Never miss a post from belgianclimatecentre
Sign up for Instagram to stay in the loop.
By continuing, you agree to Instagram's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
🚨 No, the IPCC hasn't "admitted climate scientists were wrong".
💡 Here's what actually happened.
Some posts claim the IPCC quietly abandoned its 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 because it was "alarmist".
That is misleading.
🌍 Did the IPCC cancel SSP5-8.5?
➡️ No.
In AR6, the IPCC assesses five illustrative pathways:
SSP1-1.9 · SSP1-2.6 · SSP2-4.5 · SSP3-7.0 · SSP5-8.5
SSP5-8.5 is still used in climate science.
But it is now generally treated as a 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐞𝐧𝐝, 𝐥𝐨𝐰-𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐲 — not the world's most likely future.
⚡ Why is it less likely now?
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝.
☀️ Solar PV became dramatically cheaper.
🌬️ Onshore wind costs also fell strongly.
📉 Climate policies lowered projected warming.
🪨 Coal demand did not follow the massive expansion implied by the highest-emissions pathways.
That is not failed science.
That is evidence that 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬.
🌡️ So where are we heading?
According to Climate Action Tracker, current policies point to roughly 2.6°C of warming by 2100 — down from roughly 3.6°C projected under 2015 policies.
That is real progress.
But it is not safety.
Important nuance: 2.6°C is closer to SSP2-4.5 than to SSP3-7.0 in IPCC temperature terms. SSPs are scenarios, not predictions.
⚠️ 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬
Around 2.6°C would still mean:
🔥 more dangerous heat extremes
🌊 continued sea-level rise
🌾 stronger pressure on food and water systems
🐠 major ecosystem loss
🧊 higher risks of irreversible tipping points
So no, climate scientists were not "wrong". The highest-emissions pathway became less likely because policy, technology and markets changed.
✅ 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐝.
❗ 𝐈𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.
Sources: IPCC AR6 · Climate Action Tracker 2025 · IEA Coal 2025 · IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs 2024 · Hausfather & Peters, Nature 2020
#ClimateScience #IPCC #ClimateFacts #SSP #EnergyTransition #ClimateAction #Renewables #ScienceCommunication #NetZero #Sustainability
💡 Here's what actually happened.
Some posts claim the IPCC quietly abandoned its 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 because it was "alarmist".
That is misleading.
🌍 Did the IPCC cancel SSP5-8.5?
➡️ No.
In AR6, the IPCC assesses five illustrative pathways:
SSP1-1.9 · SSP1-2.6 · SSP2-4.5 · SSP3-7.0 · SSP5-8.5
SSP5-8.5 is still used in climate science.
But it is now generally treated as a 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐞𝐧𝐝, 𝐥𝐨𝐰-𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐰𝐚𝐲 — not the world's most likely future.
⚡ Why is it less likely now?
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝.
☀️ Solar PV became dramatically cheaper.
🌬️ Onshore wind costs also fell strongly.
📉 Climate policies lowered projected warming.
🪨 Coal demand did not follow the massive expansion implied by the highest-emissions pathways.
That is not failed science.
That is evidence that 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬.
🌡️ So where are we heading?
According to Climate Action Tracker, current policies point to roughly 2.6°C of warming by 2100 — down from roughly 3.6°C projected under 2015 policies.
That is real progress.
But it is not safety.
Important nuance: 2.6°C is closer to SSP2-4.5 than to SSP3-7.0 in IPCC temperature terms. SSPs are scenarios, not predictions.
⚠️ 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬
Around 2.6°C would still mean:
🔥 more dangerous heat extremes
🌊 continued sea-level rise
🌾 stronger pressure on food and water systems
🐠 major ecosystem loss
🧊 higher risks of irreversible tipping points
So no, climate scientists were not "wrong". The highest-emissions pathway became less likely because policy, technology and markets changed.
✅ 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐝.
❗ 𝐈𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.
Sources: IPCC AR6 · Climate Action Tracker 2025 · IEA Coal 2025 · IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs 2024 · Hausfather & Peters, Nature 2020
#ClimateScience #IPCC #ClimateFacts #SSP #EnergyTransition #ClimateAction #Renewables #ScienceCommunication #NetZero #Sustainability
No comments yet.
Start the conversation.
Log in to like or comment.
