RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: NASA: Climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

NASA: Climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,831
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 14 November 2019 - 02:48 PM

NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels
Friday, August 30, 2019
by: Ethan Huff
Natural News

<More Here That lefties/proggies/democrats Are Too Stupid Too Understand>

(Natural News) For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.

It was the year 1958, to be precise, when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth's axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as "warming" (or "cooling," depending on their agenda). In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet by driving SUVs or eating beef, in other words.

But NASA has thus far failed to set the record straight, and has instead chosen to sit silently back and watch as liberals freak out about the world supposedly ending in 12 years because of too much livestock, or too many plastic 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, climate-obsessed 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.

https://www.naturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-5.jpg


https://www.naturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-3.jpg


"Even the maximum eccentricity of the Earth's orbit – 0.07 – it would be impossible to show at the resolution of a web page," notes the Hal Turner Radio Show. "Even so, at the current eccentricity of .017, the Earth is 5 million kilometers closer to Sun at perihelion than at aphelion."

For more related news about climate change and global warming from an independent, non-establishment perspective, be sure to check out ClimateScienceNews.com.

The biggest factor affecting earth's climate is the SUN

As for earth's obliquity, or its change in axial tilt, the below two images (Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC) show the degree to which the earth can shift on both its axis and its rotational orientation. At the higher tilts, earth's seasons become much more extreme, while at lower tilts they become much more mild. A similar situation exists for earth's rotational axis, which depending on which hemisphere is pointed at the sun during perihelion, can greatly impact the seasonal extremes between the two hemispheres.

https://www.naturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-1.jpg


https://www.naturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-2.jpg


(snip)

<More Here That lefties/proggies/democrats Are Too Stupid Too Understand>
0

#2 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,032
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 07:14 PM

Interesting theory, but the crux being:

Quote

“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.


They believe in truth over facts. Unless that truth is no one wants to deliberately pollute the earth until it becomes uninhabitable. Okay, maybe the Chinese who are exempt from every power grab scheme that the Left concocts.
0

#3 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,004
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 08:47 PM

Yes us pilots understand gyroscopic precession, the earth rotates about 3degrees per year on it's axis. That is normal and it's what gives us variability in our weather. We have known this for over 100 years. That is until this new group of idiots started claiming it was about SUV's and controlling the consumption of resources for the "good of us all".
0

#4 User is offline   NumeroInsight 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Registered Guest
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 14-November 19

Posted 14 November 2019 - 09:13 PM

Milankovich cycles exist, and are well-known, and no one disputes their long-term significance.

So some climate change is natural.

No one disputes this. I don't, you don't, the most wigged-out lefty loony doesn't.

Therefor no one is making the following argument: "No climate change is natural, so any any climate change we see must be unnatural."

Since no one is making that argument, it isn't clear what pointing out "Some climate change is natural" is supposed to be apropos of.

It obviously can't be any argument of the form, "Some climate change is natural, so all climate change must be natural." So what is the point?

Nor can the point be that Milankovich and other natural processes can account for all the climate change we are seeing today. This has been well-studied, and a journalist at Natural News saying otherwise is evidence of nothing, except that journalists (and editors) at Natural News know how to pander to the biases of the audience.

As to what is happening with Earth's orbit about the sun, well, NASA and I are pretty much in agreement on that, and none of it is sufficient to explain currently observed data.

The results of my own simulations of Earth's orbit over the past few thousand years, compared with NASAs

Mean orbital radius is decreasing very slightly just now, but not nearly enough to account for observed changes in Earth's heat budget. It's like noticing you've got a hole in your pocket and you're losing change, and being told that's the reason your bank account is empty.

And eccentricity, which this article talks about for some reason that is not clear, is decreasing somewhat as well. That's a more complex effect, but again: not close to sufficient to explain why the Earth's heat budget has a positive balance.
0

#5 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,019
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 14 November 2019 - 10:33 PM

Well, that's re-Greta-ble...
0

#6 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,963
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 15 November 2019 - 06:12 PM

View PostNumeroInsight, on 14 November 2019 - 09:13 PM, said:

Milankovich cycles exist, and are well-known, and no one disputes their long-term significance.

