Breaching the Limit: The IPCC’s New Framework (AR7) for a Post-1.5°C World

Introduction: The Weight of the Seventh IPCC Cycle

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has formally entered its Seventh Assessment Cycle (AR7), a distinct operational phase that arrives at a moment of profound convergence between physical inevitability and political urgency. As the global scientific community transitions from the conclusive findings of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)—which unequivocally established the reality of anthropogenic warming—into this new cycle, the mandate has shifted. The question is no longer if the climate is changing, nor why, but rather how specific systems will respond to the temporary exceedance of temperature targets and what granular mechanisms exist to pull the planetary system back from the brink. For the academic and environmental community in Corvallis, Oregon, situated in a landscape where the abstract metrics of global mean temperature translate directly into the visceral realities of receding Cascade snowpacks and intensifying wildfire seasons, the AR7 cycle represents a critical juncture. This report serves as a comprehensive analysis of the current status of the AR7 cycle, dissecting the bureaucratic machinations, the evolving scientific focus, and the pivotal role of member country contributions, while contextualizing these high-level developments within the local framework of Oregon State University’s (OSU) ongoing contributions to global climate science.

The AR7 cycle, which commenced in July 2023 with the election of a new Bureau, is operating under a unique set of pressures.¹ It is tasked with delivering actionable scientific guidance during the "Critical Decade," the ten-year window identified by the scientific community as the last opportunity to keep global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius of pre-industrial levels. However, the production of this science is currently navigating a complex geopolitical landscape, marked by unprecedented delays in agreeing on timelines and intense debates over the balance between rapid delivery for policy needs and the methodical inclusivity required for scientific rigor. The resulting outputs will not merely update previous data; they will define the parameters of "Overshoot" pathways—scenarios where temperature limits are breached and then (theoretically) restored—and establish the rigorous accounting rules for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) that will underpin future climate economies.¹

Section I: The Governance and Strategic Architecture of AR7

The New Bureau and the Shift in Leadership Philosophy

The transition from one assessment cycle to the next is defined by the election of its leadership, a process that sets the tonal and strategic direction for the ensuing five to seven years. In July 2023, the IPCC member governments elected Jim Skea of the United Kingdom as the Chair for the AR7 cycle.¹ Skea, a veteran of the IPCC process who previously served as a Co-Chair of Working Group III (Mitigation) during the AR6 cycle, brings a specific disciplinary focus to the chairmanship. His background in sustainable energy and technological innovation signals a subtle but profound shift in the Panel's orientation: a move from the diagnosis of the physical problem to the rigorous assessment of solutions.

This leadership change occurred against a backdrop of increasing demand for "policy-relevant" but "policy-neutral" information. The Chair’s vision for AR7 emphasizes the need for scientific outputs that are actionable, timely, and integrated. However, the operationalization of this vision involves navigating the interests of 195 member governments, each with distinct priorities regarding what aspects of climate science should be emphasized. The election also saw the appointment of a diverse Bureau, reflecting a concerted effort to improve regional representation. The Vice-Chairs and Working Group Co-Chairs now include significant representation from the Global South, a structural change intended to address long-standing criticisms regarding the dominance of Western academic perspectives in the assessment process.³

The Experiment in Distributed Technical Support

A critical and often overlooked innovation of the AR7 cycle is the restructuring of the Technical Support Units (TSUs). These units form the operational backbone of the IPCC; they are the teams of paid professionals who manage the logistics, editing, and scientific coordination for the volunteer authors. Historically, these units have been hosted and funded almost exclusively by developed nations—typically the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or France—due to the significant financial burden involved. This geographical concentration has inadvertently contributed to subtle biases in the literature selection and framing of reports.

For AR7, the IPCC has implemented a "distributed" TSU model, a bold experiment in capacity building and inclusivity. This is most visible in Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability) and Working Group III (Mitigation).

