IPCC Summary for Policymakers

Last updated October 13, 2024

The Summary for policymakers (SPM) ^[1] is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments: "Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy."^[2]

Process

The IPCC is divided into three "Working Groups" (WG) covering a section of the human-caused climate change topic:

Working Group I (WGI): The Physical Science Basis.
Working Group II (WGII): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Working Group III (WGIII): Mitigation of Climate Change

Approximately every five years, each Working Group prepares a full "assessment report" by collating all the available research results.

Before the end of this period, a selection of about 50 scientists within each Working Group produces a first draft "Summary for policymakers" (SPM) summarizing its section of the full assessment report. This first draft SPM is sent for comments to the participating government. Comments are taken into account in a second draft prepared by the scientists. When the full assessment report is finalized, each second draft SPM is then reviewed during a four days plenary session comprising government delegations and observer organizations.^[3] Each reviewing session is chaired by the scientists chairing the Working Group, surrounded by a panel of scientists. The government delegations usually consist of one to six delegates, comprising generally a mix of national experts (some of which are part of the IPCC) and a few diplomats or other non-scientist civil servants.

The objective of the review session is to improve the form of the SPM, which must remain faithful to the scientific content of the full assessment report.^{[ citation needed ]} This process also results in some form of endorsement by the participating governments.

For the Fourth Assessment SPMs, each review lasted three days. The beginning of the first day was open to journalists and started with introductory speeches (from the IPCC President, local politicians, etc.). Then each sentence of the draft SPM, displayed on a giant screen, was discussed at length by the delegates and often ended up completely rewritten. Some paragraphs were removed and others are added, under the full control of the Chair and its panel of scientist who ensured that every sentence strictly conforms to the content of the full assessment. When the discussion on a sentence lasted too long, a subgroup chaired by a scientist was formed to craft aside a revised text for later submission to the plenary. Generally the process was very slow at the beginning: in some cases, as little as a few paragraphs were reviewed at the end of the first day. The review generally ended late in the night of the third day – sometimes even in the next morning. On the fourth day, the reviewed SPM was released during a closing session open to journalists.

Support for the IPCC process

The IPCC process has received widespread support^[4] and praise from major scientific bodies. In 2001, a joint statement on climate change was made by sixteen national academies of science. The IPCC process was supported by these academies:

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.^[5]

Some IPCC authors have expressed their personal support for the process that produces the Summary for Policymakers document. John Houghton, who was formerly a co-chair of IPCC Working Group I,^[6] has stated:

It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers' Summaries are agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over 200 government delegates from around 100 countries. This agreement is only achieved after several days of scientific debate (only scientific arguments not political ones are allowed) the main purpose of which is to challenge the scientific chapter authors regarding the accuracy, clarity and relevance of the summary and most especially its consistency with the underlying chapters. Agreement at such a meeting has ensured that the resulting document, so far as is possible, is scientifically accurate, balanced and free from personal or political bias.^[7]

Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group II Fourth Assessment Report, has said:^[8]

The SPM is chewed over for some days (and sometimes nights) by the panel; and it is this process that has sometimes brought criticism from a few scientists who have questioned how much this government involvement alters the meaning of the scientists' conclusions.

I do not think it does; Plenary might alter some nuances, but the key conclusions of the assessments remain intact.

IPCC author Terry Barker has commented on the IPCC process and Summary for Policymakers document:^[9]

My impressions of the IPCC process is that it is an open, highly innovative and progressive means to address the issue, namely the organisation of the scientific policy-relevant advice to governments of an evolving, complex and highly contentious topic. ...

My experience in the 2001 [IPCC] process was that political considerations inevitably play a role in the development of the SPM, since governments will not necessarily agree with the scientific consensus expressed in the initial drafts of the [Summary for Policymakers] SPM. Since there is always some uncertainty in the scientific findings, reasons can always be found to qualify or remove unpalatable conclusions. Whether the political considerations introduce a large gap between what the authors say in the Report and what appears in the SPM is a matter of opinion.

