September 27, 2013

Spot the Differences in New IPCC Report

Changes have been made. No, I’m not talking about the difference between the 2007 climate change report from the Intergovernmental on Climate Change versus this latest iteration.

By David Biello

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Changes have been made. No, I'm not talking about the difference between the 2007 climate change report from the Intergovernmental on Climate Change versus this latest iteration. I'm talking about the summary for policymakers released today versus the leaked drafts.

Climate scientist Thomas Stocker of the Universty of Bern, co-chair of the working group responsible for the summary, described the changes as mostly an attempt to more clearly express the science, rather than relying on the technical jargon more commonly used by scientists. At the press conference to release the report he noted that the key messages and charts of the draft all made it through. "The essence of this was not changed," he says, but I'd like you to be the judge.

Here's the text and graphs that the IPCC group stayed up all night approving:

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

WGIAR5 SPM Approved27Sep2013 (PDF)

WGIAR5 SPM Approved27Sep2013 (Text)

And here's the "leaked" draft:

SPM AR5 IPCC 1st Draft 10 5 12 (PDF)

SPM AR5 IPCC 1st Draft 10 5 12 (Text)

Please enumerate all the differences in the comments if so inclined.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American