Experts are claiming that controlling global warming by keeping the global average temperature rise at 2°C might not be enough.

Tschakert, who is a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has said that the current global target for temperature rise will not be enough for saving species who are at highest risk of succumbing to climate change.

This subject was discussed for two days at the Lima Conference of the Parties; experts talked about the possible consequences of keeping a temperature rise of 2°C as the average global warming target.


Charles Kennel and David Victor, two climate analysts from the United States, called the current global warming target politically unachievable and scientifically meaningless.

However, now the biggest call has been taken by Petra Tschakert, a climate expert representing the Penn State University of University Park. Tschakert has been operating as a member of the review committee set up by the United Nations for analyzing the target and taking decisions. So, when she calls something inadequate the UN bosses will have to listen.

According to Tschakert, the target should be brought down to 1.5°C. She believes that for limiting the rise in sea level to less than 1 m, for ensuring that the Arctic region has some ice left in it even during the summer months and for protecting 50 percent of the coral reefs, lowering the target to 1.5°C is necessary.

The target of 1.5°C has received huge support from climate experts around the globe. As mentioned above, the matter was discussed at the climate conference held in Lima, Peru in December 2014.

Must Read: Global average temperature limit: 2°C or 1.5°C, too high or too low?

The entire review will be published around June this year. Reports are suggesting that the change in target might be made official during the Paris climate negotiations to be held in December 2015.

Although it is believed that the new target will help in controlling global warming better, many are still saying that like the target of 2°C, the target of 1.5°C is also just an arbitrary threshold. So, we’ll have to wait to find out what kind of results this change brings in.



  1. Are your silly CO2 Science Gods certain the planet isn’t flat?

    “Science isn’t “ALLOWED” to say “PROVEN” even for a global climate crisis; is what “believers “tell their own children as they goose step them to their greenhouse gas ovens. And all just to hissy fit hate conservatives. Peace, love?
    Get up to date;
    *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by trust worth politicians.

  2. Experts are claiming that controlling global warming by keeping the global average temperature rise at 2°C might not be enough.

    I can stomach listening to people say that we don’t need to add to the issue but to say we need to control it to such a fine degree it’s rediculous. What’s next? Maybe we should limit the amount or solar flares or lessen the pull of gravity for people with bad knees. When the earth needs to be rejuvenated we will be tossed off like fleas and things will move on in a new dorection.

  3. Yes the climate is changing, it always has.
    No we can’t do much to change it.
    Yes we need to quit pissing in the well.
    We should focus on efficiency first as it is the most easily achievable.
    When people see the financial results of the efficiency the rest will come much easier.
    All the hand wringing Scientists in the World won’t change a thing. MONEY is how you change the World now quit talking about it and get to work!

    • It’s rather arrogant to assume that “experts,” can control anything
      involved with the weather. But they surely can control the masses
      by getting laws passed by Socialists in governmental positions of
      power taxing anything the Left want to outlaw. But makes for good
      redistribution of wealth.

  4. Most climate scientists can write a complete and coherent English sentence. That is more than can be said, based on the current evidence, about the previous commenter, mememine69.

  5. O’Malley just said on This Week on ABC (on 3/29/15) that global warming was “natural” not “man-made”… he specifically ruled out “man-made”.

    Why Stepanopolis did not pose a followup question is mind-boggling but anyway, we have it on tape!

  6. Where were they when the dinosaurs were dying out? Who turned down the thermostat back then?

    Global warming is a fraud initiated by the left.

  7. Where in H is this thermostat that can be used to regulate the earth’s temperature? Some 22000 years ago, the current ice age began its decline and is continuing today. Until we enter the next interglacial period the earth will continue to warm. The only solution is to either accept it or move the earth further from the sun.


    It’s too late to stop past Carbon emissions from warming the Earth by 1.5 degrees C.

    Without a dramatic reduction in fossil fuels, the increase will reach 2 degrees C in 2025, possibly the maximum for human life to flourish.

    AESOP is developing some of the vital and necessary breakthroughs, including engine-generators that need no fuel. See:

    Human survival requires immediate action to manufacture products such as these on an around-the-clock basis.

  9. Why did the author and the commenters completly fail to note that the 2 degrees C Warming is for a period of 100 years? That is two hundreths of a degree C per year. I think that is normal for our population increase. If you are trying to make a point please do not hide critical facts.

  10. The spam comment by Mark Goldes advertising his fraudulent so-called “AESOP Institute” is a typical example of the thousands of false and fraudulent spam comments he has posted to advertise his sham “Institute,” which has been his instrument to defraud people with false and empty claims of make-believe “breakthroughs” for many years. Mark Goldes has no “surprising new science” or “revolutionary technology,” and is not “prototyping” anything at all – all he has is the same old fraudcraft he’s been deceiving people with for decades – first at MPI, and then at Chava Energy LLC and his so-called “AESOP Institute.” He does not have any “breakthrough technologies” or any engine that could run on the single heat reservoir of atmospheric heat. Every heat engine requires two heat reservoirs at different temperatures in order to do any work. Goldes’ pretended “fuel-free piston engine” concept is not worth a nickel, as he knows very well. He has no “fuel-free engine” that could work at all. He has deceived and defrauded gullible people for decades with his endless empty claims of make-believe “breakthroughs,” by persuading them to give him loans, which he never repays.