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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
282
SPM-
283
SPM-
284
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
warmer winters and tress weakened by recurrent droughts. The
combination of climate factors and pests could produce non-linear
changes in the scale of wildfires and forest losses. Burkett
VR, Wilcox DA, Stottlemyer R, et al. Nonlinear dynamics in
ecosystem response to climatic change: Case studies and policy
implications. Ecological Complexity 2,357-394 (2005).
Epstein, PR, Mills, E. (eds.). Climate Change Futures: Health,
Ecological and Economic Dimensions, Center for Health and the
Global Environment, Harvard medical School, Boston, MA
[published with Swiss Re and the UNDP] (2005).
Westerling, AL, Hidalgo, HG, Cayan, DR, Swetnam, TW. Climate
change in the western United States has dramatically increased the
number of large forest wild fires during the past 35 years. Science
313:940943 (2006).
(Paul Epstein, Harvard)
3 A 4 7 4 8 I repeat a comment on the FOD: Figure TS12 (which I recommend
to move up to the SPM) does not support this statement, the range
of post-TAR non-intervention CO2 emissions scenarios (incl. 5/95
percen tiles) has narrowed considerably. This does not suggest that
we know more (although in line 18 of TS page 22 it is suggested
for land-use emissions that experts agree more), but the statement
as formulated is not correct. Reformulate, e.g. by something like:
"post-TAR non-intervention GHG emissions scenarios all (or
"generally"?) fall within the range of the SRES scenarios" or follow
more closely the wording of the TS.
(Rob Swart, MNP)
3 A 4 7 4 9 This first sentence is very awkward. Maybe " The range of GHG
emissions associated with a range of potential global futures
(without….)" Also, need to clearly explain what the SRES are for
those who don’t know.
(Government of Environment Canada)
3 A 4 8 0 0 The terms HM and HL are so subjective that they are useless. The
people who are agreeing aren't specified and neither is "much" or
"limited" evidence. This encourages the idea that the interpretation
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
DISCUSS; problem with ch 3 is
that is shows comparisons with
TAR and pre-TAR, while the
appropriate comparison is with
SRES; so ch 3 has to change its
analysis.
Ch 3 will refer to SRES
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
3 ACC subject to
checking and
coordination
with Chapter 3
(1)
reject.
Comparison
made with
SRES.
(3)
See A-277 See SPM-277
(1)
DISCUSS CG
Uncertai
nty
Noted – see
discussion CG
(1)
Page 70 of 348