4 ms·
Not sure what your point is. The very first IPCC report (1.5°C) completely ignored permafrost.[^0] They basically admitted they didn't have data on it so they
by culi 4y ago
Not sure what your point is.
The very first IPCC report (1.5°C) completely ignored permafrost.[^0] They basically admitted they didn't have data on it so they will just ignore the effect altogether. The IPCC reports that followed have all been increasingly grim. In large part, imo, because they stopped ignoring permafrost
[^0]: IPCC chapter 2:
> The reduced complexity climate models employed in this assessment do not take into account permafrost or non-CO2 Earth system feedbacks, although the MAGICC model has a permafrost module that can be enabled. Taking the current climate and Earth system feedbacks understanding together, there is a possibility that these models would underestimate the longer-term future temperature response to stringent emission pathways (Section 2.2.2).
- egberts1 4y agoIs this the same IPCC that strongly claimed "nuclear energy" is bad in 2009, and now are strongly advocating the use of nuclear energy in 2022?
- culi 4y agoInteresting! Do you have a link to IPCC's anti-nuclear stances in 2009? Genuinely would like to read more, but having a hard time finding it