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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
285
SPM-
286
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
of scientific data is achieved by the voting of scientists to form a
consensus. This sort of approach has proven wrong many times in
the history of science.
(David Jackson, McMaster University)
3 A 4 8 4 19 if it would be possible to replace the HM/HL with confidence
statements, at least within section A (on the past and present) there
would be one terminology.
(Rob Swart, MNP)
3 A 4 8 4 8 This comment covers 3 aspects. First: the opportunity of qualifying
the authors' "confidence", "evidence", "agreement" level about
particular statements in the SPM. Although the first impression is
that such qualifications are fine and helpful, the second thought is
"how does the reader qualify implicitly the statements in the text
that got no qualification label by the authors?" It follows:
qualification is fine when it is maintained all over the SPM, and the
next question: is it feasible to sustain such qualifications overall?.
Second: when qualification takes place, one should adopt a clear
standardized convention. Some questions and suggestions (covering
also footnote 1 and 2): what is the difference between HM and the
statement in brackets "(high confidence)" as used on p.1 line 10 and
p.4 lines 5/16/33-34? Also on p.14 line 8 and footnote 13 another
type is added (LL) but with evidence and agreement in reverse
order. More clarity and uniformity may mean an improvement.[PS:
also chapter 2 is not fully clear about the qualification standard].
Third: the acronym-abbreviation letters choosen are perhaps not the
best ones for a broad readership, because a (silent) convention
accepted by many authors is the use of H=High, M=Medium,
L=Low; in the SPM however M is used for Much. Is it possible to
agree for the SPM on some standard, e.g. HaHe (High agreement,
High evidence) for HM; HaLe (High agreement, Low evidence) for
HL ; LaLe (Low agreement Low evidence) for LL (footnote 13);
and analogously for all *a*e combinations with *=H,M,L. We also
could include such a convention in the Abbreviations list.
(Aviel VERBRUGGEN, University of Antwerp)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
DISCUSS
See Holger/Rob uncertainty
group outcomes
Action
for
chapter
CG
Uncertai
nty
DISCUSS CG
Uncertai
nty
Considerations
by the writing
team
Noted – see
discussion CG
(1)
Noted – see
discussion CG
(1)
Page 71 of 348