Nasa Admits Climate Change Occurs Due To Changes In Earth’s Solar Orbit

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08...vxNsUL2H90mY_ykdP0_XClJ00zYkc2wW7CkuUrWNkeuu0

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
Tags: axial tilt, climate change, climate science, Earth, environment, global warming, NASA, real investigations, solar orbit





(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.






“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.”


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.






Based on these different variables, Milankovitch was able to come up with a comprehensive mathematical model that is able to compute surface temperatures on earth going way back in time, and the conclusion is simple: Earth’s climate has always been changing, and is in a constant state of flux due to no fault of our own as human beings.


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.”

 

It's just easier to believe those evil humans did it.

Dale

 

Good afternoon Last Outlaw,

Does the Club of Rome know about this ?

 

Excellent find LastOutlaw . Perhaps some that have been duped by the one world government crowd are open minded enough to accept the truth ' that they were lied to . The fact is most people once they make their mind up about an issue find it hard to accept an alternate reality . No doubt the left wing / fake news agencies will fight to try to keep the public from knowing the truth .

 

TMT that was so good that you had to post it twice!

 

So over ten years ago Al Gore told us we would all be dead by now. Then there was the story about everything getting colder, but then it became global warming but when it was realized that nothing was really getting hotter it was changed to to climate change. Will many still be buying into it after the next 11 years passes and we are still here doing just fine regardless of what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez says being the genius that we all know her to be?

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOK aaaaand where do all of these pro globalist agenda/global warming/global freezing/climate change scientists get their money from? Funding from pro climate change groups. Is there any motivation for them to produce results that are one sided? You don't get much funding from pro climate change groups when your findings are negative do you?

 

Crollian motion and the science behind the Earth Albedo has been known since the end of the 1800's. Typical of climate change discussion where only a tiny part of the science is accepted because it confirms the prevailing bias.

 

That would be my concern. All scientific funding, if provided by a government, is going to result a some bias. Whilst, in an ideal world this would not be so, if a government wishes to seek, for example, additional oil reserves then funding may be given for oil exploration, hence creating a bias in the areas where funding is given.

 

Just as bias can be found in civilian funding from pro climate change groups paid to scientists.

The whole problem with all of this from both sides is that findings can and most likely are easily skewed to lean to one side or the other. My point is twofold.
1. there has not been enough time pass in the world of mankind for documentation to prove that mankind is causing climate change.
2. Why should over half the world's population ( more likely much much more than half the world's population) change everything in their lives because someone decides that one side is correct and the other is not. Who do they think that they are?

 

If no one can be trusted , perhaps one or two of our Alaska members can tell us if the poll is shifting . They fly a lot and should know if their compass reading is changing .

 

I think the onus is on the individual to research and evaluate the available information and then make an informed judgement. As this is a pepper's forum one must assume that all the members here are probably doing that anyway, not just with climate change, but with numerous other scenarios and reaching their own informed decisions. Further afield the general populace will either research for themselves or take the information the media provides, bias or not. I think that is where the danger lies, as the media is based on sensationalism as much as fact and reports whatever is the flavour of the moment.

One point 1: I agree, but, like all other risk scenarios I think it worth evaluation and preparing for. What we can say to be true is that the worlds population is growing , as is their demand for consumer products, cars etc. We can also say that the resources on earth are finite, which of course we all to be true, there is one earth and it stay the same size. On that basis (unless mankind is able to source materials from other planets or develop radical new technologies) the earth's resources will run out and, hence, cause problems. Whether climate change will exacerbate those problems remains to be seen. There is much scientific evidence to support the theory that climate change is happening, the reasons are, of course, less clear.

On point 2: I don't believe "half of the world's population" should have to change. It is a matter of personal choice. If one looks at Central African countries, they are not in a financial position to change. When one considers China and India one has to be mindful that the US and Europe had their industrial revolutions a couple of centuries ago, we cannot deny growing nations their opportunity to grow. I suspect that the current penchant for climate change activism and the accession of nations to the idea is as much for political gain than a genuine wish to save of the possible effects of climate change (however it is caused). I do believe however that all country have a responsibility to dump less trash. If the many claims of oceanic plastic pollution are to be believed then we all have a responsibility not to send our garbage via the sea to other countries. That's a matter of courtesy.

In summary I went away and got myself a degree in Environmental Science specifically because I wanted to understand the issue with a little more clarity and to be able to look through the media sensationalism surrounding the subject. My conclusion has been that the climate is changing, although I am unconvinced it is wholly a manmade change, if it is man-made at all (I've talked about geological changes etc earlier int he thread so I won't recap here). I do think we all need to be more responsible as consumers and with our waste, but that is a personal view supported by my own beliefs that excessive consumption does not make the human condition a happier one and that we would all benefit from being a bit more modest on our lifestyles

 

Good morning Brownbear,

Ref: "the resources on earth are finite";

The quote is a very, very, very broad statement.

I once worked a project evolving into experimental mining of the ocean floor. Apparently the experiment was highly successful. Of course mining the ocean means pricing changes to onshore mining operations and these mining companies were howling as loud as (the novelist in me) the howling winds. (not a published novelist) Our mining vessel was "moth-balled" just as fast as LBJ mothballed the world's first commercial nuclear ship, the N.S. Savannah.

It's all less about resources and more so about the political aspects of allocating wealth.

At the Cold War museum in Vint Hill Farms, Virginia, there are samples on display of magnaseum mined from the ocean floor.

...

Some foreign nations are not into cutesy . Some are but different than our norms (presuming they still exist, if ever did exist). Some foreign nations do not accept any obligations to spend money on the proper disposal of garbage based on what these nations are told meet the requirements. They can point out that the state government of California gives - not in exchange - gives out plastic syringes to those on the streets for their personal use. There is no exchange requirement nor a deposit requirement. Actions speak louder than shooting up non-prescription drugs.

 

Those resources are finite too. At the moment we have one planet and realistic programme to mine on others. Yes, we will mine the ocean floors etc, but there will come a point in the future where we have stripped out all the earth's available resources and are reduced to resourcing from rubbish and recycling only. The associated question is "when will this happen" and, of course, is currently unanswerable. I also assume that at some point, probably in the not too distant future humans will develop technologies use other materials in every day objects. For example I recently read about plastics created from algae, which could if adopted as a global manufacturing process save vast amounts of oil that could be continued to be used for personal transport - but that's all in the future.

 

There is one point on climate change I will give the doom sayers. If or when enough fresh water has melted back into the oceans from existing glaciers, there will come a tipping point where the oceans salinity levels alter enough that the worlds currents stop or alter radically. At that point, anything will be possible. Humans have never seen it happen before.

Just my .02
Dale