Author Topic: See, science does not even agree with itself....... NASA (Read 1733 times)

Rella · « **on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 09:11:51 »

Tuesday 19 July 2022
Page 1 of 3 Pages

NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels

NOTE: THIS IS THE CUT OFF PORTION OF THE WORDING IN THIS FIRST PICTURE ABOVE:

straws.

In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the
Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to
extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. But, again, this
information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later, which is why deranged, climateobsessed leftists have now begun to claim that we really only have 18 months left before
the planet dies from an excess of carbon dioxide (CO2).

The truth, however, is much more along the lines of what Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named, proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earth's changing climate patterns.

The below two images (by Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) help to illustrate this, with the first
showing earth at a nearly zero orbit, and the second showing earth at a 0.07 orbit. This orbital
change is depicted by the eccentric, oval shape in the second image, which has been intentionally
exaggerated for the purpose of showing the massive change in distance that occurs between the
earth and the sun, depending on whether it is at perihelion or aphelion.

Tuesday 19 July 2022
Page 3 of 3 Pages

When Milankovitch first put forward his model, it went ignored for nearly half a century. Then, in 1976, a study published in the journal Science confirmed that Milankovitch's theory is, in fact, accurate, and that it does correspond to various periods of climate change that have occurred throughout history.

In 1982, six years after this study was published, the National Research Council of the U.S.National Academy of Sciences adopted Milankovitch's theory as truth, declaring that:

... orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth.

If we had to sum the whole thing up in one simple phrase, it would be this: The biggest factor influencing weather and climate patterns on earth is the Sun, period. Depending on the earth's position to the sun at any given time, climate conditions are going to vary dramatically, and even create drastic abnormalities that defy everything that humans thought they knew about
how the earth worked.

But rather than embrace this truth, today's climate "scientists," joined by leftist politicians and a complicit mainstream media, insist that not using reusable grocery bags at the supermarket and not having an electric vehicle are destroying the planet so quickly that we absolutely must implement global climate taxes as the solution.

"The climate change debate is not about science. It is an effort to impose political and economic controls on the population by the elite," wrote one commenter at the Hal Turner Radio Show.

"And it's another way to divide the population against itself, with some who believe in man-made
global warming and some who don't, i.e. divide and conquer."

4WD · « **Reply #1 on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 11:53:19 »

Don't confuse scientists with science. James Hansen, formerly Director of NASA Goddard, was and is one of the worst purveyors of the dis-science of climate change.

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #2 on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 12:09:49 »

The scientific method is always about testing. Disagreement and skepticism lead to increased knowledge and better understanding.

When dissent is shut down, some take science into a realm of another religion. Morons follow the popes of their new religion like Fauci and whomever the political class holds up as an "expert."

Most of what you are seeing is politically driven, with climate change, with Covid. Phrases like "Listen To the Science" or "Science says this..." should be immediately be viewed with skepticism when spoken by a politician or a bureaucrat regardless of their scientific credentials.

Rella · « **Reply #3 on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 13:09:49 »

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 12:09:49

The scientific method is always about testing.

Exactly why they are wrong so much of the time... like the age of the solar system compared to earth. No testing on the solar system.

Science. scientific methods, and scientists are a faux profession.

Faux Fauci is proof of that.........

So if there is one frowned upon from NASA that has natural occurrences responsible for our heating up..... he could well be more on the ball then any other so called expert.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #3 on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 13:09:49 »

Alan · « **Reply #4 on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 13:32:11 »

Quote from: Rella on Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 13:09:49

Exactly why they are wrong so much of the time... like the age of the solar system compared to earth. No testing on the solar system.

The age of the solar system and the age of the Earth are almost precisely the same, I don't believe that is disputed anywhere.

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #5 on:** Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 14:44:45 »

Quote from: Rella on Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 13:09:49

Exactly why they are wrong so much of the time... like the age of the solar system compared to earth. No testing on the solar system.

Science. scientific methods, and scientists are a faux profession.

Faux Fauci is proof of that.........

So if there is one frowned upon from NASA that has natural occurrences responsible for our heating up..... he could well be more on the ball then any other so called expert.

The scientific method isn't "faux." Neither is science. What is purported to be science can be fake.

Things like the electromagnetic theory can be repeatedly tested.

The age of the earth cannot be tested in the same practical manner.

4WD · « **Reply #6 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 06:19:16 »

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 14:44:45

The age of the earth cannot be tested in the same practical manner.

