Filetype Excel XLSX | Posted on 18 Aug 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
198x Filetype XLSX File size 0.54 MB Source: www.ipcc.ch
IPCC AR6 WGI - Second Order Draft Review Comments and Responses - Chapter 10
Comment ID From Page From Line To Page To Line Comment Response
This is a very interesting chapter, with a clear methodological focus. Therefore, I think it should Taken into account. The chapter is methodological, and to exemplify the
not be interspersed with assessment of climate change observations and future projections, different methodologies assessed we use illustrative examples. Whenever
which would better fit to Chapter 12. For example, Cross Chapter Box 10.3 would better fit in statements are brought from the illustrative examples to the ES, we have
15619 0 0 0 0 Chapter 12, and I think that statements from this Box should not be used in Chapter 10 ES. I not made clearer that the statement are to illustrate methodologies, not to
think this chapter could be exclusively methodological, without riskng to duplicate assessments assess the climate change of the example region.
meant to be performed in other Chapters such as Chapter 12.
What about machine learning methods (neural networks, deep learning)? They are brand-new, Noted. We acknowledge the emerging use of these methods, but note that
but should be at least mentioned, that they excist. In the whole chapter there are two citations their likely caveats have not yet been properly assessed in a regional climate
54365 0 0 0 0 referring to the outcomes from these methods. change context. We have added some more references but at the same
time believe it would be premature to bring them more into focus.
Use serial (oxford) commas throughout entire document. Editorial – copyedit to be completed prior to publication
68975 0 0 0 0
UN standard norms and references for countries and regions should be used throughout. Editorial – copyedit to be completed prior to publication
77115 0 0 1 70
There are too many mentions of "message" in the whole chapter, including section headings (as Accepted. The balance between the reference to climate information and
many as 165 in the whole chapter). This tends to reflect an over-emphasis of communication climate message has changed, with no references to climate message in the
effort as opposed to scientific assessment of the current status of knowledge in the area. FGD to avoid using a term that has been considered loaded and leading to
confusion. The main reason for the change is that, as the reviewer points
out, the chapter focuses on the assessment of climate information. The
concept of climate message is important though because it allows to
introduce the phases that climate information goes through, in a
41907 0 0 236 55 collaborative process between the climate information producer and the
user, whenever possible and necessary. For this reason, we have kept the
discussion about the importance of involving the climate information
producer in a dialogue with the users to co-produce what is needed for a
better decision making.
Being CH10 the first of the regional chapter it should serve a little bit more as an introduction to Accepted. Chapter 10 now contains an introduction to the other regional
the following chapters. The choice of the several regions for attributions is not really justified or chapters in section 10.1, with figure 10.4 now illustrating the links between
66299 0 0 needed since these regions are not the same as in the other regional chapters, but they only them. The examples for past regional trend attribution have been reduced
serve as an example. in number and now serve the purpose of illustration that was originally
considered.
It would be useful if Chapter 10 could introduce the concept of "regional climate sensitivity" Accepted. The concept has been introduced in section 10.1 and used in the
proposed in Seneviratne and Hauser, 2020, Earth's Future. It was found that inter-model examples of section 10.6.4 making reference to Ch 11.
uncertainty in regional climate sensitivity is generally contributing more to the uncertainty of
projected changes in extremes than uncertainty in global climate sensitivity in the CMIP6
132377 0 ensemble. This shows how critical the representation of regional processes in climate models is
for regional projections of extremes and impacts. Reference:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019EF001474
This chapter refers to previous IPCC documents (AR5, SR 1.5, SROCC and SRLCC) as well as Noted.
Chapters 4, 5 and 9 on a global scale to be brought to the regional scale. This chapter is to
67887 0 bridge the information gap from the global scale to the regional scale (regional climate change
effects in each location that need to be adapted by the community).
The deciding factors at the global scale need to be adjusted to the regional scale through the Noted, thank you that is correctly understood.
67889 0 development of methodology and modeling. Regional climate change is caused not only by
anthropogenic but also by natural causes.
This section needs to be enriched with information about problems, guidelines or identification Noted. We don't know which section the reviewer refers to. Section 10.3
of aspects related to downscaling of global climate modelling to regonal and even to local level. address the issue referred to. The mandate of IPCC is not to provide
67891 0 This is because models at the global may not be applicable at regional and local levels. Besides, guidelines but to assess literature.
governments at regional and local levels need to take decisions related to climate change.
stating the obvious, but this chapters has many interfaces with earlier and later chapters. I Accepted. Section 10.1 includes a description of the flow of information
encourage teh authors to pay attention to consistency and collaboration across chapters on the through the regional chapters and their links to previous chapters. A new
114741 0 variois relevant sections figure has been included to offer a simple map to identify the relevant
chapters for regional climate and their links. Links to previous and later
chapters has been introduced when appropriate.
Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute 1 of 191
IPCC AR6 WGI - Second Order Draft Review Comments and Responses - Chapter 10
Comment ID From Page From Line To Page To Line Comment Response
Early in the process of writing WGI AR6 it was decided to use a core set of scenarios across the Taken into account. In section 6, we added outcomes of other scenarios
chapters. These are SSP1-1.9, SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, SSP5-8.5 (with additional scenarios where they added to the discussion and did not foster confusion with the
114745 0 where appropriate). It would strenthne the report if these (to the extent possible) are also varied sources of information (GCMs, RCMs, large ensembles). This was
considered in ch10. That will also support a better integration across chapters in the TS, SPM feasible for the Mediterranean case.
and also finally in SyR
The chapter is somewhat confusing using sub-sections up to the 4th order (10.3.1.4.1) which Taken into account. We have reduced the fourth order as much as possible,
96085 0 makes it hard to follow sometimes. and in the FGD it is only employed extraordinarily in Section 3.
Chapter 10 struggles with the use of AMV. The recent literature has moved to adopt (largely) Accepted. In Section 4, the relevant text has been modified to acknowledge
the use of AMV to describe secular SST variability, arising from natural and/or externally factors that the AMV variations can be due to both external forcings and internal
(see DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4840 for some discussion of this). The chapter uses this in it's variability. References to the assessment performed in chapter 3 about
correct secular usage when referring to the impacts of AMV variability on regional climate attribution of AMV changes have also been added. The brief statements in
impacts (e.g page 80, in discussion on SST variations on S. American climate) -- though it does 10.6.3 referring to AMV has been modified with the caveat that as aspect of
still sometimes forget that these AMV changes may be themselves forced (e.g. it often contrasts the variability may be anthropogenically forced. The FGD version of the
a paragraph discussing AMV impacts with a paragraph describing forced drivers -- when they chapter refers to the more authoritative discussion of the AMV in the
may in fact be driven by the same changes). But the chapter currently fails when discussing the Annex.
causes of AMV changes -- e.g. page 116, line 55 incorrectly states that AMV is an internal mode
of variability. This is at odds with the line taken elsewhere (for example, page 75, lines 2-6,
clearly states that there is "medium confidence" that the patterns of SST are themselves driven
by anthropogenic emissions -- AMV is one area where this evidence is strongest). There is
clearly still some debate about the relative roles of forced and anthropogenic forcings (e.g.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23538) -- but I don't think it is on for a IPCC chapter to
115285 0 attribute AMV as an internal only variability process when the current literature suggests that
the external forcing driving the larger fraction of AMV changes remains credible as a hypothesis.
The list of attributions of the AMV as a natural only mode of variability are extensive within
the chapter. Each of these needs to be looked at and rewritten where these refer to AMV as a
natural mode of variability. I can provide a wider more uptodate literature review of natural
and forced drivers of the AMV, if this would be considered useful by the chapter authors?
Mis-use of the term error is pervasive. Error implies that the truth is not just knowable but Rejected. We need to use error (on top of uncertainty) because we know for
known. This is never attainable in practice so it is better to talk about uncertainties and random sure that some things are wrong in the simulations as a consequence of the
22883 0 and systematic effects but avoid the use of the term error. errors in the models (otherwise, models would be perfect, when we know
they are not).
Chapter should likely change GCM to ESM for consistency with remaining chapters throughout Taken into account. It would not have been correct to change to ESM since
the report thus far. many of the global models we cite are not ESMs. We have chosen to use
22887 0 "Global Models" for both AOGCMs and ESMs (See introduction to Section
3).
The regional storylines presented in 10.4.1.2 are really interesting and packed with detail but Accepted. The number of examples has been reduced to three and the
tend very strongly to review over real synthesis and assessment and many lack a coherent narrative for each example has been reduced and changed to reflect an
narrative arc. It would be critical in revisions to try to really synthesise the evidence (the job of assessment rather than a review
22939 0 the assessment) instead of write a literature review, and to try to tell the story for each region in
somewhat the same order to help the reader to really draw out more clearly the similarities and
differences across the case studies.
Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute 2 of 191
IPCC AR6 WGI - Second Order Draft Review Comments and Responses - Chapter 10
Comment ID From Page From Line To Page To Line Comment Response
"There are some uncertainties associated with rainfall projection over the East Mediterranean Noted. Does not seem to apply to our chapter.
(EM) region. (Alpert et al., 2008) predicted an increasing trend in precipitation over south and
central Israel. The trend in A2 and B2 scenarios indicated extreme events as well as drier and
wetter conditions in the upcoming years. Using a regional model, (Hochman et al., 2018) have
predicted an increasing trend in winter and spring precipitations (~40% under Representative
Concentration Pathway RCP4.5 scenario) in south Israel. (Ajjur and Riffi, 2020) examined the
trends in 11 extreme precipitation indices in Gaza Strip (Palestine). Most indices increased
during 1974-2016. Total precipitation, for example, has risen over two periods 1985-2004 and
2009-2016.
References
Ajjur, S., Riffi, M., 2020. Analysis of the observed trends in daily extreme Precipitation indices in
34717 0 Gaza Strip during 1974–2016. International Journal of Climatology.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6576.
Alpert, P., Krichak, S.O., Shafir, H., Haim, D., Osetinsky, I., 2008. Climatic trends to extremes
employing regional modeling and statistical interpretation over the E. Mediterranean. Global
and Planetary Change 63, 163-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.03.003.
Hochman, A., Mercogliano, P., Alpert, P., Saaroni, H., Bucchignani, E., 2018. High-resolution
projection of climate change and extremity over Israel using COSMO-CLM. International Journal
of Climatology 38, 5095-5106. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5714."
22949 0 Please call Berkeley Earth Berkeley Earth and cease and desist with the use of the value-laden Accepted. "Berkeley Earth" has been used for the FGD.
acronym BEST which has no place in an IPCC assessment.
General comment for Chapter 10 - I am surprised by the lack of discussion about how to Noted. Chapter 10 has a dedicated Section on fitness for projections
evaluate the qualitiy of future projections. It seems like there is an assumption that if the (Section 10.3.3.10 in the SOD), which goes far beyond what previous reports
models capture the observatoins well, they will be credible for use in future climate change have assessed, and actually also beyond what the corresponding global
110551 0 studies. While this is often an assumption made, I would argue many are trying to push back Chapter assesses. In addition we provide a discussion of trend evaluation
against this for more process level assessments and checking that the future changes in and a discussion of uncertainty assessment.
processes make sense.
22757 0 There are a lot of likelihood / confidence language uses that have not been italicised. Either Editorial – copyedit to be completed prior to publication
italisice them or replace with non-likelihood / confidence terms
In general the chapter does not back cross-reference to the 9 preceding chapters sufficiently. It Accepted. Substantial effort has been made to start our assessment with a
should reference these chapters and where possible start from their assessment findings going starting point in the previous 9 chapters.
on to add necessary regional detail. There are several cases where a quasi-redundant
assessment is performed. This is problematic because it is generally less in-depth and invites
22773 0 readers wishing to discredit the report to play spot the difference. I would strongly urge better
attempts to link back to the 9 substantive assessment chapters that precede it in the FGD.
As is the case for many other chapters the figures require work to be more self-describing. Accepted. All figures have been redrawn taking this recommendation into
Several of the present figures lack necessary titles and other aspects which would enable their account. Some figures are complex given the main objective of the chapter
23029 0 use in public outreach and in educational lectures. With minor additional effort the figures could of illustrating how lines of evidence are integrating into information and it is
in many cases be made much more accessible. I have called out a few cases specifically but this difficult to make them self-describing, but an effort has been made
is a generic issue cross-cutting most figures in the chapter. according to the reviewer's recommendations.
I would try to avoid as much as possible the use of the fifth-level in the numbering of sections. Taken into account. We have reduced the fourth order as much as possible,
For example, different regions inside a section can be separated by starting a new paragraph, and in the FGD it is only employed extraordinarily in Section 3.
79443 1 1 1 1 without the need of a new, explicit, subtitle. This would reduce the currently VERY long outline.
