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

Chapter-
Comment
para
127 F
5
SPM- 7
128 F
5
SPM- 7
129 F
5
SPM-
130
SPM-
609
SPM-
610
SPM-
611
SPM-
131
SPM-
612
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
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
B 8 14 8 0 Rephrase Figure caption. Authors should consider clarifying the
caption. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
B 8 14 8 0 Figure 5 – Might be useful to explain something about the E3MG
scenario since its sign differs from all of the others. U.S.
Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
B 8 14 8 0 Clarify that this is global GDP. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
A 8 15 8 15 Figure SPM5, indicate that Classes A through E are the same ones
used in Table SPM1.
(Government of Environment Canada)
A 8 15 8 15 add "The stabilisation classes A-E correspond with those in table
SPM.1."
(Government of The Netherlands)
A 8 15 8 0 “Why point estimates versus ranges?” The breadth of scenarios
would seem to align with ranges, and a median value, and could be
standard reporting throughout the document. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
B 8 15 8 15 reduction: compared to what, the BaU, an SRES scenario ???
(Jean-Pascal van YPERSELE, Université catholique de Louvain
(Belgium))
8 A 8 16 8 21 The entire paragraph ["Comparing mitigation costs with the
benefits of avoided climate change damages and other co-benefits
is very complex….involved in climate change policies] contradicts,
or at the very least diminshes the validity of, the statements made in
SPM page 11 lines 36 to 41 [i.e. "While studies use different
methodologies, there is general agreement for all analyzed world
regions that neart-term health benefits from reduced air pollution
following GHG reductions can be substantial and may offset a
substantial (note should use -->significant) fraction of mitigation
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
ACC
ACC
ACC
See A-599
See A-609
DISCUSS; is the question to
report a range for each
individual study? Is that
possible?
ACC
TIA; reconsider the whole
paragraph; it is now very weak;
try to get message about cost of
stabilisation (minus co-benefits)
versus cost of inaction (see
Stern review), see also SPM A-
13
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
3 Rejected. Figure
explanation to
be made clearer
(3)
Underlying
section needs to
be revised first.
In course of the
week new para
8 from ch
3.(Stern
review?)
Page 157 of 348