Remember me
▼ Content

Why I doubt the Climate Theory? Plant food causes climate change?


Why I doubt the Climate Theory? Plant food causes climate change?15-12-2018 00:02
cthor29
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I have lived on the land my whole life, keeping a close eye on the weather. My job and pass times also dependent on what the weather is doing. I've had first hand experience of flood, drought, snow, rain frosts, tornadoes (aka Willi willies), severe thunder storms, extreme heat, extreme cold, bush fires. I've seen it all over the years, and my family have even earlier memories.
So, when I first heard about the Global warming theory, I listened and read with interest what these scientists and celebrities believed until they explained how they came to their conclusions and I said 'Nah'. This did not make sense. Here are my reasons why I do not believe their theories are correct.
* How can 10% of all pollutants (the natural part, the part that feeds the plant life) adversely affect this planet's weather? People have been trying to affect the weather without success for centuries. It would make more sense for the toxic gases emitted by cars etc to suffocate or poison us than for plant food to change the climate???
* How can they get an accurate result using computer modelling when weather data cannot be accurate or reliable? I take the temperature readings every day at home and I can tell you it is impossible to be completely accurate in measuring weather. First, no two readings are the same, there are infinite variables, which way the wind is blowing, how much cloud, radiant heat. How low or high the sun is in the sky. (it can get to 40deg in my kitchen in the middle of winter when the midday sun is low in the sky and comes straight in the window, even if it's freezing outside) The Earth and sun rotations puts it in a different spot every day. You can take the reading in one spot but get a different result just meters away at the same time, so how can you get such a precise prediction to say that the Planet temperature has risen 1 degree. Not possible.
* Conditions have changed a lot over time. Even if they have taken the temperature in the same spot at the same time every day, urban sprawl and population growth have changed the accuracy of the readings. No longer is the reading taken in the middle of a paddock, now they are taken at the airport and on a rooftop in the middle of the city and in a tunnel. The radiant heat from all these places would throw out the accuracy. Years ago, I had a friend who was responsible for his towns weather readings. The rules were simple. The temperature is meant to be taken in the shade, away from buildings at midday when the sun is highest in the sky, considered to be the hottest part of the day. Now they take the hottest reading for the day regardless of the time. So, there is no way there can be accurate readings comparing past data and no way they can conclusively say the world is getting hotter.
* How can they link natural events, (the type that have been happening since the beginning of time) with global warming/climate change? They have definitely pulled this one out of left field. They are called natural disasters for a reason. They have been happening all over the world for ever but only now has the media found them newsworthy. And to the average person it seems that they are escalating. But ask the locals who have lived there their whole lives and they will tell you that its normal.
* Speaking of normal, the Great Barrier Reef is an example. The 'experts' claim that global warming is bleaching the reef, but ask the locals, the ones who have lived on the reef their whole lives and they will tell you that what is happening is normal.
* The same with bush fires, ask the ones who actually know, the ones who have spent their whole lives dealing with the bush and fires, they will tell you that fires are not any different or worse than they have been in the past and everybody who lives on the land knows for a fact that fuel is the crucial part of any fire and the worst fires have all happened during drought when everything is tinder dry, and the fires that have claimed more lives have done so because of where people chose to live, in the middle of the bush with no buffer zone. When I was a child, we were told you had to have a clearing of 100 meters around your house. Gradually it got whittled down till the greenies got control of counsels and people were now able to live in among the trees and it was now illegal to clear a safety zone, so fires are not getting worse, people are just more ignorant as to how nature works. Never take nature for granted.
* If pollution (CO2) was bad enough to affect the planet, the plant life should be saturated, no room to expand, sick from over eating as it were, yet when the last big bush fire came through, the trees grew rapidly in a matter of days after having a big feed of smoke. Remember, CO2 is plant food.
* Fossil fuels are also plant food. I live near Power Stations and contrary to popular belief, it is teaming with life. The plant life loves it. Plenty of growth nearby. Plenty of wildlife because of it. The Power Station reserve is home to many animals seeking a safe home. No adverse effects and they thrive there. From my place you can see the pollution from the power stations and you can see the huge plume of pollution from the city and you can see the pollution from the freeway traveling through the valley. The least pollution comes from the power station. The worst is the freeway. The health problems blamed on the power stations may well be caused by dirty black car exhausted fumes trapped in the valley which I can clearly see on a daily basis.
* As for the Polar caps melting and the seas rising? What was the original mass of the caps? Did the mass expand before pieces broke off? Since the caps are where the planet's fresh water storage is, the water would have to melt in order for it to evaporate and create clouds that would send the rain down on us. During the 10-year drought, which happens every 100 years, the caps melted and voila, the drought broke and we had lots of rain. In Australia there is always drought somewhere. This continent is the driest in the world, a land of drought and flooding planes. Nothing has changed except that there are more people to be affected by these things. As for the seas rising, how can they measure this? The sea is constantly moving. There are many variables, how do you calculate the displacement by fish and boats and everything else in the water. How many were in the water last time it was measured? Do they assume the water from the caps just stays in the ocean when it is actually evaporating into much needed rain fall?
* Many questions, very few answers and none that satisfy me.
* Seems to me that people are our planet's biggest problem, there are way too many people in it. Whether they are affecting the planets balance, I don't know, but I am reasonably sure that we are more likely to starve or suffocate than climate change or global warming happening. Every housing estate built means a farm lost which means less room for trees and less land to feed us and clean the air. That is our biggest problem.
15-12-2018 03:59
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Yeah, the whole 'Climate Change' thing isn't logical. Every living thing on this planet, depends on carbon. And not much of it is consumed from dirt, if any. Can't think of any creature that just eats dirt for it's food source. Plants get nutrients from the soil, but CO2 is the main ingredient in their diet. Most everything survives off eating plants, or the critters that do. People who grow plants in greenhouses commercially, or indoors, augment CO2, to 4-5 times the level in the atmosphere. How can there be a crisis, if plants do incredibly well with way more than they currently get? Where's the logic of reducing CO2, if the planet's most basic food source, is basically starving for CO2 as it is? CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is probably not to far from the tolerance of the instrument used to measure it, considering that CO2 moves around, kind of like clouds (water vapor). It's going to be heavier in some places, very little in others.