I don’t understand very well the framing of the chapter around the concept of "message" Accepted. The balance between the reference to climate information and
instead of "information". I am sure you have good reasons for this but I don’t think they are climate message has changed, with no references to climate message in the
clear when reading the chapter, even after reading the subsection 10.1.3. Most of the chapter FGD to avoid using a term that has been considered loaded and leading to
assess tools that provide climate information, not messages. I understand that there should be a confusion. The main reason for the change is that, as the reviewer points
section discussing how to go from information to messages but again, in my opinion, most of the out, the chapter focuses on the assessment of climate information. The
chapter is about information. concept of climate message is important though because it allows to
introduce the phases that climate information goes through, in a
79445 1 1 1 1 collaborative process between the climate information producer and the
user, whenever possible and necessary. For this reason, we have kept the
discussion about the importance of involving the climate information
producer in a dialogue with the users to co-produce what is needed for a
better decision making.
Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute 3 of 191
IPCC AR6 WGI - Second Order Draft Review Comments and Responses - Chapter 10
Comment ID From Page From Line To Page To Line Comment Response
I didn’t find much discussion about why do we care about regional scales. I think this is Noted. While it is clear that there are different tools to address the
important because answers to this question will differ across the various tools described to production of climate information, the regional scale is defined by the
produce regional infromation. GCM developers might want to run at higher resolution because context, which is provided by the user. The chapter addresses the relevance
they want to simulate better large-scale variables (e.g., improve teleconnections). Someone of the different methodologies for the generation of climate information
developing a statistical downscaling technique might be interested in producing a time series of given the context, which could be the question from either a user or from a
79447 1 1 1 1 precipitation with local statistical properties. The different aim of each technique will probably community. Different methodologies (GCMs, statistical downscaling, process
influence what each of them is good at. understanding, etc.) are adequate to address different questions. As the
chapter explains, the interest on the regional scales is not given by the tools,
but by the question formulated.
This chapter needs to be revised substantially. It should focus on observations. The observation Rejected. Please see the scope of the report: https://wg1.ipcc.ch/ar6.
should more emphases the atmospheric observations especially the long-term surface climate
records for major continents and countries. It should inform the readers of key facts and
possible causes of regional climate change and variability, including mean climate and extreme
climate trends over the past decades to a century, which are the basis of modeling and
projection as impact assessment in the following chapters.
In this regard, the publications on regional climate change observed in major countries, regions
and continents should be carefully collected and read. A lot of such publications, including those
for big countries like USA, Canada, China, Europe, Indian and Australia, key regions like Arctic,
4005 1 1 90 2 the Tibetan Plateau, East Asia Monsoon area, the Mediterranean Sea, The Caribbean Sea, and
major continents like Asia, North America, Africa and Europe, have mostly been missing. The
papers published in some important special issues of international journals (e.g. Climate
Change, Climate Research, and Advance in Climate Change Research) on the regional climate
change and extreme climate change have not been assessed and cited. The authors should
spend much more time to search and summary these publications.
I have only looked at part of this Chapter, as well as looking at Ch 2 as well. Chapter 10 reads Taken into account. Chapter 10 is a methodological chapter with no
much more like a scholarly review than Ch 2 which synthesises information down to an precedent in IPCC WG1. This makes some "textbook"-like passages
Assessment. This chapter seems far too long, and parts of it read like a textbook on how to do inevitable, but we have followed the reviewers recommendation and
Regional Climate Studies. I'll point out where these are more obvious in the parts I've read. Also reduced these to a minimum. As to the section 10.2 on regional
this chapter makes comments and discussion about data sources. Surely much of this should be observations and the comparison the reviewer makes with Ch2 statement
1587 1 1 132 1 in Chapter 2. Some continents may have fewer records and less digitised than others, but Ch 2 that some data sources "are good enough to produce large-scale averages",
showed these are good enough to produce large-scale averages. I know there are differences in there is no real contradiction that a data source can be used for large-scale
timescales, but Ch 2 looked at changes in the hydrological cycle and in atmospheric circulation averages but not for the finer scales of interest of the regional chapters (e.g.
changes. the city scale).
The chapter overlaps (e.g. data/observations, aerosols, cryosphere) with the other chapters I Taken into account. Overlaps have been reduced for the FGD to a level that
have read (2, 8, 10, 11 & 12), and I suggest that all chapters coordinate to avoid too much allows the Chapters to be stand alone pieces. The figures of the Chapter has
repetitive text/subjects. Having said that, I found this chapter much clearer and better written been for the FGD reviewed to be more self-describing.
than the other chapters, so my suggestion is to move the repeated segments to other chapters
1421 1 1 132 51 and merge them. Many of the figures/illustrations are a bit complicated and challenging. It may
be helpful to emphasise what message they are supposed to convey. The chapter seems to
dedicate uneven space to different topics; some less important topics get more space than
others that may be more important.
Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute 4 of 191
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
