Comparing the draft of the SYR SPM with the Czech translation of it, 
we've noticed some pieces of the English text which are in error or 
whose meaning is unclear -- they should be formulated better, to be 
unequivocal and easy to understand. None of the needed changes implies a 
change of the meaning of the SPM, so hopefully it is nothing to be 
negotiated with the govt's. 

Actually, these errors or uneasy formulations are difficult to identify 
by any other means than by attempting an utmost accurate translation to 
another language -- this is what we've done for the wg1-3 SPMs and are 
trying to do with the SYR SPM, for the Czech language. No accurate 
translation is possible if the meaning in the original language is not 
entirely clear.

1: page 3, line 3,

to be corrected by discarding RISE from the figure caption

This is an error propagating from wg1 SPM draft (Kristen Averyt 
corrected it for the final two-column typeset version, after I've 
pointed at it; a snap (with a changed figure number) from my April 17 
letter is:

        FIGURE SPM-1. Observed changes in
        (a) global average surface temperature;
        (b) global average sea level rise from tide gauge (blue)
      and satellite (red) data and
        (c) Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April.

      -- the (b) item should not contain ``rise'' anymore (as it
      should read
      ``changes in ... sea level'',
       as a current alternative to some possible old
      ``observed ... sea level rise'')


2: at page 4, line 7,

the word SOME should be either discarded, or the sentence ended by a 
word which have been lost underway, SUBSYSTEMS (or something like that). 

(there are not Arctic floras and faunas to be chosen from, flora and 
fauna are singulars, so if a specification is needed, it has to be done
just from some parts of  flora and fauna)


3: at p 10, line 5,

words AT RIGHT should be used instead of the current ``in the middle of 
figure''. 

(The text concerns the Left panel, not the whole figure, and the bars 
are really an integral part of the left panel)


4: page 12, within Figure SPM.6 caption, three items:

4.1: at line 6, 

PANELS should be used instead of ``parts of the figure''

(This part of the figure caption is within the Upper panel 
description, and so it's positioning is not ideal anyway. But as the 
parts of the figures are labelled as panels in boldface within the 
caption, this should be obeyed even at line 6)

4.2: at line 13,

``relative to the conditions'' should be perhaps replaced by something as 
``assuming the conditions'' 

(Still the whole sentence is not easy to understand. That's why we had 
difficulties to write something in Czech what would not disturb the 
reader making her/him stop reading and thinking ``what do they mean
here?''. Apparently it  might concern the quantitative items Hundreds of
millions, About 30 %,  Millions more. But the middle item has nothing to
do with assumptions  concerning society, being just climate-dependent.
The sentence seems to  be an attempt to bind the upper panel somehow
explicitly with the middle one taken from wg2 SPM, but its message
remains rather vague regardless  of the formulation. For a SPM, it might
be better to discard it  altogether -- or to write something with a
really clear meaning.)

4.3: at lines 16-17,

``to account approximately for the warming'' is rather vague. Something 
as ``to avoid inclusion of the warming'' would be clearer.


5: at page 18, line 27,

the beginning of the sentence is grammatically wrong -- 

``Higher confidence in projected changes in many regions are'' 

 -- and the sentence is unclear therefore. Apparently, the projected
changes are assessed to bring higher impacts... And there may be a
higher confidence that those changes will take place. Extending the
first part  of the sentence  to something as  

``There is a higher confidence in projected changes in many regions, and
these changes are'' 

would make the text easy to read and perhaps to understand as well. Of 
course, if this would be what the authors mean, I can not guarantee.


6: at page 18 again, lines 34-35

``, and global risks calibrated in other aggregate metrics 
have been better quantified.'' -- unlike the first part of the 
sentence, this added sentence has both an unclear relation to the first 
part (perhaps it would be better to make it a new sentence, after a 
period, this is what we've done in the Czech translation) 
and a bit obscure meaning (if ``other'' metrics are concerned, 
what was the base aggregate metric?).


7: at page 20, line 24,

Into the too short ``Global CO2 emissions'', YEARLY should be inserted,
to read 
 ``Global yearly CO2 emissions'' (or ``Global CO2 emissions per year'').
Then, either ``and THEIR changes'' should be written later in the line, 
or again, ``and YEARLY emissions ranges'' said explicitly. 

(Of course, emissions are expressed _per year_ most commonly, but
expressing them per day or per decade is be also possible; moreover
cumulative emissions over the whole past or over 21st century are also
employed elsewhere. Even for an expert it takes some seconds to know
for sure which time interval is meant.)


-----------

That's all we've noticed... otherwise the text is nice.