Now it’s 2°C climate change target ‘not safe’

Now it’s 2°C climate change target ‘not safe’. Sorry, Anthony, who said that a 2°C rise in mean global temperature was “safe”? Not the climatologists. This is a political target reflecting the industrial inertia that must be overcome. Any artificial increase will have an impact. So a press release from the University of Exeter, based on a paper in the Journal of Quarternary Science saying as much, is hardly a shock.

But I guess it lets Anthony imply that the environmentalists are trying to shift the target so they can be even meaner.

The real message is not that “greenies” want to lower the target and make us live in caves, it’s that the targeted limit will have consequences more severe than has been anticipated:

Professor Turney said: “The results here are quite startling and, importantly, they suggest sea levels will rise significantly higher than anticipated and that stabilizing global average temperatures at 2˚C above pre-industrial levels may not be considered a ‘safe’ target as envisaged by the European Union and others. The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to be lowered further still.”

3 thoughts on “Now it’s 2°C climate change target ‘not safe’

  1. When will they grasp that climate change is not a linear process, and uncertainties are not an excuse for apathy but reason for even more concern?

    [Well, it seems that in Anthony’s case five years isn’t quite long enough. – Ben]

  2. The entire WUWT experience is an exercise in battling strawmen. Anthony constructs them, attributes them to some vague amorphous “them”, and then proceeds to do battle. And the suckers cheer him on.

  3. WUWT MILANKOVITCH CYCLES?………. As I read thru the comments, I was reminded of the cameraman who chose to film a suicide, rather than to stop it. The moderator should have stepped in to give the unequivocal Milankovitch (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession) explanation for the ice age cycles. To protect both readers and the originators from the everyone-is-stupider nature of the comments.

    However, in the maintenance of their Big Tent, they have to be more reticent about the PAST, since that is where cycles come from. And if the biggest cycle, of ice ages, has a mundane, well understood, natural explanation; then maybe they all do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s