In Working Group II, the leadership is shared between Winston Chow of Singapore and Bart van den Hurk of the Netherlands.⁴ Consequently, the TSU is physically co-located at the Singapore Management University and Deltares in the Netherlands.⁵ This marks a significant milestone: the explicit anchoring of a TSU node in a tropical, urbanized Asian nation. This geographical positioning is not merely symbolic; it places the administrative hub of the adaptation assessment in the very region where climate vulnerability is most acute, potentially influencing the network of experts and grey literature that the assessment draws upon.

Similarly, Working Group III, Co-Chaired by Katherine Calvin (USA) and Joy Jacqueline Pereira (Malaysia), has established a distributed TSU with nodes in the United States (Washington D.C. and Asheville, NC) and Malaysia (at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia).⁷ The establishment of the Malaysian node represents a deliberate effort to decentralize the "mitigation" narrative, which has historically been dominated by Northern perspectives on decarbonization. By anchoring operations in Malaysia, the IPCC aims to better capture the nuances of development pathways, energy transitions in emerging economies, and the specific mitigation challenges of the Global South.

The Financial Underpinnings: Member Country Contributions

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, but it does not possess an independent endowment. Its operations rely entirely on the IPCC Trust Fund, which is replenished through voluntary contributions from member governments. The financial health of the AR7 cycle serves as a barometer of the global political commitment to the scientific process. While the authors volunteer their time, the costs of convening Lead Author Meetings (LAMs), supporting the travel of developing country experts, and maintaining the Secretariat are substantial.⁹

The financial contributions for the 2024-2025 period reveal a complex landscape of support. Traditional major donors continue to shoulder the bulk of the core budget. For instance, in 2024, the government of Japan contributed CHF 243,000, and France provided nearly CHF 580,000 across multiple tranches.¹⁰ These "core" contributions are unrestricted, allowing the Secretariat to fund plenary sessions and general operations.

However, the AR7 cycle has seen a rise in "earmarked" contributions, a mechanism necessary to support the new distributed TSU model. Developing nations like Malaysia and Singapore, while hosting the TSU nodes, often require external financial support to maintain staffing levels comparable to their Western counterparts. The data indicates that the United States, Norway, and New Zealand have provided specific funding directed toward the "WG III TSU (Malaysia)".¹⁰ This constitutes a form of "scientific foreign aid," where wealthy nations subsidize the administrative capacity of developing nations to ensure they can co-lead the global assessment process.

The list of contributors also highlights the universal buy-in for the IPCC's mission. Contributions in 2024 and 2025 have come from a diverse array of nations, including the Maldives (CHF 1,694), Pakistan (CHF 2,475), and Trinidad and Tobago.¹⁰ While these amounts are small in absolute terms compared to the contributions of the G7 nations, they represent a significant diplomatic investment from nations that are on the front lines of the climate crisis. The fact that a nation like Pakistan, grappling with devastating climate-induced flooding, continues to contribute to the Trust Fund underscores the existential value these nations place on the scientific validation of their vulnerability.

Table 1: Selected Financial Contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund (2024-2025)

Contributing Entity	Amount (CHF)	Contribution Type	Context
France	~579,661	Core Budget	Two separate tranches in 2024.10
Japan	243,000	Core Budget	Consistent major donor.10
Canada	126,668	Core Budget	Supports general operations.10
Switzerland	117,345	Host Country	Supports the Secretariat in Geneva.10
New Zealand	Earmarked	TSU Support	Funding specifically for WG III TSU in Malaysia.11
Norway	Earmarked	TSU Support	Funding for WG III TSU in Malaysia.11
Maldives	1,694	Core Budget	Representation from Small Island Developing States.10

Section II: The Geopolitics of Time – The Timeline Controversy

The "Unprecedented" Delay

While the structural foundations of AR7 are robust, the cycle has been beset by a significant and "unprecedented" procedural challenge: the failure to agree on a definitive timeline for the release of the three main Working Group assessment reports.¹² In previous cycles, the schedule of deliverables was typically agreed upon at the outset with minimal friction. However, the AR7 cycle has become a proxy battleground for broader tensions regarding equity and the pace of global climate action.