Temperature and weather patterns change all the time, we can only make guesses about what to expect, bases on past experiences and conditions, doesn't always work out as expected though. We've been on a warming trend for a long time, at least 10,000 years, the great ice age... It's not a straight line, temperature rises and falls, like summer and winter. Some years, the summer is long and hot. Other years, it's the winter that is long and cold. If you farm, you can't plant too soon in the spring, a late freeze will kill most of it. In the fall, you have to get your last crops harvested, before the first hard frost, or lose most of it. There is no set date, when to plant, or when to harvest, sometimes you get unfortunate surprises. Been like that far as anyone can remember, or ever written.

About 80% of the planet surface is water. Can't really measure water levels it evaporates, it rains (well, snows, mostly this time of year in the northern parts). The oceans, we have high and low tide, which changes constantly. The maximum and minimum aren't the same everyday. Might be only a few inches, sometimes a foot or more, than a month ago.

I've read some of the IPCC assessment report, gets hard to sit and read much at one time. It's not just laying out the findings, it's only bits and pieces of the whole, lot of stuff seems obviously misleading. It's not really science, it's just people discussing the topic, agreeing on certain things, or creating computer simulations, to try to convince other members of the panel, that your idea works. A lot of bias, but very little actual science work on there end. They dig through piles of scientific papers, trying to find some obscur bit, that might look relevant, and use that, even though it doesn't really apply outside a laboratory, or beyond the paper it was written on. They really hype the worst-case scenarios, were the more reasonable expectations are any different from what we've already seen in the past. The reports read more like a science fiction novel, loosely based on actual science, just enough to make it believable.

