enb.iisd.org/climate/IPCC/I… The Report of the meeting where the IPCC SfP has to be approved by all countries line by line is a fascinating read. Requests for clarification from countries are often very insightful. No other scientific endeavour has such a high level of scrutiny.
Some interesting requests: "The US, with TANZANIA, asked whether the reference to “limited” changes in monsoon precipitation means “significant but small” or “negligible. TANZANIA also queried why the East African monsoon is not mentioned”
The most silly request (just like my reviewer #2 😡): "CANADA, GERMANY, and HUNGARY suggested changing “lower stratospheric cooling” to “cooling in the lower stratosphere,”
Very interesting: "INDIA, supported by SAUDI ARABIA, objected to the term “SSPs” and to limiting the statement to “scenarios,” saying that: the socio-economic aspects of SSPs stray into WG III’s mandate; the SSPs sound like policy-prescriptive language on mitigation [...]
FRANCE and more countries argued that SSPs are scientifically rigorous, traceable, replicable, relevant to policymakers, and not under the IPCC’s control. [...] The NETHERLANDS suggested adding “SSPs do not exhaust the way we see the world" but *this was not accepted by the US*"
My main takeaway from speed-reading this document is (other than amazement at the whole process) that @valmasdel is my new favorite scientific hero and I will try to channel her whenever I'm responding to reviewers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