US National Research Council comments

In 2001, the Bush Administration asked the US National Research Council to produce a report on climate change.^[10] The committee writing this report was asked, among other things, to comment on the IPCC Working Group I Third Assessment Report and its Summary for Policymakers:

The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group I (WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary. The full WGI report and its Technical Summary are not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern associated with human-induced climate change. This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary process in which scientists work with policy makers on the document. Written responses from U.S. coordinating and lead scientific authors to the committee indicate, however, that (a) no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors (this group represents a fraction of the lead and contributing authors) and (b) most changes that did occur lacked significant impact.

Debate about Working Group I's 2001 summary

IPCC authors Kevin E. Trenberth and Richard Lindzen have criticized past editions of the SPM, alleging that the summary does not completely represent the full report. However, their criticisms were diametrically opposite: Trenberth arguing that the summary diluted the main report, Lindzen arguing that it was too alarmist.

Kevin E. Trenberth, a lead author of the 2001 IPCC Working Group I report, wrote:

The rationale here is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments determine how it can best be said.. ... The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report. ... In spite of these trials and tribulations, the result is a reasonably balanced consensus summary. ...^[11]

IPCC author Richard Lindzen has made a number of criticisms of the IPCC.^[12] Among his criticisms, Lindzen has stated that the WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not faithfully summarize the full WGI report.^[12]

The report is prefaced by a policymakers' summary written by the editor, Sir John Houghton, director of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office. His summary largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science.^[13]

Lindzen has stated that the SPM understates the uncertainty associated with climate models.^[12] John Houghton has responded to Lindzen's criticisms of the SPM.^[7] Houghton has stressed that the SPM is agreed upon by delegates from many of the world's governments, and that any changes to the SPM must be supported by scientific evidence (see above).^[7]

Related Research Articles

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its job is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) set up the IPCC in 1988. The United Nations endorsed the creation of the IPCC later that year. It has a secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, hosted by the WMO. It has 195 member states who govern the IPCC. The member states elect a bureau of scientists to serve through an assessment cycle. A cycle is usually six to seven years. The bureau selects experts in their fields to prepare IPCC reports. There is a formal nomination process by governments and observer organizations to find these experts. The IPCC has three working groups and a task force, which carry out its scientific work.

Sir Robert Tony Watson CMG FRS is a British chemist who has worked on atmospheric science issues including ozone depletion, global warming and paleoclimatology since the 1980s. Most recently, he is lead author of the February 2021 U.N. report Making Peace with Nature.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He is the author of more than 200 scientific papers. From 1972 to 1982, he served as the Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology at Harvard University. In 1983, he was appointed as the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he would remain until his retirement in 2013. Lindzen has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and criticizes what he has called "climate alarmism".

John William Zillman AO is an Australian meteorologist, and former President of the World Meteorological Organization and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE). He was born and was educated in Brisbane, Queensland. Through his leadership in professional organizations and advisory groups, Zillman has contributed to shaping science and innovation policy in Australia. More widely, he has contributed to raising awareness to the consequences of global climate change through involvement in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also Related to Abigail Zillman From Dalby

The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), Climate Change 2001, is an assessment of available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change by the IPCC. Statements of the IPCC or information from the TAR were often used as a reference showing a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis; Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Working Group III: Mitigation; Synthesis Report. A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct. These are "Bayesian" probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

The Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 1995, is an assessment of the then available scientific and socio-economic information on climate change. The report was split into four parts: a synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC article 2, The Science of Climate Change, Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change, Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate Working Group (WG), and each has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) that represents a consensus of national representatives.

The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) is a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was published in 2000. The greenhouse gas emissions scenarios described in the Report have been used to make projections of possible future climate change. The SRES scenarios, as they are often called, were used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), published in 2001, and in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007. The SRES scenarios were designed to improve upon some aspects of the IS92 scenarios, which had been used in the earlier IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995. The SRES scenarios are "baseline" scenarios, which means that they do not take into account any current or future measures to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was published in 2007 and is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which took six years to produce. Contributors to AR4 included more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.

