Talking across disciplinary boundaries was challenging at times, but very rewarding and where the most progress can be made. Changing jobs and country mid-project was another challenge for me - I'm grateful for support from @exeter.ac.uk and @universityofga.bsky.social during the project. (End 🧵)

This work highlights the value of funding multi-year, international collaborations that bridge different modeling communities in this policy-relevant issue of land-based climate mitigation (5/)

We investigated how to include the climate (biophysical) impacts from afforestation and reforestation in IAM scenario development. Important impacts on agricultural yields, runoff, and carbon stocks were found, but a major challenge is how to account for uncertainty in the biophysical effects (4/)

Bioenergy crops with carbon capture and storage can be an effective mitigation method: the mitigation potential is higher when the crops are on existing agricultural land rather than natural land. To reduce impacts on food security, marginal or less productive agricultural land should be used (3/)

The land can help us mitigate climate change through growth of new forests and protection of existing forests & ecosystems, but *the ability of the land to continue to absorb carbon dioxide at current rates is not a sure bet* emphasizing the importance of reduced emissions to slow climate change(2/)

We uncovered systematic differences in how Earth System Models (ESMs) and Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) calculate carbon stocks and carbon removal potentials, and this project allowed people from both groups to discuss ways to reduce this cross-sectoral model uncertainty in the future (1/)

Speakers will identify how AI can be utilized to enhance weather and climate simulations and models, highlight the overarching technical challenges associated with integrating AI, and explore the most promising applications.

Yeah this is confusing for liberals ... We want fun control but not like this!

I'm sorry to hear this

Cool side fact: Working Group 1 assesses the physical science of climate change. The US has 15 authors in WG1, 10 of whom are women. In the last report, 6/25 US scientists in WG1 were women. Woop Woop 💪🏼, although it's a shame to see the reduced # of US scientists involved this time around. End 🧵

Because the US State Dept is no longer supporting American involvement in the IPCC, @agu.org and the US Academic Alliance stepped up to nominate 282 experts, from which 37 were selected. (A few more were nominated by other means.) Thanks guys! 🙏🏼

In this time of attacks on climate science in the US, it's important to point out that the IPCC does not set policy, but it provides scientific assessments that form one part of decision making.

This will be my first time participating as a lead author. I've been fascinated by the work of the IPCC and its role in informing climate policy for years, and inspired by those who have served before, so this is a huge honor for me.

Erm, make that a *refutation* 🙄

I'd like to know more about a collective reputation of the report, as mentioned in this article.