The Commonwealth declaration avoided setting a numerical limit to global temperature rise, saying only, «We stress our common conviction that urgent and substantial action to reduce global emissions is needed and have a range of views as to
whether average global temperature increase should be constrained to below 1.5 degrees or to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.»
Not exact matches
You state that what is at question is not the actuality of
temperature increase (by which I assume you mean
global average temperature), but the question of
whether UHI effects have been entangled in the
temperature records, and to what extent.
Parker (2004) segmented observed surface
temperature data into lighter and stronger wind terciles in order to assess
whether the reported large - scale
global -
averaged temperature increases are attributable to urban warming.
«And instead of demanding to know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the
average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern simply
whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and
average temperatures are
increasing.
The climate actions communicated in these INDCs largely determine
whether the world achieves the long - term goals of the Paris Agreement: to hold the
increase in
global average temperature to well below 2 °C, to pursue efforts to limit the
increase to 1.5 °C, and to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of this century.
You continue to conflate several things - > 1)
whether or not human CO2 can drive
global average temperature, 2)
whether or not
global average temperature is going to
increase, and finally 3)
whether or not a
global average temperature increase is * bad * for humanity.