The First Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was completed in 1990. It served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This report had effects not only on the establishment of the UNFCCC, but also on the first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP), held in Berlin in 1995. The executive summary of the WG I Summary for Policymakers report that said they were certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. They calculated with confidence that CO₂ had been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is a report on climate change created with the help of a large number of contributors, both scientists and governmental representatives. There has been considerable political controversy over a small number of errors found in the report, and there have been calls for review of the process used to formulate the report. The overwhelming majority view of scientists with expertise in climate change is that errors, when found, are corrected, and the issues as identified do not undermine the conclusions of the report that the climate system is warming in response to increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to human activities.

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fifth in a series of such reports and was completed in 2014. As had been the case in the past, the outline of the AR5 was developed through a scoping process which involved climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports, in particular representatives from governments. Governments and organizations involved in the Fourth Report were asked to submit comments and observations in writing with the submissions analysed by the panel. Projections in AR5 are based on "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs). The RCPs are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Projected changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level are given in the main RCP article.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an intergovernmental organization established to improve the interface between science and policy on issues of biodiversity and ecosystem services. It is intended to serve a similar role to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is a climate change denial advocacy organisation set up by S. Fred Singer's Science & Environmental Policy Project, and later supported by the Heartland Institute lobbying group, in opposition to the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.

Julie Michelle Arblaster is an Australian scientist. She is a Professor in the School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment at Monash University. She was a contributing author on reports for which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Arblaster was a lead author on Chapter 12 of the IPCC Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report in 2013. She has received the 2014 Anton Hales Medal for research in earth sciences from the Australian Academy of Science, and the 2017 Priestley Medal from the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. She has been ranked as one of the Top Influential Earth Scientists of 2010-2020, based on citations and discussion of her work.

Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne is a Swiss climate scientist, professor at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science of the ETH Zurich. She is a specialist of extreme climate events.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), also known as the "Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems", is a landmark study from 2019 by 107 experts from 52 countries. The SRCCL provides a comprehensive overview of the entire land-climate system for the first time and decided to enlist land as a "critical resource". The IPCC's 50th session (IPCC-50) formally adopted the SRCCL's Summary for policymakers (SPM) and approved the underlying report. The SPM and the full text of Special Report on Climate Change and Land—in an unedited form—were released on 8 August 2019. The report is over 1,300 pages long and includes the work of 107 experts from 52 countries.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) is a report about the effects of climate change on the world's seas, sea ice, icecaps and glaciers. It was approved at the IPCC's 51st Session (IPCC-51) in September 2019 in Monaco. The SROCC's approved Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was released on 25 September 2019. The 1,300-page report by 104 authors and editors representing 36 countries referred to 6,981 publications. The report is the third in the series of three Special Reports in the current Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) cycle, which began in 2015 and was completed in 2022. The first was the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, while the second was the Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL), also known as the "Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems", which was released on 7 August 2019.

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the sixth in a series of reports which assess the available scientific information on climate change. Three Working Groups covered the following topics: The Physical Science Basis (WGI); Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (WGII); Mitigation of Climate Change (WGIII). Of these, the first study was published in 2021, the second report February 2022, and the third in April 2022. The final synthesis report was finished in March 2023.

Ronald J. Stouffer is a meteorologist and adjunct professor at the University of Arizona, formerly Senior Research Climatologist and head of the Climate and Ecosystems Group at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), part of NOAA. He has also served on the faculty of Princeton University.