The controversy centers on the alignment of the IPCC’s outputs with the Second Global Stocktake (GST) of the Paris Agreement, scheduled to conclude in 2028. The Global Stocktake is the primary mechanism by which the international community assesses collective progress toward the Paris goals. For the stocktake to be effective, it requires the most up-to-date scientific information.

The Divergent Blocs

Two primary camps have emerged in the negotiations, reflecting a "speed vs. equity" trade-off ¹³:

1. The "High Ambition" / Policy Relevance Camp: This group, comprising many developed nations and small island states, advocates for a compressed timeline. Their objective is to ensure that all three Working Group reports are finalized and published by early-to-mid 2028. This would allow the findings to directly feed into the technical assessment phase of the Second Global Stocktake. They argue that if the reports arrive after the Stocktake, the world will be making critical decisions based on outdated science from the AR6 cycle (published in 2021-2023), effectively flying blind during the most critical years of the transition.

2. The Inclusivity / Scientific Rigour Camp: This group, primarily led by nations from the Global South, argues that the proposed compressed timeline is exclusionary. They contend that a shortened cycle places an impossible burden on scientists from developing countries, who often lack the institutional support, funding, and research assistants available to their colleagues in the Global North.¹⁴ They argue that rushing the process to meet a political deadline (the GST) compromises the scientific quality of the reports and reinforces the dominance of Western science. If authors do not have sufficient time to review the literature—particularly non-English literature and indigenous knowledge—the resulting report will fail to be truly global.

The Diplomatic Stalemate

This disagreement has led to a series of contentious Plenary sessions. At IPCC-60 in Istanbul (January 2024), the Panel agreed on the structure of the cycle but failed to agree on the schedule, a decision that was essentially "punted" to future meetings.¹⁵ The debate continued at IPCC-61 in Sofia and IPCC-63 in Lima (October 2025). At the Lima meeting, despite the urgent need for clarity, the Panel was unable to break the deadlock on the final release dates for the Working Group reports.

The compromise reached in Lima was pragmatic but incomplete. The Panel agreed to a budget and workplan for 2026, allowing the "machinery" of the assessment—specifically the Lead Author Meetings—to proceed.¹⁶ This ensures that the authors can begin their work in Paris in December 2025, even if the date of their final deadline remains ambiguous. This situation, where the train has left the station without a printed arrival time, is unique in the Panel's history and highlights the intense politicization of the assessment process.

The Emerging De Facto Schedule

Despite the lack of a formal decision, a likely schedule is coalescing based on the approved budgets and strategic planning documents ¹:

• 2027 (Early): Release of the Special Report on Climate Change and Cities.

• 2027: Release of the Methodology Report on Short-Lived Climate Forcers.

• 2027: Release of the Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal.

• 2028 (Mid-to-Late): Probable release of the Working Group I, II, and III contributions. While the "High Ambition" camp wants these earlier, the logistical realities of the review process likely push them to the latter half of the year.

• 2029 (Late): Release of the Synthesis Report (SYR). This final document will integrate all prior findings. Its 2029 release date means it will definitely arrive after the Second Global Stocktake, a concession that has already been made.¹⁸

Section III: The Special Report on Climate Change and Cities (SR-Cities)

The Urban Pivot in Climate Science

One of the definitive features of the AR7 cycle is the elevation of urban systems from a sectoral issue to a central organizing principle. The decision to produce a Special Report on Climate Change and Cities (SR-Cities) acknowledges a fundamental reality: the battle for climate resilience and decarbonization will be won or lost in metropolitan areas. Cities are responsible for over 70% of global CO2 emissions and are simultaneously "hotspots" of risk due to the concentration of people, assets, and infrastructure.¹⁹

This report is distinct because it is effectively a "joint venture" between all three Working Groups. It breaks down the traditional silos where WGI looked at urban heat islands, WGII looked at urban flooding, and WGIII looked at energy efficiency in buildings. The SR-Cities report integrates these perspectives into a cohesive narrative of urban transformation.