So some climate change is natural.

No one disputes this. I don't, you don't, the most wigged-out lefty loony doesn't.

Therefor no one is making the following argument: "No climate change is natural, so any any climate change we see must be unnatural."

Since no one is making that argument, it isn't clear what pointing out "Some climate change is natural" is supposed to be apropos of.

It obviously can't be any argument of the form, "Some climate change is natural, so all climate change must be natural." So what is the point?

Nor can the point be that Milankovich and other natural processes can account for all the climate change we are seeing today. This has been well-studied, and a journalist at Natural News saying otherwise is evidence of nothing, except that journalists (and editors) at Natural News know how to pander to the biases of the audience.

As to what is happening with Earth's orbit about the sun, well, NASA and I are pretty much in agreement on that, and none of it is sufficient to explain currently observed data.

The results of my own simulations of Earth's orbit over the past few thousand years, compared with NASAs

Mean orbital radius is decreasing very slightly just now, but not nearly enough to account for observed changes in Earth's heat budget. It's like noticing you've got a hole in your pocket and you're losing change, and being told that's the reason your bank account is empty.

And eccentricity, which this article talks about for some reason that is not clear, is decreasing somewhat as well. That's a more complex effect, but again: not close to sufficient to explain why the Earth's heat budget has a positive balance.

Perhaps it is warming up to what it should be in the first place? But, since no-one really knows what that 'first place' temp should be, that really can't be supported either. For me, it is due to cycles in nature due to numerous reasons, and not anthropomorphic as the left would have us believe (and thereby give them basis to attempt to assert control over us). Meanwhile, as we are being subject to unreasonable control measures (and paying the cost economically and financially) the world's worst polluters, China and India, continue on their merry way, polluting as usual, and paying no heed to the climate alarmist control-freak nut-balls... <_<

This post has been edited by ASE: 15 November 2019 - 06:14 PM

0

#7 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,250
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 15 November 2019 - 06:32 PM


0

#8 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,776
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 15 November 2019 - 07:13 PM

View PostNumeroInsight, on 14 November 2019 - 09:13 PM, said:

Milankovich cycles exist, and are well-known, and no one disputes their long-term significance.

So some climate change is natural.

No one disputes this. I don't, you don't, the most wigged-out lefty loony doesn't.

Therefor no one is making the following argument: "No climate change is natural, so any any climate change we see must be unnatural."

Since no one is making that argument, it isn't clear what pointing out "Some climate change is natural" is supposed to be apropos of.

It obviously can't be any argument of the form, "Some climate change is natural, so all climate change must be natural." So what is the point?

Nor can the point be that Milankovich and other natural processes can account for all the climate change we are seeing today. This has been well-studied, and a journalist at Natural News saying otherwise is evidence of nothing, except that journalists (and editors) at Natural News know how to pander to the biases of the audience.

As to what is happening with Earth's orbit about the sun, well, NASA and I are pretty much in agreement on that, and none of it is sufficient to explain currently observed data.

The results of my own simulations of Earth's orbit over the past few thousand years, compared with NASAs

Mean orbital radius is decreasing very slightly just now, but not nearly enough to account for observed changes in Earth's heat budget. It's like noticing you've got a hole in your pocket and you're losing change, and being told that's the reason your bank account is empty.

And eccentricity, which this article talks about for some reason that is not clear, is decreasing somewhat as well. That's a more complex effect, but again: not close to sufficient to explain why the Earth's heat budget has a positive balance.


Milankovitch Cycles: Geology 110.

What escapes me is how geologists should know these facts but continue to buy into the Climate ChangeTM cult.
0

#9 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,032
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 15 November 2019 - 07:23 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 15 November 2019 - 07:13 PM, said:

Milankovitch Cycles: Geology 110.

What escapes me is how geologists should know these facts but continue to buy into the Climate ChangeTM cult.


Grant money.
0

#10 User is offline   satellite66 

  • No more RHINOs!!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 5,592
  • Joined: 27-November 03

Posted 15 November 2019 - 07:34 PM

Clearly US is at fault we have to many SUVs and gas stations which make one side of the earth heavier and throws the orbit balance off.
Don't you guys understand science??? :whistling:
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users