macdoc
Philosopher
Well I wasn't all that confident of a 2C limit.....1.5 would appear to be unobtanium. 
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-not-enough-to-save-species.html#.VRlpl1wdrHA

Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species
01:00 27 March 2015 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Is the world's target of limiting global warming to 2 °C too high, or too low? Does it even make scientific sense? The consensus around the target, which was agreed at climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, seems to be coming unstuck.
Back in October, US climate analysts David Victor and Charles Kennel called it scientifically meaningless and politically unachievable. We should get used to the idea of something warmer, they said.
Now the target has been denounced as "utterly inadequate", by Petra Tschakert of Penn State University in University Park, who has been involved in a UN review of the target. She wants a 1.5 °C target instead. Writing in the journal Climate Change Responses, she says this lower limit is necessary if we want sea levels to rise less than a metre, to protect half of all coral reefs, and to still have some ice during Arctic summers.
........
Is a cap on warming at 1.5 °C achievable? Many think that, with the world already warmed by 0.85 °C, it is now all but impossible. But even so, it could shape the blame game, said Tschakert. The Paris agreement is likely to include a clause entitling the poorest countries to compensation for "loss and damage" resulting from climate change. If a 1.5 °C target were set – and then exceeded – their case for a payout in the event of climate disaster would be that much stronger. "The stakes," she writes, "are enormous."
Journal reference: Climate Change Reponses, DOI: 10.1186/s40665-015-0010-z
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-not-enough-to-save-species.html#.VRlpl1wdrHA