The Scientific Scope and Chapter Architecture

The outline for the SR-Cities report, agreed upon at the 61st Session in Sofia, reveals a highly structured approach to urban complexity.¹⁹

• Chapter 1: Framing the Urban Challenge: This chapter will establish the context, defining complex risk dynamics such as "cascading" and "compounding" events. For example, it will analyze scenarios where a heatwave triggers a power grid failure, which in turn disables water pumping stations, leading to a public health crisis—a cascade of failure that is unique to the dense interconnectivity of urban environments. Notably, this chapter also includes a focus on "Psychology, perception, behaviour and attitudes," recognizing that the social fabric of a city is as critical to resilience as its physical infrastructure.¹⁹

• Chapter 2: Trends and Opportunities: This section will analyze the "urban heat island" effect in the context of changing global baselines and explore historical trends in urban development that have locked in vulnerability.

• Chapter 3: City-Specific Risks: This is the core impact assessment, examining how global climate drivers (sea-level rise, intensification of tropical cyclones) interact with local urban morphology.

• Chapter 4: Facilitating Change: This chapter focuses on governance, asking how mayors, city councils, and urban planners can overcome "conflicting goals" and institutional inertia to implement radical changes.²⁰

• Chapter 5: Solutions by City Types: A major innovation in this report is the move away from generic "urban" advice. The chapter will categorize solutions based on a typology of cities: inland vs. coastal, sprawling vs. dense, and crucially, formal vs. informal. The explicit inclusion of "informality" (slums, favelas, informal settlements) addresses the reality of the Global South, where a significant portion of urbanization is unplanned and lacks basic services.²⁰

A Milestone in Inclusivity

The SR-Cities report has already achieved a significant milestone before a single word has been published. The authorship team selected for this report is the most diverse in IPCC history. Of the 97 experts selected, 53% are women, making it the first IPCC report to have a majority-female authorship team.²¹ Furthermore, the regional balance is perfectly struck, with 50% of authors coming from the Global North and 50% from the Global South. This demographic shift is expected to profoundly influence the content of the report, likely placing a stronger emphasis on social equity, health, and the lived experience of climate change in the rapidly growing cities of Africa and Asia.

Section IV: The Methodology Reports – Rewriting the Carbon Rulebook

While the Assessment Reports garner the majority of public attention, the Methodology Reports produced by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (TFI) are arguably more consequential for the mechanics of international law. These reports provide the standardized formulas and protocols that nations must use to report their emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the AR7 cycle, the TFI is producing two critical new guidebooks that will expand the scope of what is "counted" in the global climate ledger.

1. The Methodology Report on Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCF)

Scheduled for release in 2027, this report addresses a critical temporal gap in climate policy. For decades, the primary focus has been on Carbon Dioxide (CO2), a long-lived greenhouse gas that dictates the magnitude of warming over centuries. However, to limit warming in the near term (the next 10 to 20 years), it is essential to cut emissions of Short-Lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs).²²

This report will provide the first standardized "Tier 1" methodologies for countries to estimate and report emissions of species that have previously been treated primarily as air pollutants rather than climate drivers. These include:

• Black Carbon (Soot): A potent warming agent that darkens ice and snow, accelerating melting.

• Precursors: Gases like Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), and Ammonia (NH3), which react in the atmosphere to form ozone or aerosols that affect the Earth's radiation balance.

By standardizing the measurement of these pollutants, the IPCC is enabling a "co-benefits" approach to policy. Developing nations, which often struggle with severe urban air quality issues, can now claim climate credit for policies that reduce smog, aligning immediate public health goals with long-term climate mitigation.

2. The Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and CCUS

Also due in 2027, the Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage represents a pragmatic acknowledgement of the "overshoot" reality.¹⁶ The 1.5°C target is now mathematically impossible to achieve without some form of "negative emissions"—removing CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. However, the current rules for counting these removals are fragmented and inconsistent.