That is true, however many of the techniques involved in establishing the age of the earth can be tested in the same practical manner. For example, radiometric dating methods can be tested and validated.

Rella · « **Reply #7 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 07:25:25 »

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Aug 17, 2022 - 11:53:19

Don't confuse scientists with science. James Hansen, formerly Director of NASA Goddard, was and is one of the worst purveyors of the dis-science of climate change.

Can you agree that the weather has been doing flip flops from horrible winters around parts of this nation to a lot of heat records being set around parts of the nation.. especially noteworthy this summer when I have, in fact, needed to put the space heaters on
from time to time... which until this year was unheard of.

Now... I wont dispute your assessment of James Hansen.... but I might dispute your seeming poopooing of Nasa observations in general on climate.

Just this AM I got the following from our local Patch. ( If you dont get it.... and it is available to you... it is an interesting read on local stuff... but not yet available to all)[/size]

Quote

Northern Lights May Be Visible: Best Chance To See Them In PA
The next few nights offer Pennsylvanians an amazing opportunity to see the otherworldly aurora borealis.

Justin Heinze,
Patch Staff
Verified Patch Staff Badge

Posted Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 12:49 pm ET
Replies (3)

(Shutterstock / Denis Belitsky)
PENNSYLVANIA — While the fickle weather will determine its clarity, this week could offer residents in Pennsylvania a chance to see the aurora borealis.

Wednesday through Friday night mark the best chances for northern lights displays as far south as Iowa, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center.

Thursday offers the best chance for viewing, experts there say, and that's good news for those in eastern Pennsylvania. Thursday night will be clear, dry, and warm, the National Weather Service said.

Wednesday could be cloudy and rainy for at least part of the night in the Philadelphia area, but Friday is set to be at least partially clear at night, according to forecasters.

Most of western Pennsylvania has a shot on all three nights, but it remains up in the air: partially cloudy skies are forecasted each night, the National Weather Service said.

Find out what's happening in Peterswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Let's go!
NOAA issued G1 (minor), G3 (strong) and G2 (moderate) solar storm watches for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, respectively.

On Sunday, a plasma cloud known as a coronal mass ejection, or CME, was launched from the sun. Since then, the cloud of charged gas has been heading toward Earth at a high speed and is “expected to arrive at Earth as a glancing blow” on Thursday, potentially producing aurora displays “over the far Northeast to the far upper Midwest, across portions of the north-central states, and perhaps over the northwest section of Washington state.”

Solar storms 93 million miles from Earth occur with more frequency midway through an 11-year cycle in which the sun's magnetic fields flip polarity — and that means the northern lights could dance more often in the next decade or so.

Related: Aurora Borealis Displays More Likely In Active Solar Storm Season
They are never guaranteed, of course, but aurora experts say the busy season for sunspots should peak between 2023 and 2028.

The sun's magnetic field flips polarity about once every 11 years — and we're in the middle of that process, the solar maximum, solar storm equivalent of the hurricane season, according to Bill Murtagh, program coordinator for the Space Weather Prediction Center.

Related: Aurora Borealis Hunting: What’s A Kp Index, More Northern Lights Tips
"The sun has negative and positive polarity, just like Earth," Murtagh told meteorologist Jennifer Gray. "During this 11-year period, it does a reversal of the polarity. So negative becomes positive and positive becomes negative. During the middle of that process and transition, that's when those sunspots emerge. So we go through a process when we are in the middle of this transition, we get lots of sunspots and lots of space weather."

You Might Also Like: 2022 Guide To Meteor Showers, Supermoons, Other Celestial Events
The science behind the aurora borealis is complicated, and all many people care to know is that they're jaw-droppingly beautiful.

The aurora borealis becomes visible to the human eyes when electrons from solar storms collide with the upper reaches of the Earth's atmosphere, according to the Space Weather Prediction Center.

In normal circumstances, the Earth's magnetic field guides the electrons in such a way that the aurora forms two ovals approximately centered at the magnetic poles.

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

Note what is said in the middle of this....

Solar storms 93 million miles from Earth occur with more frequency midway through an 11-year cycle in which the sun's magnetic fields flip polarity — and that means the northern lights could dance more often in the next decade or so.

The sun's magnetic field flips polarity about once every 11 years — and we're in the middle of that process, the solar maximum, solar storm equivalent of the hurricane season, according to Bill Murtagh, program coordinator for the Space Weather Prediction Center.

Are you going to tell me that this has nothing to do with our weather?

