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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
331
SPM-
332
SPM-
333
para
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
evaluated accurately from the viewpoint of current scientific
knowledge. However I insist that you should add the sentense, that
is, 'we need to mitigate GHGs emission by rising above 2 degree'.
(Masatake Uezono, Citizens' Alliance for saving the Atmosphere
and the Earth)
A 5 1 5 3 "technically feasible" needs to be clearly defined.
Why is the specific level of 450ppmv picked up? Table SPM1 in
page 6 says that 450ppm CO2-eq corresponds to 350-420 ppm CO2
level for CO2 only. The current level of CO2 concentration is 375
ppm. So how is it possible to stabilise at 450ppm CO2-eq? We may
have already crossed the level or will inevitably cross it rather soon.
(Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research
Institute(GISPRI))
A 5 1 5 6 Doesn't this statement need to be qualified with an indication of the
timing of the action. CO2 emissions are cummulative, so starting
in 2075 isn't going to get you to your goal. I think this is
misleading. The statement should say that modeling shows that
action within a certain time frame makes reaching this goal
technically feasible.
(Katherine Casey Delhotal, Research Trinagle Institute)
A 5 1 5 15 After 19 years of IPCC existence, a simple policy- and/ or decision
maker of a vulnerable nation may ask him or herself:
Beautiful text, many thousand pages report of IPCC-2007 and
now: “What kind of mitigation technologies I should plan and
implement in my country, or what should be planned and
implemented for each nation, or for several physio-graphic, socioeconomic
grouped nations?
I can not find easily an answer on such simple question in this
IPCC-FAR-WG3-SPM. Of course simple questions are easily to be
asked, but difficult to answer. So what is your answer, Bert?
May I have overlooked the answer on these punctilious questions,
which can easily be the case considering that the WG 3 report
encompasses so many valuable pages,
to be precise, more than 1350 pages? In that case I should
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be used for
merging with para 5
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be used for
merging with para 5
REJ; this is issue for section C
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 82 of 348