This report will establish the rigorous accounting standards for a suite of emerging technologies:

• Direct Air Capture (DAC): Industrial processes that chemically scrub CO2 from ambient air.

• Biochar: The conversion of biomass into stable charcoal that is buried in soil, locking carbon away for centuries.

• Enhanced Weathering: The spreading of crushed silicate rocks on land or ocean to accelerate natural chemical weathering processes that absorb CO2.

• Coastal Wetlands ("Blue Carbon"): Methodologies for quantifying carbon sequestration in mangroves and seagrasses.

Crucially, this report will make a rigorous scientific distinction between Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)—which typically involves capturing emissions from a fossil fuel source (avoided emissions)—and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)—which involves removing CO2 from the atmosphere (negative emissions). This distinction is vital for the integrity of "Net Zero" claims, preventing nations or corporations from conflating the reduction of pollution with the reversal of pollution.

Section V: The Working Groups – Overshoot, Adaptation Metrics, and Demand

The three main Working Groups are evolving their focus in AR7 to address the specific needs of a world that is breaching its safe operating limits.

Working Group I: The Physics of Overshoot and Tipping Points

Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis), Co-Chaired by Robert Vautard and Xiaoye Zhang, is shifting its focus from "attribution" (proving humans caused warming) to "dynamics" (understanding how the system behaves under stress). The AR7 outline reveals a heavy emphasis on "Overshoot Pathways"—scenarios where the global temperature exceeds 1.5°C for a period of decades before potentially returning to lower levels.²

In previous cycles, overshoot was often treated as a policy abstraction—a curve on a graph. In AR7, WGI is tasked with assessing the physical reality of overshoot. Chapter 9 of the new outline is explicitly dedicated to "Earth system responses under pathways towards temperature stabilization, including overshoot pathways".² The central scientific question is one of irreversibility (hysteresis). If the world warms to 1.7°C and triggers the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or the dieback of the Amazon rainforest, cooling the world back down to 1.5°C will not reverse these events. The ice will not un-melt; the forest will not immediately re-grow. WGI will attempt to quantify these "locked-in" commitments.

Furthermore, Chapter 8 is dedicated to "Tipping Points" and abrupt changes.² This reflects a growing concern that current climate models (ESMs) may be too smooth and linear, masking the risk of sudden, non-linear system failures. The assessment will rigorously evaluate the likelihood of low-probability, high-impact events, moving them from the fringe of the report to the center of the risk assessment.

Working Group II: Measuring the Unmeasurable

Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability) faces a different challenge: the "Adaptation Gap." While mitigation is easily measured (tonnes of CO2e), adaptation lacks a universal metric. It is difficult to quantify "resilience" in a standardized way.

To address this, AR7 includes a specific deliverable: the Update to the 1994 IPCC Technical Guidelines on Impacts and Adaptation.¹ This technical document aims to develop robust "adaptation indicators, metrics and guidelines." The goal is to provide a methodology that allows nations to measure the effectiveness of their adaptation spending. Are sea walls actually reducing risk? Is drought-resistant agriculture actually improving food security? By creating these metrics, the IPCC hopes to operationalize the "Global Goal on Adaptation" set out in the Paris Agreement, moving adaptation policy from qualitative storytelling to quantitative accountability.

Working Group III: The Social Science of Mitigation

Working Group III (Mitigation) is expanding its disciplinary horizon beyond engineering and economics to include a stronger focus on social science. The assessment will look deeply at "demand-side" mitigation—how changes in lifestyle, consumption patterns, and social norms can reduce energy demand.²⁴ This acknowledges that technology alone (supply-side mitigation) is insufficient to meet the Paris goals; behavioral and structural societal changes are also required. The distributed TSU in Malaysia is expected to bring a critical "development" lens to this analysis, ensuring that "demand management" is not interpreted as a constraint on the legitimate development aspirations of the Global South.

