What's Happening?
A recent study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons criticizes the use of global mean surface temperature (GMST) as a metric for climate change policy. The study argues that GMST is a made-up
and poorly defined metric, lacking a precise regulatory definition and being physically meaningless based on thermodynamic principles. The study's author, Jonathan Cohler, claims that the focus on GMST has led to the waste of trillions of dollars in climate change efforts. The study suggests that climate models tuned to reproduce historical GMST trends are fundamentally flawed, as they rely on arbitrary averaging methods that do not accurately reflect the Earth's complex thermal systems.
Why It's Important?
The study's findings challenge the validity of current climate change policies and models, which could have significant implications for global climate strategies. If GMST is indeed an unreliable metric, it raises questions about the effectiveness of policies based on it, potentially leading to a reevaluation of climate change mitigation efforts. This could impact international agreements and funding allocations, as well as influence public perception and policy-making in the U.S. and other countries. The study highlights the need for more scientifically grounded metrics to guide climate policy and ensure that resources are effectively utilized.
What's Next?
The study may prompt further research and debate within the scientific community regarding the metrics used in climate modeling. Policymakers might need to consider alternative approaches to climate change mitigation that do not rely on GMST. This could involve developing new models and metrics that better capture the complexities of the Earth's climate systems. The study's findings could also influence future international climate negotiations, as countries reassess their commitments and strategies in light of these criticisms.
Beyond the Headlines
The study's critique of GMST underscores the broader challenge of balancing scientific rigor with political and economic considerations in climate policy. It raises ethical questions about the responsibility of scientists and policymakers to ensure that climate models are based on sound scientific principles. The debate over GMST may also reflect deeper tensions between scientific and political agendas, as countries navigate the complexities of addressing climate change while balancing economic and social priorities.