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #8 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 07:51:29 »

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 06:19:16

That is true, however many of the techniques involved in establishing the age of the earth can be tested in the same practical manner. For example, radiometric dating methods can be tested and validated.

Not quite the same. You can't test the whole rage of any of the different elements involved with radiometric dating and have verification of the results from outside resources to verify the whole range.

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #9 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 08:02:30 »

People forget history and that weather comes in cycles. The water levels of Lake Superior go in cycles. When they were low, it was climate change, then five years later it was about as high as it's been, and climate change is mentioned. Then you talk to some people who have lived in the area for 80 years and they talk about cycles and how this has happened in the past in 30-40 year cycles.

Rella · « **Reply #10 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 08:45:13 »

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 08:02:30

People forget history and that weather comes in cycles. The water levels of Lake Superior go in cycles. When they were low, it was climate change, then five years later it was about as high as it's been, and climate change is mentioned. Then you talk to some people who have lived in the area for 80 years and they talk about cycles and how this has happened in the past in 30-40 year cycles.

Well stated.

4WD · « **Reply #11 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 08:50:44 »

Quote from: Rella on Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 07:25:25

Can you agree that the weather has been doing flip flops from horrible winters around parts of this nation to a lot of heat records being set around parts of the nation.. especially noteworthy this summer when I have, in fact, needed to put the space heaters on
from time to time... which until this year was unheard of.

Now... I wont dispute your assessment of James Hansen.... but I might dispute your seeming poopooing of Nasa observations in general on climate.

Rella, there is no question that the climate is changing. It has been changing since the very beginning. But that really has nothing to do with the whole "climate change" movement. And James Hansen and the rest of the movement has been doctoring data for years to bend the discussion to fit their narrative

The climate change movement is an anti-American, anti-human movement. It is based upon the idea that human beings are destroying the planet and it would really be better off without humans; or at least better off with a lot fewer humans.

You must understand that the entire argument for the coming disaster for the planet has its foundation on computer modelling with has proven to be wrong in any verification study. The move to get rid of fossil fuels is a move to depopulate the planet. The situation as it now stands is based entirely on the availability of low-cost, readily available, planet-wide energy. None of the renewables fit that description. Get rid of fossil fuels and we will be back to conditions of 150-200 years ago which was, for nearly everyone, a subsistence living situation.

There is no data which says that the planet cannot tolerate a couple of degree-increase in global temperature and provide for the projected population of humans over the next decades or centuries; and that perhaps even better than it is today.

Wycliffes_Shillelagh · « **Reply #12 on:** Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 09:08:33 »

Quote from: Rella on Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 07:25:25

Are you going to tell me that this has nothing to do with our weather?

I don't think anybody is saying that. Everyone agrees that solar weather impacts terrestrial weather.

Rella · « **Reply #13 on:** Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 07:02:05 »

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Aug 18, 2022 - 09:08:33

I don't think anybody is saying that. Everyone agrees that solar weather impacts terrestrial weather.

Those green people.. like Greta, AOC, Bernie, Al, and Joe would disagree that it has any major impact and I say it has a great cyclical impact and always has.

They would argue that it is what we do that causes "solar weather" that impacts us.

Alan · « **Reply #14 on:** Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 09:10:32 »

Quote from: Rella on Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 07:02:05

Those green people.. like Greta, AOC, Bernie, Al, and Joe would disagree that it has any major impact and I say it has a great cyclical impact and always has.

They would argue that it is what we do that causes "solar weather" that impacts us.

And not a one of them is a scientist.

Rella · « **Reply #15 on:** Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 14:01:04 »

Quote from: Alan on Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 09:10:32

And not a one of them is a scientist.

But they will tell your to listen to them

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #16 on:** Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 15:27:25 »

Quote from: Alan on Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 09:10:32

And not a one of them is a scientist.

Scientists push this crap too. Money talks

Alan · « **Reply #17 on:** Mon Aug 22, 2022 - 07:07:15 »

Quote from: Rella on Fri Aug 19, 2022 - 14:01:04

But they will tell your to listen to them

For the most part, it is the talking heads you mentioned above that seem to do the bidding for science. It's akin to a <insert denomination> and creating an entire doctrine based on excerpts from the bible to suit their particular narrative.

Cobalt1959 · « **Reply #18 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 03:23:57 »

Quote

Rella, there is no question that the climate is changing. It has been changing since the very beginning. But that really has nothing to do with the whole "climate change" movement. And James Hansen and the rest of the movement has been doctoring data for years to bend the discussion to fit their narrative

The climate change movement is an anti-American, anti-human movement. It is based upon the idea that human beings are destroying the planet and it would really be better off without humans; or at least better off with a lot fewer humans.

