World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target

[WiltonRanch]

If that’s the case then why was historical data expunged from weather records? Kind of hard to have a reliable long term data set to compare with present conditions if you erase a bunch of data.

[fjlip]

"top climate scientists in the world!" Peer reviewed by BIASED IPCC paid off cronies!

Scare me! How about...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Almost 80% of the respondents, All from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

I was trying to think of other headlines such as this someone is gullible as chuck would fall for. I came up with the very realistic example.

The headline reads:
Agriville's top posters agree that Chuck is not the worst poster on Agriville.

So Chuck gets all excited and posts this as proof of his status.
But when you actually read the article, it says the poll was limited to posters named agstar, and that he could find no evidence to support his bold claim.

But that doesn't matter because Chuck already took the ball and ran with it.

[chuckChuck]

Says the guy who thinks more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for us? And that if we stop burning fossil fuels we will run out of CO2!

And all the climate scientists are wrong too!

So we are still waiting on you to produce evidence from any scientific organization that say human caused climate change is not real. Its been a long wait.....

If you are so convinced it is not real why can't you find any A5?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Do you have evidence that increased CO2 is bad in any way? Global greening? Crop yields? Drought tolerance? Increase in all photosynthetic organisms?
And as an added bonus, coincidentally or not, the weather has improved as CO2 increases, increasing the arable areas of the world.
What is the downside?

[LWeber]

[url]https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/9/5/243[/url]


Effects of Elevated CO₂ on Wheat Yield: Non-Linear Response and Relation to Site
Productivity


5. Conclusions

In summary, from this updated research synthesis on CO₂ impacts on wheat crop yield, we conclude that grain yield stimulation does not respond linearly to increasing CO₂ but is likely to reach a maximum and level off already at ~600 ppm. Based on 92 observations in field experiments, yield is estimated to increase by 25% on average under CO₂ enrichment. This level of average response is independent of experimental facilities and geographic location. We attributed the CO₂-induced grain yield stimulation to an increase in total aboveground biomass and a larger number of grains, whereas harvest index and specific grain mass remain unaffected and grain mass only increases to a very small extent. Grain yield response also shows a strong link to site productivity, where relative response is larger in low productive system

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So we should aim for 600 ppm, then ration our CO2 production to maintain that level for as long as possible.

[blackpowder]

Ah yes, the Guardian. Some random numbers with a lot of speculation.
I "think", I "feel", I'm "scared".
Where have all the good English profs gone? Orson Wells would shred these guys.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The words blast past definitely sound credible and scientific.

[jazz]

sea levels are rising, like 1mm per 100yrs.