For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly
with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM - 3 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values can not be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.
The right - hand panel shows ranges
of global average temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) «best estimate» climate sensitivity of 3 °C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5 °C (red line at top of shaded area)(iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2 °C (blue line at bottom of shaded area).
Stabilisation scenarios are an important subset of inverse mitigation scenarios, describing futures in which emissions reductions are undertaken so that GHG concentrations, radiative forcing, or
global average temperature change do not exceed a prescribed limit.
If this contribution were to grow linearly
with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table 3.1 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. [13]-LCB- WGI 10.6, SPM -RCB-
January's mark of 1.4 °C, put
the global average temperature change from early industrial levels for the first three months of 2016 at 1.48 °C.
NOAA uses a slightly different baseline when reporting
the global average temperature change.
The issue we need to debate is not whether
the global average temperature changes by 0.1 C or 0.2 C over the next decade (or whatever).
Where in the world did you dream up the stat that
global average temperature change is 1.5 C per century?
The second is because
the global average temperature change is less than the change at high latitudes, where most glaciers are found (Section 9.3.2).
Or are you suggesting I can just convert the forcing for a given year directly to
global average temperature change?