Section VI: The Oregon Connection – Global Science, Local Relevance

For the community in Corvallis, the high-level machinations of the IPCC are intimately connected to the intellectual life of Oregon State University (OSU). The College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences (CEOAS) at OSU has a long and distinguished lineage of leadership within the IPCC, and the themes of the AR7 cycle align closely with the university’s research strengths.

OSU’s Legacy and Future in AR7

OSU faculty have played pivotal roles in shaping the scientific consensus of previous reports, and their expertise remains vital for the specific questions posed by AR7.

• Peter Clark: A Distinguished Professor at CEOAS, Clark served as a Coordinating Lead Author for the Sea Level Change chapter in AR5. His research focuses on the long-term stability of ice sheets and the concept of "sea-level commitment"—the rise that is already locked in due to past emissions.²⁵ This work is foundational to the AR7 WGI investigation into "overshoot" and "irreversibility." As the IPCC attempts to determine if sea-level rise can be halted after a temperature overshoot, Clark’s paleoclimatic perspectives on how ice sheets reacted in the deep past will be essential references.

• Philip Mote: Former director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI) and a Lead Author in AR5, Mote’s work bridges the gap between global climate models and regional hydrology.²⁵ With AR7 placing a renewed emphasis on "regional information" (Chapters 7 and 10 of WGI), the methodologies developed by researchers like Mote to downscale global data to the watershed level are critical.

• David Wrathall: An Associate Professor at CEOAS, Wrathall represents the new generation of IPCC authors focusing on the human dimensions of climate change. He served as a Lead Author in AR6 WGII, focusing on poverty and livelihoods.²⁶ His research on "climate-driven migration" and the "habitability" of specific regions under high-warming scenarios directly informs the AR7 focus on "Loss and Damage." As the IPCC attempts to assess the limits of adaptation—the point at which a region becomes unlivable—Wrathall’s work on the displacement of populations provides the empirical basis for these stark assessments.

• John Antle: A Professor of Applied Economics, Antle has served as a Lead Author in AR3 and AR4. His expertise lies in agricultural systems and "Tradeoff Analysis".²⁷ As the IPCC develops the new Technical Guidelines on Adaptation Metrics, methodologies similar to those pioneered by Antle—which assess the economic and social trade-offs of different adaptation strategies in agriculture—will be crucial for creating usable indicators.

The Oregon Climate Assessment: Downscaling AR7

The connection between global and local is institutionalized through the Oregon Climate Assessment, produced biennially by the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (OCCRI), which is housed at OSU. The Seventh Oregon Climate Assessment (2025) effectively functions as a "downscaled" IPCC report for the state.²⁸

The themes of the global AR7 report map directly onto the local risks identified in the Oregon assessment:

• Overshoot and Fire: The global concept of "overshoot" translates locally into the risk of crossing ecological thresholds in Oregon's forests. Just as the global system may not return to its previous state after warming, Oregon's forests, following high-severity megafires driven by "overshoot" temperatures, may not regenerate as forests but could transition into shrublands—a local manifestation of the "irreversibility" WGI is studying.

• SLCFs and Air Quality: The new Methodology Report on SLCFs has direct relevance for Oregon's air quality management. Managing "black carbon" and ozone precursors is not just a global cooling strategy; it is a local health intervention for communities in the Willamette Valley suffering from increasing smoke intrusion and pollution stagnation events.

• Coastal Resilience: The WGI focus on "Tipping Points" in sea-level rise is the central variable for Oregon's coastal planning. State agencies rely on these high-level IPCC projections to determine zoning for coastal hazards, tsunami inundation zones, and infrastructure investments along Highway 101.

Conclusion: The Path to 2029

The Seventh Assessment Cycle of the IPCC is unfolding as a race against time—both the political time of the Paris Agreement and the physical time of the carbon budget. It is a cycle defined by its ambition to measure the unmeasurable (adaptation), to count the invisible (removals), and to stare directly at the dangerous reality of temperature overshoot.