References

↑ "IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. 2007-06-13. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
↑ "The SPM was approved line by line by governments in a major meeting, which took place over four days in Shanghai, China, in January 2001. The argument here is that the scientists determine what can said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. In Shanghai, there were about 100 countries represented by delegations, perhaps 10 non-governmental organizations, and about 42 scientists." The IPCC Assessment of Global Warming 2001 Archived 2006-12-06 at the Wayback Machine
↑ List of organizations admitted to the IPCC plenary sessions Archived October 13, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
↑ The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India (7 June 2005). "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change". The Royal Society . Retrieved 2009-05-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
↑ Joint statement of sixteen national academies of science (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". The Royal Society . Retrieved 2009-05-20.{{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
↑ Preface Archived 2013-05-01 at the Wayback Machine , in IPCC TAR WG1 2001
1 2 3 The Great Global Warming Swindle. Programme directed by Martin Durkin, on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March 2007. Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative (PDF), Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK: John Ray Initiative, archived from the original (PDF) on 5 August 2019, retrieved 30 April 2013, p.4.
↑ Parry, Martin (November 13, 2007). "The IPCC: As good as it gets". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
↑ Barker, T. (28 February 2005). "House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Minutes of Evidence. Memorandum by Dr Terry Barker, Cambridge University". UK Parliament website. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
↑ Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council (2001). "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions". National Academies Press. Retrieved 2009-05-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Trenberth K. E. (May 2001), "Stronger Evidence of Human Influence on Climate: The 2001 IPCC Assessment" (PDF), Environment, vol. 43, no. 4, Heldref, archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-06-13, retrieved 2013-04-30, p.11.
1 2 3 Lindzen, R.S. (1 May 2001), Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in: S. Hrg. 107-1027 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (GPO), pp.29-31. Available in text and PDF formats. Also available as a PDF Archived 2020-06-02 at the Wayback Machine from Professor Lindzen's website.
↑ "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus". Cato.org. Archived from the original on 2012-12-14. Retrieved 2012-11-25.

Template:Harvard citation no brackets references:

IPCC TAR WG1 (2001), Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80767-0, archived from the original on 2019-12-15, retrieved 2019-12-18{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-01495-6)

External links

SPM for the TAR
Comments on the process by Kevin E. Trenberth

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[ipcc2007spm-1] "IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. 2007-06-13. Retrieved 2010-06-12.

[2] "The SPM was approved line by line by governments in a major meeting, which took place over four days in Shanghai, China, in January 2001. The argument here is that the scientists determine what can said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. In Shanghai, there were about 100 countries represented by delegations, perhaps 10 non-governmental organizations, and about 42 scientists." The IPCC Assessment of Global Warming 2001 Archived 2006-12-06 at the Wayback Machine

[3] List of organizations admitted to the IPCC plenary sessions Archived October 13, 2007, at the Wayback Machine

[royalsoc02-4] The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India (7 June 2005). "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change". The Royal Society . Retrieved 2009-05-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[royalsoc01-5] Joint statement of sixteen national academies of science (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". The Royal Society . Retrieved 2009-05-20.{{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[6] Preface Archived 2013-05-01 at the Wayback Machine , in IPCC TAR WG1 2001

[houghton_lindzen_rebuttal-7] 1 2 3 The Great Global Warming Swindle. Programme directed by Martin Durkin, on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March 2007. Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative (PDF), Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK: John Ray Initiative, archived from the original (PDF) on 5 August 2019, retrieved 30 April 2013, p.4.

[8] Parry, Martin (November 13, 2007). "The IPCC: As good as it gets". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 2009-06-24.

[barkert-9] Barker, T. (28 February 2005). "House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs Minutes of Evidence. Memorandum by Dr Terry Barker, Cambridge University". UK Parliament website. Retrieved 2009-05-20.

[nrc-10] Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council (2001). "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions". National Academies Press. Retrieved 2009-05-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[11] Trenberth K. E. (May 2001), "Stronger Evidence of Human Influence on Climate: The 2001 IPCC Assessment" (PDF), Environment, vol. 43, no. 4, Heldref, archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-06-13, retrieved 2013-04-30, p.11.

[lindzen_tar_critique-12] 1 2 3 Lindzen, R.S. (1 May 2001), Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in: S. Hrg. 107-1027 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report. US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office (GPO), pp.29-31. Available in text and PDF formats. Also available as a PDF Archived 2020-06-02 at the Wayback Machine from Professor Lindzen's website.

[13] "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus". Cato.org. Archived from the original on 2012-12-14. Retrieved 2012-11-25.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]