Anthony reproduces a Nature editorial that suggests that nations should abandon the 2°C target that has allegedly focused political responses to global warming in recent years.
Bold simplicity must now face reality. Politically and scientifically, the 2°C goal is wrong-headed. Politically, it has allowed some governments to pretend that they are taking serious action to mitigate global warming, when in reality they have achieved almost nothing. 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 and is poorly coupled to entities that governments and companies can control directly.
As the full article points out, the whole point of the target was that above this level things became dangerous, although authors David Victor and Charles Kennel suggest that the precise dangers concerned were somewhat unclear. As I recall it was supposed to be flood and drought and hurricanes and the like, but perhaps my memory is failing me.
But that's beside the point. Victor and Kennel rather skip their way around what is going to happen to the dangers if we decide to follow their suggestions and take on some other measures of global warming - ocean heat content being one suggestion.
Reading between the lines one might draw the conclusion that the target and the dangers that were said to lurk beyond it were simply a political fairytale that helped in the endless task of herding the populace towards Nirvana.