The "Timeline War" that has dominated the early plenaries is a symptom of the immense pressure the Panel is under. The tension between the "High Ambition" bloc's need for speed and the "Global South's" demand for equity is not merely bureaucratic; it is a reflection of the wider climate justice struggle. The resulting "compromise" schedule—a staggered release of reports culminating in a 2029 synthesis—is a pragmatic, if imperfect, solution that keeps the scientific machinery running.

For the students and researchers at Oregon State University, the AR7 cycle offers a profound lesson in the interface of science and society. It demonstrates that rigorous science does not exist in a vacuum; it is negotiated, funded, and operationalized within a complex political framework. Yet, despite the friction, the core mission remains intact. From the distributed TSU nodes in Malaysia to the glacier labs in Corvallis, thousands of scientists are engaged in the collective effort to provide humanity with a lucid mirror of its own impact, ensuring that when the history of the "Critical Decade" is written, it will be documented with precision, clarity, and an unwavering commitment to the truth.

Appendix: AR7 Cycle Data and Timeline

Table 2: Projected AR7 Release Schedule

Note: Dates for Working Group reports are estimates based on strategic planning documents and are subject to final approval by the Panel. ¹⁷

Report Title	Focus Area	Status	Est. Release
Special Report on Cities	Urban resilience, infrastructure, equity.	Outline Approved	March 2027
Methodology Rpt: SLCFs	Methane, Black Carbon, Precursors.	Outline Approved	2027
Methodology Rpt: CDR	Carbon Removal, Direct Air Capture.	Outline Approved	2027
WGI Assessment	Physical Science (Overshoot, Tipping Points).	Workplan Agreed	Mid-2028
WGII Assessment	Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability.	Workplan Agreed	Mid-2028
WGIII Assessment	Mitigation, Social Demand, Systems.	Workplan Agreed	Mid-2028
Synthesis Report	Integration of all findings.	Scheduled	Late 2029

Table 3: AR7 Author Statistics (Selected Reports)

Data reflects the push for greater diversity in the Seventh Cycle. ²¹

Metric	Statistic	Significance
Total Authors (Nominated)	664	Across all working groups (initial selection).
Gender Balance (SR-Cities)	53% Female	First IPCC report with majority female authors.
Regional Balance (Global)	51% Developing Countries	Achieves parity between Global North/South.
New Authors	High %	Emphasis on bringing in fresh voices/practitioners.

Table 4: Key Scientific Themes by Working Group

Working Group	AR6 Focus (Previous)	AR7 Focus (Current)
WGI (Physics)	Attribution of warming to humans.	Overshoot & Tipping Points: Dynamics of temporary exceedance and irreversibility.
WGII (Impacts)	Vulnerability descriptions.	Adaptation Metrics: Developing standardized indicators to measure resilience.
WGIII (Mitigation)	Tech & Economic pathways.	Demand & Social Science: Behavioral change, sufficiency, and development pathways.
Cross-Cutting	Urban issues in sectors.	Urban Systems: A dedicated Special Report on Cities integrating all three perspectives.

Works cited

1. Seventh Assessment Report - IPCC, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar7/

2. 1 SIXTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE IPCC 24 – 28 February 2025, Hangzhou, China Decision adopted by the Panel Decision IPCC-LXII-8., accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2025/03/Decision-8-Working-Group-Outlines.pdf

3. Working Group II Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - IPCC, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/

4. IPCC Elections: Who's Leading the Seventh Assessment Cycle - United Nations Foundation, accessed January 7, 2026, https://unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/climate-and-energy/climate-science/ipcc-elections-whos-leading-the-seventh-assessment-cycle/

5. 2024 — IPCC, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2024/

6. Science and Capacity Officer in the IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/10/10/science-and-capacity-officer-wg2-tsu/

7. SIXTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE IPCC Hangzhou, China, 24 to 28 February 2025 PROGRESS REPORTS Report by the Working Group III, accessed January 7, 2026, https://apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/88/280120250400-INF.%209%20-%20Progress%20Report%20WGIII.pdf

8. Senior Science Officer, IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/01/28/senior-science-officer-ipcc-wg-iii-tsu/

