Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE WMO UNEP IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Government Review of Final Draft REVIEW COMMENTS Summary for Policymakers February 2007 Government Review of Final Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote February 2007 Page 1 of 154 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE WMO UNEP Government Review of Final Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote February 2007 Page 2 of 154 IPCC WGII AR4 SPM Final Draft - Government Review Comments Comments Comment Comment number From Page From Line Page To To line 1 0 0 0 0 We would like to thank WG2 for a much improved draft report and are impressed by the level of new work and the quality of many of the graphs. (Govt. of UK) 2 0 0 0 0 We would however like to make a number of suggestions, which we think would make the report much more accessible to a non-technical audience and bring out some of the key conclusions which we find are rather buried in the SPM. In general, the information is presented in a way that is too general and therefore not always meaningful. A sense of timing, and urgency, is lacking throughout the report. Climate change poses NOVEL risks often outside the range of experience, for example melting of Greenland Ice sheet, the melting of permafrost, glacier retreat and increased hurricane intensity and some of the impacts may be irreversible. We feel that this key point is not reflected in the SPM. *Observed changes - The key message - that many impacts related to human activities - is presented with too many caveats and is weak. There seems to be too much emphasis on uncertainty. In order to strengthen this section, it would be helpful to provide some quantified examples. *Regional impacts - this section seems very patchy and lacks consistent approach to scale and timing. *Adaptation - this section is very general and would benefit by the introduction of some concrete examples of adaptation responses, barriers to adaptation and costs. Detailed comments are provided below. (Govt. of UK) 3 0 0 0 0 Throughout the SPM there is a tendency for the authors to emphasise the possible beneficial impacts of climate change to a much greater extent than found in the body of the report. The authors should ensure that not only are the findings that are repeated in the SPM taken from the body of the report, but that the emphasis and context of findings is also mirrored. (Govt. of Australia) 4 0 0 0 0 Throughout the SPM the terms high, middle and low latitudes are used to characterise the locations of certain impacts of climate change. It would be useful for policy readers if the authors could give approximate ranges for the high, middle and low latitudes. (Govt. of Australia) 5 0 0 0 0 There should be a reference in the preface of the WG2 report and the cut-off time applied to publications included in the WG2 AR4 report. (This practice is being followed by WG1). (Govt. of Australia) 6 0 0 0 0 There seems to be little input from Chapter 19 - key vulnerabilities. The issue of "dangerous climate change" is highly policy-relevant and most of the material relating to this is from Chapter 19 of the underlying report and yet is only mentioned once (page 10 line 37).The SPM should make an explicit link between different emission scenarios and various levels of global warming and impacts - all the information is in Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2, It would be helpful if something like Fig 6-1 in the TAR Synthesis Report was reproduced, along with a statement like "Since a warming of 1 C is unlikely to be avoided, due to inertia in the climate system, key vulnerabilities associated with a 1 C warming are likely to be realised. If a warming of 2 C were considered dangerous, then avoiding a 2 C warming by 2100 would require stabilizing CO2 at 450 ppm by 2100, which in turn would require a 40% reduction in global CO2 emissions by 2050 and 70% by 2100. If a warming of 3 C was considered dangerous, then...". This type of information is policy- relevant without being policy-prescriptive. (Govt. of Australia) 7 0 0 0 0 The WG II report contains some very important key findings. In our view the SPM should focus more on the key findings in the report. It should clarify Page 3 of 154 February 2007 IPCC WGII AR4 SPM Final Draft - Government Review Comments Comments Comment Comment number From Page From Line Page To To line the main impacts and highlight key findings particularly in chapter C. Current knowledge about future impacts. This doesn't have any statements in bold on the pages 6-10 L 22. Could a few be added under "systems and sectors" and under "regions" so to increase the informative value? (Govt. of Norway) 8 0 0 0 0 The text in the SPM seems to be difficult to understand many places and the statements in bold are a couple of times unclear or difficult to understand. This should be improved so the SPM can be more useful for policy makers. (Govt. of Norway) 9 0 0 0 0 The term IPCC SRES should be explained the first time it is used. Throught the chapter an effort should be made not to use acronyms not previously explained or to avoid using them whenver possible as the text becomes more unaccessible. (Govt. of Sweden) 10 0 0 0 0 The SPM should also say that the magnitude of the impacts will depend on the magnitude of green house gas emissions during the next hundred years illustrated by the different scenarios. (Govt. of Norway) 11 0 0 0 0 The SPM requires significant work in relation to the material in boxes, in Tables and in diagrams. For example Box SPM-1 is too technical, Figure SPM- 1 while probably the best of the figures in the SPM, nonetheless appears confused in relation to the messages it's conveying. More detailed comments on the specific figures etc are provided below. (Govt. of Australia) 12 0 0 0 0 The SPM needs to be checked to ensure that all acronyms are explained at least once somewhere in it. For example, the meaning of the common acronym TAR is assumed without a definition being provided. (Govt. of Australia) 13 0 0 0 0 The revised structure of the SPM is a good balance between general points about impacts of climate change and more specific examples of impacts on regions and sectors. (Govt. of Australia) 14 0 0 0 0 The report should distinguish where climate change is only one contributory factor to an observed or projected event, rather than the sole cause. For example, the sentence on page 3, line 46 currently reads: ‘some coastal zones affected by erosion due to sea-level rise’ might be better expressed as ‘sea- level rise has contributed to erosion in some coastal; zones’ (Govt. of Australia) 15 0 0 0 0 Overall we feel that the SPM is easy to read and acceptable. However, the part "Major impacts" has a very smallspace inspite of being of most importance for the policy process. (Govt. of Sweden) 16 0 0 0 0 In terms of general formatting the WG2 authors should follow the structure set in the WG 1 SPM, concerning the use of boxed shaded text for explanatory material at the start of sections. Often this text is purely explanatory and does not contain any new findings, rather it simply summarises the findings of the TAR and sets out the structure of the following headings. This type of text needs to be boxed to more clearly separate it from the more substantive findings in the SPM. (Govt. of Australia) 17 0 0 0 0 In general we find the figures and tables too complicated for a summary aimed at policy makers. We would suggest simplifying these illustrations. Also, Page 4 of 154 February 2007 IPCC WGII AR4 SPM Final Draft - Government Review Comments Comments Comment Comment number From Page From Line Page To To line illustrations are very useful in conveying messages, and we believe it would strengthen the summary if there were a few additional figures/illustrations. (Govt. of Norway) 18 0 0 0 0 Before listing the selected temperature ranges a sentence should be inserted explaining that these ranges resulted from previous work with emission scenarios (SRES) and global modelling (WG I, 2007) as a service to those readers who are not familiar with that work. (Govt. of Sweden) 19 0 0 The TS contains a very useful subsection on "Advances in knowledge" in TS.6. Unfortunately, this highly policy-relevant information is not provided in the SPM FGD. We suggest to copy the respective text in the TS FGD p. 76, lines 3-28 to Section A of the SPM. (European Commission) 20 0 0 Some more references to the results of the Working Group I, approved during the last session of the IPCC in Paris, should be inserted along the SPM. (Govt. of Spain) 21 0 0 Section C. Virtually all statements about future impacts combine a likelihood estimate (e.g., "very likely") with a confidence estimate (e.g., "medium confidence"). Without further guidance this combination of likelihood and confidence language makes these statements rather inaccessible to the intended audience of the SPM. The widespread combination of likelihood and confidence language raises difficulties for interpreting statements, it is unprecedented in the history of IPCC reports, and it seems to be not in line with the recommendations in the IPCC AR4 Uncertainty Guide.