Scientists are scrambling to understand the practical differences between a world in which global average temperate rise is limited to 2 degrees Celsius and one in which the temperature is held at a 1.5-degree increase. As it turns out, the question is much more complex than it may seem, according to an editorial published Tuesday in the journal Nature Geoscience. The question came into the spotlight in the Paris Agreement, the first universal international climate deal, in which nations are called to work together to limit global average temperature rise to “well below” 2 degrees while “pursuing efforts” not to break 1.5 degrees.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the 2-degree target, as it was long agreed to be the end goal of the climate movement. Now, while the scientific community waits for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change-requested special report on the 1.5-degree target, several climate researchers have decided to try to take a stab at answering the question themselves. The IPCC report is due in 2018.
It is almost certain that a 1.5-degree world would look vastly different than a 2-degree world, the editorial says. “The problem is not that there is no difference, but that internal variability and differences between model projections make the uncertainties so large that it is hard to say with confidence what exactly these differences will look like,” according to the editorial.
Regardless of the many unanswered questions, adding to the body of knowledge surrounding the topic should be encouraged, the editorial suggests. “Obviously, climate researchers should not abandon their other pursuits, including curiosity-driven research, in order to lend their services to policymakers. But it is worth diverting some attention to the tasks mapped out in Paris.”