You must understand that the entire argument for the coming disaster for the planet has its foundation on computer modelling with has proven to be wrong in any verification study. The move to get rid of fossil fuels is a move to depopulate the planet. The situation as it now stands is based entirely on the availability of low-cost, readily available, planet-wide energy. None of the renewables fit that description. Get rid of fossil fuels and we will be back to conditions of 150-200 years ago which was, for nearly everyone, a subsistence living situation.

There is no data which says that the planet cannot tolerate a couple of degree-increase in global temperature and provide for the projected population of humans over the next decades or centuries; and that perhaps even better than it is today.

This. The Climate Change wags support the scenario for money, and for control. And they want to drastically reduce the population of the Earth. They see humans as a disease on the Earth.

The Earth's orbit affects the climate. The Sun's poles affect the climate. Sunspots affect the climate. Volcanic eruptions affect the climate. I saw some article the other day about predictions for this Winter and La Nina. The article stated that weather patterns and cycles are "not well understood." I think we already knew that. But you have a group of "scientists" basically saying they can instantly set the Earth's temperature like it has a wall thermostat. And the only thing they need to do is control carbon release into the atmosphere. It's that simple, Kids. Not so much.

Let's say they could reduce the carbon levels down to where they think they need to be, even though they know what they are saying is just a shell game. Then you get a couple of really good volcanic eruptions that fill the upper atmosphere with ash and dust, and it's going to hang out up their for at least a couple of years filtering out more of the Sun's rays. You've now created yourself quite a problem, and there isn't any way to fix it. Welcome to 1816 v2.0.

Alan · « **Reply #19 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 06:04:31 »

Understanding the difference between weather and climate would be a good place to start.

Jaime · « **Reply #20 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 06:19:48 »

Inderstanding the natural cycles especially that involve the sun would be a better place to start. Along with we have been warmer and much higher CO2 in the past way before man’s impact than the present. More importantly is that we can do little to meaningfully mitigate the natural occuring climate change. We will not be able to afford the massive and largely futile attempt.

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #21 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 06:36:12 »

Quote from: Alan on Mon Aug 22, 2022 - 07:07:15

For the most part, it is the talking heads you mentioned above that seem to do the bidding for science. It's akin to a <insert denomination> and creating an entire doctrine based on excerpts from the bible to suit their particular narrative.

It is more than talking heads. It is being taught in colleges and high schools as truth.

Alan · « **Reply #22 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 10:38:22 »

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 06:36:12

It is more than talking heads. It is being taught in colleges and high schools as truth.

I don't believe that to be true, especially when it comes to climate change. They may delve deep into the issues caused by man but they also won't exclude the fact that there are many contributors to the actual changing climate.

Jaime · « **Reply #23 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 10:59:04 »

I beieve it IS true what TC said. They believe that the biggest contributor to climate change is Man. I would say the natural cycles by far are the greatest contributor if the past thousands of years is any indication. If the frame of reference is the last couple of hundred years, that is a skewed and alarmist view.

And what MUST be considered, what is the optimum climate over Earth’s history and why? Are glacial periods closer to optimum or normal or is interglacial periods closer to optimim or normal. If we don’t know the target, how will we devise a path there or know when we have arrived?

Texas Conservative · « **Reply #24 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 11:22:43 »

Quote from: Alan on Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 10:38:22

I don't believe that to be true, especially when it comes to climate change. They may delve deep into the issues caused by man but they also won't exclude the fact that there are many contributors to the actual changing climate.

It's true.

Human Causes Vs. Natural Causes

Scientists have pieced together a record of the earth’s climate by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate, such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun.2 This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.3

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change

Scientists have been studying the Earth’s powerful greenhouse effect for more than two centuries. As world-wide economic development caused large emissions of greenhouse gasses by the mid 20th century, scientists around 1970 began to study how these emissions would affect our climate. At the turn of the 21st century, a pronounced planetary warming trend was obvious. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”

https://www.online.colostate.edu/badges/understanding-climate-change/

Jaime · « **Reply #25 on:** Fri Aug 26, 2022 - 11:59:39 »

Though entire continent sized glaciers melted away AND RETURNED many centuries and millenia before man’s influence was significant.

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: See, science does not even agree with itself....... NASA (Read 1733 times)

Christian Forums and Message Board