15 Figure SPM 5: In the curve below the x-axis the global costs of
mitigation are growing with an increasing stabilization level
(negative GDP losses are becoming smaller) - this doesn't seem
sensible and would require some additional explanation, or
alternatively the curve should be deleted from the figure.
(Government of Finland)
A 8 14 0 0 Figure SPM.5: Showing the x-axis in the related ppm number,
rather than W/m2 would be more accessible to policymaters,
(Harald Winkler, University of Cape Town)
A 8 14 0 0 Figure SPM 5 Can a comment be added about the highest and
lowest values (IMACLIM-IMP and the negative one) Not easy to
see difference between the open triangles)
(Ann Gardiner, AEA Technology)
A 8 14 0 0 Figure SPM.5: Would be clearer in relating to the text if it
specifically contained ppmv rather than just W/m2 on x axis.
(Stephen Sheppard, University of British Columbia)
A 8 14 0 0 Figure SPM.5: This is a very useful figure. It would be even more
useful to a wider audience and outside the WG3 SPM if the figure
in the SPM referred to ppm CO2eq stabilisation levels rather than
W/m2. The translation between those two units could be done in
the TS to provide a link between the original studies and their
presentation in a format relevant to policy-makers.
(Andy Reisinger, TSU IPCC Synthesis Report)
A 8 14 0 15 About Figure SPM.5. What is the base case when the GDP losses
are calculated?
(Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies)
A 8 14 8 0 Figure SPM 5 Are all these studies multigas studies? This should
be clarified in the figure text.
(Government of Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)
B 8 14 8 15 Figure SPM.5 would become much more useful for policy makers
if a relation with concentrations and temperature increase (e.g. in
2100) could be established.
(Government of European Community / European Commission)
SPM- 7 B 8 14 0 0 Rephrase Figure caption. U.S. Government ACC
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
ACC; add to caption, see also
revised text
ACC
ACC; add to caption, but see
also A-593
ACC
ACC
See A-598
ACC; add to caption
See A-599
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 156 of 348