Topic: NASA admits climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit... - page 2. (Read 396 times)

People are just crazy. They’ll swear to anything if it fits with their beliefs. Most liberals probably think Mars is cooler than the Earth because there isn’t any pollution on Mars. It really isn’t brain surgery. The farther from the giant flaming ball we’re circling in space you get, the cooler the temperature. That’s the main factor.

~

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

NASA admits the Sun isn't causing global warming^^^^
(And they do a really good job explaining why they know it's not)

Remember Krakatoa in the late 1800s? When it blew, it darkened the skies around the whole of planet earth. And there were others. And solar cycles swing climate change back and forth every 11 years or so.

I'm sure that mankind contributes a tiny amount to climate change. But it is so small that if we didn't have solar changes and volcanoes interfering with out measurements, we might be able to measure human climate change.

Regarding CO2, often other chemicals are released by man right along with the CO2. But CO2 along with oxygen are the building blocks of life... especially plant life. If we had more CO2, we wouldn't need chemical fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides on our fields. The plants would grow so strong and healthy that they would resist 'bad' stuff all by themselves.

All the CO2 greenhouse effect stuff is simply speculation. And here is how speculative it really is. When people thought they could build a biosphere habitat, where they would live sealed off from the world, it barely worked for a period of time. Ultimately it failed.

The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.


Is the Sun causing global warming?

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

Is NASA saying human activities are not the reason for climate change ? I doubt that humans don't contribute hugely to the change in the environment, although there are natural occurrence that could affect the climate like.carbon dioxide which is emission from vehicles, there is nitrous oxide, vapour from boiling water other substances and there are more that are human activities causing change. The issue is most of the causes of climate change is human factor, smoking is also part of it.

One of these actors is the well-funded think tank ISD, which focuses on influencing European populations in a range of areas. They have recently released a report showing that the globalists believe they are losing the propaganda and information war regarding climate. The opponents who are singled out as “super-spreaders” of “disinformation” are surprising in several ways.

(Article republished from FreeWestMedia.com)

The extremely well-financed and influential globalist think tank Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), the Institute works with influence campaigns directed at the populations of Europe and is paid for by these populations’ own authorities as well as globalists such as Bill Gates and George Soros.

One of the ISD’s focus areas is to monitor those who question or contradict the establishment climate narrative that there is global warming due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions. On June 9, the ISD published a 115-page report entitled Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 & Beyond.

COP26 (Climate Change Conference 26) was the United Nations climate change conference that took place last year between October 31 and November 13 in Glasgow, United Kingdom. At least 120 world leaders and over 40,000 registered participants, including 22 274 party representatives, 14 124 observers and 3 886 media representatives flew there to discuss how people could be made to emit less carbon dioxide.

MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER is an American author and democratic politician, including a gubernatorial candidate in California. He has been named “Hero of the Environment” by the news magazine Time and is a winner of the Green Book Award. Shellenberger has been called by the establishment “environmental guru”, “climate guru” and “North America’s leading public intellectual on clean energy” and “high priest” of the environmental movement. After he changed his mind, he is now singled out as one of six people that the globalists especially emphasize as a threat to their climate narrative, not least because he comes from their own ranks. Photo: Michael Shellenberger

The climate conference was held at a time when many governments around the world had far-reaching travel restrictions that made it almost impossible because of forced medical experiments, to allow the public to fly or otherwise travel.

...

There has been a massive rise in the annual growth of coral over Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). According to the 2021-2022 annual summary from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the level of coral cover in the northern and central areas of the reef is now at its highest levels over the past 36 years of monitoring.

However, this excellent news is being downplayed by mainstream media. This comes as no surprise as the demise of the world’s coral reefs has been the go-to poster scare for climate change activists.

In October 2020, the BBC told stories of the reef losing half its coral, while the Guardian set the coral doomsday ball rolling in 1999 by reporting that the “imminent destruction of the world’s coral reefs is not a scare story,” adding that “global heating could jeopardize recovery.”

Still, many believe that the notion of global warming causing corals to die is a fib that “environmentalists” made. Tropical coral, which is closely related to its cnidarian cousin, the jellyfish, thrives in waters between 24 to 32 C. They are highly adaptable, but seem to dislike sudden changes in temperature, which are often caused by natural weather phenomena such as El Niño events.

The latest results from AIMS show that coral quickly recovers when localized conditions return, and often grows faster in warmer waters nearer the equator than in the GBR. This lie suggests that minor long-term sea temperature changes will wipe out the coral, but scientific evidence suggests otherwise.

Evidence shows coral reefs are not actually dying

Data from AIMS showed that growth can be seen in the northern reef, and recovery is said to have continued following a “period of cumulative disturbances” from 2014 to 2020.

...

Kind of weird then how the biggest recipient of donations from the oil industry is Manchin, the one Dem who was against the climate bill. And that the bill only passed once he'd wrung out a load of concessions for new fossil fuel exploration in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. You seriously think he's actually an uncover tree-huggin' eco-warrior whose overriding desire is to promote green energy?

You have a fundamental misconception of what science is, and how it advances.

Why, because Russia has turned off some magical unknown green energy pipeline, that supplies the rest of Europe? Are you sure? So shutting off the gas pipeline is just an elaborate ruse, and really Russia is depriving the continent not of gas, but of renewables?  

As for 'big oil', they are the biggest sponsors of the 'green' scammers who are making bank off the whole charade.

Consider over the last 300 years, all the scientific conclusions that were considered hard fact until some other scientist came along and proved them wrong.

the war in Europe has shown the Western European governments just how little 'green' really works.

If someone spends pretty much their entire time in P&S attacking every example of scientific evidence that is presented, then it seems reasonable to conclude that their arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based. If they then cite as a source of authority an institution that they've previously and routinely disparaged, then that just lends weight to the conclusion that they're simply seeking out anything that anybody says that supports (or, more often, and more superficially, merely appears to support) whatever half-baked notion they have already decided, sans evidence, is the indisputable truth.

No, I don't get it, because this is complete nonsense. You do realise that the oil companies make vast profits, and indeed have announced record-breaking profits during the last few weeks? But you contend that they are actually intent on destroying their own gargantuan money-making machine in order to further a green agenda? Seems somewhat unlikely. 

...

No, I don't get it, because this is complete nonsense. You do realise that the oil companies make vast profits, and indeed have announced record-breaking profits during the last few weeks? But you contend that they are actually intent on destroying their own gargantuan money-making machine in order to further a green agenda? Seems somewhat unlikely. 

When a bunch of simps are chumped by huxters such as NASA and their spreading of fake science, then the simps have _no_ leg to stand on when NASA comes clean on 'the science'.  That is good reason to call attention to it.

As for 'big oil', they are the biggest sponsors of the 'green' scammers who are making bank off the whole charade.  Last I looked oil was going for something like $90/barrel and it technically easier and cheaper to extract/transfer than it ever was due to a variety of developments.  Do get it?  Probably not.

Weird to see someone with such an aversion to science and facts suddenly regarding NASA as a source of authority. But there we go, even Big Oil shills can surprise us from time to time.
...