The original Deep Adaptation paper has now been downloaded 110,000 times so to make it more accessible it is now available in as a podcast.
In other news, Scientists Warning have created this rather shorter video emphasising the most poignant ideas in Deep Adaptation.
If you are on Linkedin, you can join the Deep Adaptation group for news and solidarity on this subject.
Don’t forget to share this post on your favourite social media!
Professor Jem Bendell 
THANK YOU!
Hello Jem Bendell
I posted your DA paper on FB and received a feedback comment:
“I wish the paper was a little clearer on the specific IPCC criticism. Not because the IPCC shouldn’t be criticized, but because the criticism is laughably inaccurate. This paper says the IPCC models totally ignore albedo effect–something that has been in models for decades (at least since I was an undergraduate).
Therefore for people actually paying attention to the details of climate change and models, it looks like the whole paper is built on a total lie.
If the criticism contained were specific–say the degree of underestimation of albedo effect and why–there are a lot more people in my life who would be interested in reading and discussing it.”
I have no idea whether his technical criticism of the IPCC models regarding albedo has any merit whatever.
(Others slag the models for allegedly failing to account for pre-development GHG emissions from land and hence overestimate the net post-dev emissions.)
In any case, the accelerating climate severity is self evident without any models whatever, and your paper is not hyper-dependent on the precision of the IPCC models so it would be easy to simply dismiss his histrionics…
Do you have a technical response to his albedo allegation and/a clever retort to his trite dismissal ?
https://m.facebook.com/groups/623305194398609?view=permalink&id=2231675713561541
Thanks for the feedback. My main source for criticism of the methodology of the IPCC is the “What Lies Beneath” report. A good article about it is here: https://www.sciencealert.com/international-climate-change-reports-tend-toward-caution-and-are-dangerously-misleading-says-new-report
On the question of IPCC incorporation of feedbacks, there is a huge difference from what Wadhams and others calculate and what is in the IPCC. But I will ask my colleague to look at what I have written in the original Deep Adaptation paper and if anything was slightly inaccurate.
Kurt you said “This paper says the IPCC models totally ignore albedo effect”. The DA paper actually never uses the word albedo, saying “Peter Wadhams believes an ice-free Arctic will likely increase by 50% the warming caused by the CO2 produced by human activity. In itself, that [increase] renders the calculations of the IPCC redundant, along with the targets and proposals of the UNFCCC.”
This statement was based on the following passage from “What lies beneath” report: “It is important to use high-end climate sensitivity because some studies have suggested that climate models have underestimated three major positive climate feedbacks: positive ice albedo feedback from the retreat of Arctic sea ice; positive cloud albedo feedback from retreating storm track clouds in mid-latitudes; and positive albedo feedback by the mixed-phase (water and ice) clouds. When these are taken into account, the ECS is more than 40% higher than the IPCC mid-figure, at 4.5-4.7°C, before adding up to another 1°C of warming as described in 1. and 2. above.” referencing this paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10315
Quite beautiful
[…] and disaster management experts to make plans at local, national and international levels for adaptation and […]