'Cryptic'? More like craptic.

Dear mhaze,

What on earth was cryptic about it? Pretty straight forward for all but the wilfully deluded.

Glad to know a 10 degree rise in global temperature won't be anything to get hot under the collar over.

Fester

Unlike so many committed denialists I don't make up facts to fit a political or moral agenda. Nor do I start from a conclusion and work backwards and cherry-pick information to support it.

It was only a few years ago that many of the same armchair scientists who were claiming there was no increase in global temperature are now shifting their arguments to the reasons for the increase.

It must be nice to be so certain about things you know so little about.

Here's just one article on nutrition in a higher CO2 world -
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfcfa

"Experiments exposing wheat, rice, and other C3 plants to concentrations of CO2 expected later this century show declines of about 10% in protein, 5%–10% in iron and zinc (and potentially other micronutrients), and up to an average of 30% in individual B vitamins.."

SR,

Oh now I get it. You've forgot how climate works...again.

The question was "Would you please give me the formulae that prove CO2 is capable of increasing global temperature by any meaningful degree."

At its alleged natural level of around 280ppm CO2 increases global temperature by c. 9c.

It is alleged that an additional 2c would be a problem - no evidence, just assertion.

Therefore, before wetting our pants, we need to see at what levels of CO2 we'd see 11c increases in global temperature due to that CO2 (9c + 2c)

I'm pretty sure I've walked you through this before - not sure itf you forgot or it went over your head.'

rache wrote: "Unlike so many committed denialists I don't make up facts to fit a political or moral agenda"

Oh good. So when she wrote: "The difference is that they [hot or cold days and floods] are increasing in frequency and intensity" she obviously had irrefutable data to support that view, which, I'm sure she's about to reveal to us all.

In the meantime she related a study (without linking to it...I wonder why!) which says that plants are less nutritious at higher CO2 levels. It's true that the study does say that, if you, under lab conditions, keep everything unchanged but increase CO2 levels, plants become less nutritious. But the same report also points out that in the real world things aren't that simple. For example, higher temperatures offset the effects of higher CO2. And plant modification completely offset the lost nutrition levels.

Oh now I see why she didn't link to the full report.

rache wrote: "Unlike so many committed denialists I don't make up facts to fit a political or moral agenda".

Of course she doesn't, she doesn't have to. All she has to do is have a naive belief in the squadrons of C grade academics, anxious to ingrate themselves with authority, making up the most outlandish claims of dreadful things the poor much maligned CO2 molecule can do.