With a week until the UN’s climate body releases its new report on how and why the climate is changing, the media are limbering up in anticipation. Here’s a quick look at who saying what.

Although the full report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not yet in the public domain, the draft version of a draft guide for policymakers was leaked to journalists a few weeks ago.

Scientists and policymakers are discussing the wording of the summary in Stockholm this week, and a final version is due for release on Friday morning.

“Stark warning”

The report looks set to increase the certainty with which scientists can point to human influence on climate change – and this forms the backbone of some of the coverage.

A two-page spread in yesterday’s Observer carries the headline ‘IPCC issues stark warning over global warming’. The piece lays out what appears to be the top finding from the new report: scientists are surer now than ever human activity is the biggest source of warming since the 1950s.

With the help of a handy 30-second explainer on the IPCC, the BBC reports this morning:

“Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures.”

While a lot of the discussions about the new report are likely to concentrate on temperatures at earth’s surface, the evidence for warming is stacking up in other areas too. Ice sheets are dwindling, the oceans are warming and sea levels are rising, reported yesterday’s Independent:

“[D]raft pages show that in addition to temperature rises, changes are being observed throughout the climate system.”

Why ‘wait and see’ won’t cut it

The Independent and Observer pieces focus on what the new report’s assessment of how urgently we need to bring down emissions.

The latter features quotes from economist Lord Stern calling for governments to “stop dithering” about fossil fuels. On those who seek to discredit climate science, Stern says:

“There are attempts by some politicians and lobbyists to confuse and mislead the public about the scientific evidence that human activities are driving climate change and creating huge risks â?¦ But the public should be wary of those who claim they know for certain that unmanaged climate change would not be dangerous.”

Keeping climate change within limits scientists deem to be safe is still possible, but will be a huge challenge, Reuters reports this morning:

“The draft says temperatures could rise by up to 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 Fahrenheit) this century, but could be held to a rise of 0.3C (0.5F) with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions”

The Times today goes for an analogy to try and explain why we can’t take the ‘wait and see’ approach to climate change – likening it to a patient with a weak heart eating high-fat food. It says:

“There are two paths: one is to act early and avoid the disruptions that are waiting â?¦ Or we do it the hard way by going through major climate disruption and then waking up? Do you change your diet or do you have a heart attack and then change your diet?”

A note of caution

It’s worth pointing out that just as it’s important to clearly state the risks of rising temperatures, it’s also important not to overstate them. For example, we’re not sure there are many scientists who would go along with the following statements in the Observer:

“[More than two Celsius temperature rise compared with pre-industrial levels] could trigger the release of plumes of the greenhouse gas methane from the thawing Arctic tundra, while the polar ice caps â?¦ could disappear. Although the report does not say so, Earth would probably then be facing a runaway greenhouse effect.”

Interesting details

Among the stark warnings of how much warming we can expect in the coming century, some media reports are focusing on specific sections of the science.

The fact that surface temperatures have warmed slower in the last 15 years than in the previous decades has received a lot of attention. It’s fair to say that there is no definitive answer yet as to why the slowdown is happening, but there are some likely candidates.

As Reuters reports:

“A combination of natural variations and other factors such as sun-dimming volcanic eruptions have caused the hiatus, it says, predicting a resumption of warming in coming years.”

We’ve written more about what scientists think is causing the slowdown here. Incidentally, while The Mail on Sunday has repeatedly suggested the slowdown in surface temperature rise means global warming has ‘stopped’, a piece in this morning’s Daily Mail takes a different line, saying:

“While the IPCC draft report acknowledges the slow rise in temperature, scientists predict this is simply a ‘common break’ in global warming – and it will resume once more.”

Nevertheless, a few articles in the past few weeks have framed temperature rise as a reason to question climate science more generally.

Take yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph, which says scientists are “struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even as greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.”

But Oxford climate scientist Myles Allen, himself an IPCC lead author, says that not knowing how much each factor is contributing is not the same as “struggling to explain” the slowdown. He told Reuters’s Alister Doyle on Friday:

“There are a number of explanations (for the hiatus), any one of which might be correct …’That is very different from saying: ‘We have no idea what’s going on’.”

Wrangling over wording

From what’s been reported so far, it seems the most intense debate going on in Stockholm is whether more information about slow temperature rise should be included in the summary report to help policymakers better understand the causes and consequences.

Ben Webster reports in The Times:

“The negotiations, which take place in private over the next five days in Stockholm, Sweden, will include a debate about how the report should explain an unexpected slowdown in the rate of warming since 1998.”

The Associated Press reported on Friday that it has seen leaked documents indicating there are “deep concerns among governments over how to address the issue [of the slowdown]”.

As Professor Arthur Petersen, chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, told the BBC’s Matt McGrath:

“Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor.”

McGrath continues:

“Any changes to the text will need to be approved by the scientists, who will want to make sure that they are consistent with the underlying reports. This could lead to some tense moments.”

Whatever the outcome, it’s worth noting that this week of intense scrutiny of the report is precisely what’s meant to happen. The IPCC was set up not just as a scientific body but as an interface between science and policy. The Sunday Telegraph suggests that this casts a  shadow over the process. But for better or worse, wrangling between government representatives and scientists over the most useful way to phrase things is all part of the process.