SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3
SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3
SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Chapter-<br />
Comment<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
212<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
213<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
214<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
215<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
216<br />
para<br />
1<br />
F<br />
2<br />
1<br />
F<br />
2<br />
1<br />
F<br />
2<br />
1<br />
F<br />
2<br />
1<br />
F<br />
2<br />
Batch<br />
From Page<br />
From Line<br />
To Page<br />
To line<br />
<strong>Comments</strong><br />
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Se<strong>co</strong>nd Order Draft<br />
A 3 1 3 2<br />
is 20% of world population as explained on page 1.<br />
(Rachel Warren, University of East Anglia)<br />
Figure <strong>SPM</strong>.2 is unclear. It's not clear what y-axis scale is, a line<br />
graph showing each <strong>co</strong>ntribution as a function of year might be<br />
easier to read. Also clarify what purchasing power parity means in a<br />
note.<br />
(Government of UK)<br />
A 3 1 3 1 figure <strong>SPM</strong>.2, <strong>co</strong>mment: very unclear, suggest to redesign, see<br />
Annex NL-1; also suggest to change the naming of the factors<br />
"CO2/energy" to "shift to lower carbon fuels", "energy/GDP(PPP)"<br />
to "energy intensity improvement", "POP" to "population growth",<br />
and "GDP(PPP)/POP" to "wealth growth"; yet another better<br />
presentation can be found in the Climate Policy Evaluation<br />
Memorandum 2005, p. 32, available from<br />
http://international.vrom.nl/docs/internationaal/On%20the%20way<br />
%20to%20Kyoto.pdf<br />
(Government of The Netherlands)<br />
A 3 1 3 15 Figure <strong>SPM</strong> 2 is particularly difficult to understand and may be<br />
<strong>co</strong>nfusing to the broader readership of the <strong>SPM</strong>. The authors should<br />
<strong>co</strong>nsider if the information can be more clearly presented in a<br />
different format (such as a table).<br />
(Government of Australia)<br />
A 3 2 3 2 The main point of this figure and description is lost due to the<br />
overuse of acronyms. Energy intensity of the e<strong>co</strong>nomy should be<br />
written as "Energy/GDP" instead of "Energy/GDP(PPP)" because<br />
for non e<strong>co</strong>nomists PPP is difficult <strong>co</strong>ncept to understand although<br />
intensity is <strong>co</strong>mputed using GDP (PPP). However, in the footnote<br />
this can be explained. Ac<strong>co</strong>rdingly, line 9 which says "GDP (PPP)<br />
is gross domestic product at .... " can be eliminated.<br />
(Government of Environment Canada)<br />
A 3 3 0 10 In Figure <strong>SPM</strong>.2, the unit of vertical axis in not clear. This shows<br />
the annual change of CO2 emissions or total emission change for<br />
each period?<br />
(Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies)<br />
Expert Review of Se<strong>co</strong>nd-Order-Draft<br />
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote<br />
Response suggested by <strong>co</strong><strong>chair</strong>s<br />
Action<br />
for<br />
chapter<br />
Considerations<br />
by the writing<br />
team<br />
See A-26 Will be<br />
improved<br />
(1)<br />
See A-26 Will be<br />
improved<br />
(1)<br />
See A-26 Will be<br />
improved<br />
(1)<br />
See A-26 Will be<br />
improved<br />
(1)<br />
See A-26 Will be<br />
improved<br />
(1)<br />
Page 56 of 348
Change language