Abandon the 2°C target, says Nature commentary — not ‘scientifically meaningful’

We’ve been saying this for years.

First, no one and nothing lives at average global temperature — it is a meaningless metric. Second, as Climategate explicitly revealed, the 2°C target was simply pulled out of thin air and not based on any sort of science.

The media release is below.

Ditch the 2 warming goal

Human-induced stress on the global climate system should be monitored using an array of vital signs, rather than focusing on average global temperature, argue David Victor and Charles Kennel in a Nature Comment piece.

For nearly a decade, international efforts have been centred on the goal to cap global warming at 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The stalling of global average temperature rise over the past 16 years demonstrates that the 2°C target is not, in practice, a good milestone against which to set emissions-mitigation policies, explain Victor and Kennel. The goal is unachievable — current emissions trajectories will almost inevitably blow through it — and impractical, because individual governments and businesses can do little to influence it directly. Other indicators, such as ocean heat content, high-latitude temperatures or the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, might be better measures.

As work begins to draft an agreement ahead of the next year’s United Nations climate summit in Paris next year, the authors conclude that the 2°C goal should be abandoned and replaced with a new set of achievable targets.

Nature abandon 2c

8 thoughts on “Abandon the 2°C target, says Nature commentary — not ‘scientifically meaningful’”

  1. Well, with 15 to 20 years with no additional warming, why wouldn’t it make imminent good sense for the warmistas to just declare victory, change their stripes and then look around for something else to screw around with? Isn’t the spotted owl still endangered? I believe I read somewhere that the spotted owl is being crowded out of suitable habitat by barred owls. Then there’s the global problems of poorly defined threats that may be a threat to species of frogs, toads and other amphibians — spotted owl food, of course. Maybe the overly prolific barred owls are wiping out the amphibians which, in turn, is keeping too many spotted owls away from the dinner table.

  2. Yes, let’s move the goalposts again when our gross exaggerations fail. The only thing that is settled is the power-hungry greed of the political left.

  3. They are moving them, John … ocean acidification … and the exaggerations are just as fanciful.

  4. This is funny! Lets not use temperature as a measure of warming! Of course, if it isn’t warming and you need to regulate and redistribute, you have to have another yardstick. Lets see, sea ice? – um no. Coral bleaching? – um no. Draught?- um no. Hurricanes? – um no. Ocean acidification it is! Oh and ISIS! Yeah, that’s it – ISIS.

  5. So the meme he wants to go with is “Temperature doesn’t matter, CO2 concentration is the problem.”

    The war on CO2 then becomes a war on CO2 for its own sake, with any pretense of “Climate Control” or “mitigation” falling by the wayside.

    It’s a good strategy, but what is the harm of CO2 if it doesn’t cause Catastrophic Global Warming (Climate Change…Climate Disruption?)

    If Global Warming isn’t the problem, CO2 is not the answer.

  6. Stan, I’m sure you (and many others) are by now aware this is all about the misanthropes, water melons, and the useful idiots.

    The misanthropes want us all dead because we are hurting their dirt goddess and we must be deleted to save her. The water melons are in it for the power grab and the billions in personal wealth to be gained. The useful idiots…. well, we’ll always have a herd of sheeple to use and abuse.

  7. It has been acknowledged, even by the IPCC, that the climate system is too complex, chaotic and unpredictable to simulate. Indeed, nobody is even close to fully understanding the mechanisms that change Earth’s climate.

    Despite the above facts, governments have implemented policies to change the climate in a particular direction.

    How can one change the climate in a particular direction when one does not know how the climate changes in the first place?

Comments are closed.