9. 2025 — IPCC, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/

10. ipcc trust fund programme and budget, accessed January 7, 2026, https://apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/88/201220240214-Doc%202%20-%20IPCC%20Programme%20and%20Budget.pdf

11. SIXTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE IPCC Lima, Peru, 27 to 30 October 2025 IPCC TRUST FUND PROGRAMME AND BUDGET, accessed January 7, 2026, https://apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/93/221020251139-Doc.%202,%20Rev.1-IPCC%20Programme%20and%20Budget.pdf

12. Ongoing failure to agree AR7 timeline is 'unprecedented' in IPCC history - Carbon Brief, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/ongoing-failure-to-agree-ar7-timeline-is-unprecedented-in-ipcc-history/

13. IPCC-63 Reveals Entrenched Positions on AR7 Workplan - SDG Knowledge Hub, accessed January 7, 2026, https://sdg.iisd.org/news/ipcc-63-reveals-entrenched-positions-on-ar7-workplan/

14. IPCC Deadlock: Why Rushed Climate Report Could Silence Global South, accessed January 7, 2026, https://africaclimateinsights.org/ipcc-deadlock-why-rushed-climate-report-could-silence-the-global-south/

15. Decision to Ensure IPCC Reports Released in Time to Inform Next UN Global Stocktake Punted | Union of Concerned Scientists, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ucs.org/about/news/decision-ensure-ipcc-reports-released-time-inform-next-un-global-stocktake-punted

16. IPCC agrees on the scientific content of the remaining methodology report in the seventh assessment cycle and 2026 workplan for the three key climate reports, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/10/31/pr-ipcc63-final/

17. SIXTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE IPCC Sofia, Bulgaria, 27 July – 2 August 2024 STRATEGIC PLANNING SCHEDULE FOR THE SEVENTH ASSESSMEN, accessed January 7, 2026, https://apps.ipcc.ch/eventmanager/documents/87/160720240616-Doc.%2010%20-%20Strategic%20Planning%20Schedule.pdf

18. IPCC agrees on the set of scientific reports for the seventh assessment cycle, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2024/01/19/ipcc-60-ar7-work-programme/

19. Outline-of-Special-Report-on-Climate-Change-and-Cities.pdf - IPCC, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2024/08/Outline-of-Special-Report-on-Climate-Change-and-Cities.pdf

20. 1 Decision IPCC-LXI- 5. Seventh assessment report (AR7) products – Outline of the Special Report on Climate Change and Cities, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2024/08/Decision-5-Outline-of-Special-Report-on-Cities.pdf

21. Analysis: IPCC's seventh assessment has record-high representation from global south, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-ipccs-seventh-assessment-has-record-high-representation-from-global-south/

22. 2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Inventories for Short-lived Climate Forcers, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/methodology-report-on-short-lived-climate-forcers/

23. 2027 IPCC Methodology Report on Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies, Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Additional guidance), accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2027-ipcc-methodology-report-on-carbon-dioxide-removal-technologies-carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories-additional-guidance/

24. Technical Summary - IPCC, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/technical-summary/

25. OSU faculty members key contributors to IPCC report | Newsroom - Oregon State University, accessed January 7, 2026, https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/osu-faculty-members-key-contributors-ipcc-report

26. Climate change-driven migration is a focus of new IPCC report co-authored by OSU researcher | Newsroom, accessed January 7, 2026, https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/climate-change-driven-migration-focus-new-ipcc-report-co-authored-osu-researcher

27. Climate Change Experts | Newsroom - Oregon State University, accessed January 7, 2026, https://news.oregonstate.edu/climate-change-experts

28. Seventh Oregon Climate Assessment, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.oregon.gov/odf/forestbenefits/documents/oregon-climate-assessment.pdf

29. Seventh Oregon climate assessment | Andrews Forest Research Program, accessed January 7, 2026, https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/publications/5378

30. IPCC concludes selection of authors for its Seventh Assessment Report, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/08/18/pr-ar7-authors/