What's Happening?
A study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons criticizes the use of global mean surface temperature (GMST) as a metric for climate policy. The study argues that GMST is a poorly
defined and physically meaningless metric, yet it drives significant climate policy decisions. The author, Jonathan Cohler, contends that the methodologies used to calculate GMST are arbitrary and not grounded in fundamental thermodynamics, leading to unreliable climate model projections.
Why It's Important?
The critique of GMST as a basis for climate policy highlights potential flaws in the scientific models that inform global climate strategies. If the metric is indeed unreliable, it could undermine the validity of climate policies and the allocation of resources aimed at mitigating climate change. This raises questions about the effectiveness of current climate initiatives and the need for more scientifically robust metrics.
Beyond the Headlines
The study's findings could prompt a reevaluation of climate science methodologies and encourage the development of more accurate metrics for assessing climate change. This could lead to more effective and targeted climate policies, potentially reshaping international climate agreements and funding priorities.