I don't really believe we can make global changes to the way the planet functions, and it's dangerous to experiment, no backup plan, if something goes terribly wrong. No matter what we do, the planet will survive, and some sort of life will continue to thrive. We might kill ourselves off, but something will take our place, eventually...

Most of my concerns, are the economic impact of this crusade. If the world's governments, decide to buy, and go about fighting CO2, it's going to change the way we live, in a very bad way. Think it will kill more people, than any of the predicted warming events.
15-12-2018 13:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1284)
Yes.

Today as a result of the agri lobby using the bad science of CAGW as an excuse we send massive amounts of agricultural production to make biofuel. Abot 40% of US grain (mostly soya) and a similar amount of EU food production goes this way.

They even import Russian grain to make the stuff.

In no way does this even cause less CO2 to be produced. The amount used in growing it and transporting it and refining it means that it is very close to breaking even at all.

This has caused the price of basic food to be about double what it would otherwise be.

The Arab spring and the Syrian war happened as a result of changes in American biofuel policies which sent shocks through the world.

My guess is that if we stopped this today about 20 million less deaths would happen by this time next year.

The effect of taking such a vast amount of money out of he pockets of the poor, 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day, is to massively hold back the economic development of these people. So with the greater money for such things as having a good water supply or sending their children to school the effects on mortality in subsequent years would be even greater.

Edited on 15-12-2018 13:49
15-12-2018 20:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes.

Today as a result of the agri lobby using the bad science of CAGW as an excuse we send massive amounts of agricultural production to make biofuel. Abot 40% of US grain (mostly soya) and a similar amount of EU food production goes this way.

These figures are wrong for the United States. Argument from randU fallacy. Only about 25% of our crop goes to biofuel, mostly corn. (figures from Dept of Agriculture)
Tim the plumber wrote:
They even import Russian grain to make the stuff.

We import no Russian grain.
Tim the plumber wrote:
In no way does this even cause less CO2 to be produced. The amount used in growing it and transporting it and refining it means that it is very close to breaking even at all.

CO2 doesn't matter. It is incapable of warming the Earth. Increasing CO2 actually helps plant growth.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This has caused the price of basic food to be about double what it would otherwise be.

Another random number.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The Arab spring and the Syrian war happened as a result of changes in American biofuel policies which sent shocks through the world.

No, the Arab Spring revolts happened because their own government introduced policies that began starving their own people. The Syrian War happened because of Russia attempting to take over Syria.
Tim the plumber wrote:
My guess is that if we stopped this today about 20 million less deaths would happen by this time next year.

That's exactly what it is...a guess. Argument from randU fallacy. More random numbers.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The effect of taking such a vast amount of money out of he pockets of the poor, 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 a day, is to massively hold back the economic development of these people. So with the greater money for such things as having a good water supply or sending their children to school the effects on mortality in subsequent years would be even greater.

More argument from randU fallacy. More random numbers. More guessing.

That said, the basic argument is reasonably sound. 25% of U.S. grain is a LOT of food. Much of it is subsidized, destroying the markets for other desirable crops (such as sugar cane). It is price controls, and price controls never work. Sooner or later, such subsidies and the resulting waste and damage it causes must end. When it does, these farmers currently on this welfare system will be hurting the most.

As far as feeding the world is concerned, we already do, despite this. What really needs to happen is to introduce crops that can produce even in poor soil and growing conditions, so the world can feed itself. Eliminating wars and oppressive governments that take all the wealth from their own people would do a lot. Unfortunately, removing oppressive governments often require war.

I like you, Tim. You understand physics a lot more here than a lot of twits in this forum. I want you to succeed in bringing your invention to the market, but you can't do it by making up numbers or quoting someone else's made up numbers.

That way lies failure, and I don't want to see you fail in your efforts.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Why I doubt the Climate Theory? Plant food causes climate change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Flies and fungi: Climate change could make food less safe, experts warn019-03-2019 14:09
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?2731-01-2019 00:19
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?222-12-2018 15:50
Practical experience v Theory2711-12-2018 00:21
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact