By Huck Fairman
In the October issue of the journal Nature, Charles Kennel, oceanographer and former head of Scripps Institution of Oceanography co-authored with David Victor an article calling for climate policy-makers to "ditch the 2 degree C warming goal."
He further explained this recommendation to members of The Citizens Climate Lobby on the Nov. 1 group call across the country and Canada, including the Princeton Chapter.
Their article begins by noting that for "nearly a decade, international diplomacy has focused on stopping global warming at 2 degree C above pre-industrial levels. This goal – bold and easy to grasp – has been accepted uncritically and has proved influential."
The co-authors contend, however, that this 2 degree C goal is "wrong-headed." But why?
"Scientifically, there are better ways to measure the stress that humans are placing on the climate system than the growth of average global surface temperature – which has stalled since 1998 …" Furthermore, "Failure to set scientifically meaningful goals makes it hard for scientists and politicians to explain how big investments in climate protection will deliver tangible results."
One problem has been that global temperatures do not move in "lockstep with the real dangers of climate change." What is needed is new and more local or regional measurements to "track the array of planetary vital signs – such as changes in the ocean heat content." Kennel points out that just as doctors look at an array of indicators to judge a person’s health, so should scientists and politicians look at a range of climate and environmental indicators.
Thus not only is the 2 degree C measurement not accurate enough, it has proved to be both "unachievable" and "impractical." While models suggest this goal is reachable, the realities of international cooperation, or its lack, and the slow dissemination of carbon-reducing or capturing technologies should warn that it is likely that we will "blow through" this goal eventually.
Moreover this broad, global goal is impractical because it does not "tell particular governments and people what to do." Kennel points out that international goals are effective when "translated into concrete, achievable actions."
And so while the average global surface temperature has risen less than expected since 1998, several other measurements of the planet’s system have changed. One, radiative forcing – "the amount by which accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are perturbing the planet’s energy balance" – is increasing. At the same time, The Arctic has been warming rapidly, and "High-latitude climates are more sensitive than the planet as a whole." Some televised reports from Northern Alaska have shown rapid climate change and sea level rise.
Why then are these regional changes out-pacing the global temperature rise? "The answer almost certainly lies in the oceans. The oceans, which cover approximately 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, are "taking up 93 percent of the extra energy being added to the climate system." Hence while the world has not lately seen much average surface temperature rise – although 2014 may yet prove to be the warmest year on record, following a number of record-setting months – regions around the globe have already seen alarming sea level rise and other climate impacts.
The authors urge, therefore, that "policy makers should … track ocean heat content and high-altitude temperature." And they warn that the energy stored in the deep oceans will eventually be released and will prove to be a "long-term risk to future generations and planetary-scale ecology." Additionally, because high-altitude temperatures "are so sensitive to shifts in climate . . . they drive many tangible harms . . ." and should be included in the multiple, planetary evaluations.Finally, the authors recommend "a volatility index that measures the evolving risk from extreme events . . . A good start would be to track the total area during the year in which conditions stray by 3 standard deviations from the local and seasonal mean."
Kennel and Victor conclude by writing that while a single index of climate change would be "wonderful" . . . Such a thing . . . cannot exist." On a hopeful note, they remind us that this autumn, "a big push on climate policy begins – with the aim of crafting a new global agreement by late 2015 at the UNFCCC’s conference in Paris. They hope that designing a path for more comprehensive understanding will provide an " international mandate" . . . to "spur research on indicators of planetary health." They also recommend that the Paris agreement should call for an international technical conference, "on how to turn today’s research measurements into tomorrow’s planetary vital signs." And with that in mind, they ask the public to educate itself around these more accurate climate evaluations so that we can support the necessary investments to save our environments.
Huck Fairman is a local writer who in the course of researching another project was confronted by the overwhelming evidence that we are changing the earth’s environment. And that will affect life as we have known it. He hopes to present the many good local responses to this situation that are already underway.
