Envirowatchers
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
16381 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 17:09:18
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s s |
URL: “The climate change debate is not about science. It is an effort to impose political and economic controls on the population by the elite,” |
|
NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in Earth’s solar orbit, and NOT because of SUVs and fossil fuels
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.”
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news- page/world/nasa-climate-change-and-global-warming- caused-by-changes-in-earth-s-solar-orbit-and-axial- tilt-not-man-made-causes
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16429] [16397] [16406] [16407] [16408] [16411] [16412] [16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] [16389] [16392] [16404] [16387] [16388] [16386] [16383] [16409] [16384] [16382] [16385] |
|
16429 |
|
|
Date: September 10, 2019 at 22:01:09
From: long timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: AND YET...The Return of the Blob |
URL: https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/extraordinary-ocean-heatwave-called-the-blob-is-back/ar-AAH6btK?li=BBnbfcL |
|
It could be the return of "The Blob" and scientists are worried. A huge mass of extra warm water extending from Baja California in Mexico all the way to Alaska and the Bering Sea could result in death for many sea lions and salmon, as well as toxic algae blooms that can poison mussels, crabs and other sea life.
When it happened in 2014 it was dubbed “The Blob” and disrupted sea life between Southern California and Alaska. Now it's back.
The ocean heatwave began to form in June. "Temperatures are about as warm as have ever been observed in any of these locations. It developed in mid-June and it's gotten really big really fast," said Nate Mantua, head of the Landscape Ecology Team at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in Santa Cruz, California.
The surface temperatures of the ocean in the affected areas are between 5 and 7 degrees above the long-term average. The so-called blob covers an area of 4 million square miles, or three times the size of Alaska. It extends down between 165 and 325 feet, Mantua said.
The only other known major ocean heatwave in 2014 stuck around for two years. It covered a slightly bigger area of 4.5 million square miles of ocean. The warming comes from a ridge of high pressure that keeps winds calm.
"The winds have been persistently weaker than they normally are this time of year," said Mantua. "If the winds stop, the surface warms. If the winds stop for a long time, that warm surface water just gets deeper and deeper because the sun’s warming it up." Whether it will last as long as the 2014 heatwave is impossible to know, say scientists.
"If the weather patterns that led to its development change all of the sudden and we get some cold snaps and storms, then it could dissipate pretty quickly," said Stephanie Moore, a NOAA research oceanographer at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle.
The heatwaves are unprecedented. Satellite records go back about 40 years and ship observations 100 years, but nothing in the historical record has matched either of these two events, Mantua said.
Along the California coast, the blob-like warm areas are still about 1,000 miles away from shore, though the very fringes of the warm patch have been approaching some California coastal areas.
In Washington state, the warm area has reached the shore, where it's causing a toxic algae bloom that has prompted health officials to caution against eating mussels from state beaches. The bloom is exceptionally large, with unusual levels of an algae called alexandrium that produces saxitoxin, a deadly neurotoxin that can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning. Mussels have been collected on Washington shores that contained over 10 times the regulatory limit of the toxin for human consumption, Moore said. “There’s no antidote. You’ve just got to get yourself to the hospital, get on a respirator and hope for the best,” she said.
The warm area that persisted off the West Coast in 2014 and 2015 got dubbed "The Blob" by scientists in part because it wasn't something they'd seen before. With the arrival of this year's ocean heatwave, they've realized such events need a new name because they're probably likely to happen again. So they've dubbed this one "The Northeast Pacific Marine Heatwave of 2019."
"It's not a very snazzy title," acknowledged Andrew Leising, a research oceanographer for NOAA in La Jolla, California, who's developed a system to track and measure the heatwaves. "But it is one of the most significant events that we've seen."
Is climate change to blame?
Why any one climate event happens is always impossible to know. However there are global changes to the oceans that are likely affecting the marine heatwaves.
One is that the world's oceans have warmed by about 1 degree because of human-caused global warming. "The oceans have absorbed about 90% of the excess heating that's being caused by greenhouse gases," Mantua said.
These two ocean heatwaves, coming so close together, could portend a new abnormal-normal, where our old experience of what the oceans look like isn’t necessarily a good guide to the oceans of the future, he said.
“The natural phenomenon that have always caused one year to be different from the next may not be that stable. We’re fundamentally altering the heat balance across the whole planet,” he said.
That shifting heat balance won't bring good news for the ocean's inhabitants. Warmer water isn't as nutrient-rich as the colder water that wells up from the bottom. So it doesn't support the same tiny plants and animals that sustain marine life.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16397 |
|
|
Date: September 07, 2019 at 16:05:13
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in... |
|
|
That article is so seriously flawed, it's laughable. Scientists have known about Milankovitch cycles for many years.
Milakovitch cycles cannot account the rapid climate change the earth is currently experiencing. The milakovitch cycles occur over tens of thousands of years. The current climate change is occurring on a timescale of centuries or even decades now. Atmospheric greenhous gas concentration is strongly correlated with global temperature across all measured time periods. And humans are increasing the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere at a rate not seen in the geologic record.
Even ExxonMobil acknowledges that carbon emissions contribute to climate change:
"Our position on climate change
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16406] [16407] [16408] [16411] [16412] [16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] |
|
16406 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 02:48:34
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
Hi Sheila,
you fail to provide factual evidence that supports your assertion that natural cycles such as the ones presented in Logan's reference cannot account for the rapid climate change the earth is currently experiencing.
You also fail to provide factual evidence for your implicit assertion that what you call rapid climate change is out of the norm, compared for example, to the variations over the past 12000 years.
Wikipedia is not known for what your or Redhart would want to call "naturalnews"ing just because you disagree with it. Yet, the temperature variations over the past 12000 years as displayed in the following graph https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_V ariations.png suggest our current climate phase is not extraordinary. And you show no proof whatsoever that humans and their rampant extreme stupidity of destroying their own environment has any significant effect on climate.
It amazes me that an article which gives ample good reason to question the "rapid and human caused climate change" receives ZERO attention, this one https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf, which I cited in a recent post: http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/geology/messages/91954.html
Apparently the IPCC models have left out low cloud cover variations and causes from their models. In other words even horse manure on a New Hampshire farm has more scientific validity than the prevailing IPCC models.
This paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf cannot even be disputed away by calling it bad names. It just completely shatters the prevailing IPCC assertions on climate development.
sequoia
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16407] [16408] [16411] [16412] [16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] |
|
16407 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 08:18:38
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
URL: This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem |
|
"This paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf cannot even be disputed away by calling it bad names."
Tut Tut sequoia - you of all people should know better not to be critical in analysis.
"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."
They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.
The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.
The paper's authors wrote that "clouds and humidity are causing all the temperature change, but satellite measurements suggest, if anything, the opposite," Mark Richardson of the University of Californa, Los Angeles/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the experts consulted said, citing his sources like a proper scientist.
That the paper is not scientifically viable has been proven. Of course, any retractions that are published will not be seen by as many people as the original uncritical articles themselves, so the damage has already been done."
Not to say cloud data isn't important, but even with early satellite data it can be tricky to differentiate, and can only go back a few decades with the capability to directly observe by looking down from above.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/new-data-from-old-satellites-a-nimbus- success-story
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16408] [16411] [16412] [16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] |
|
16408 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 09:50:34
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
|
Hi Alan,
the article mentioned appears to be a reassessment of IPCC AR5 as that is what the authors are referring to. Unfortunately, the AR5 data are hidden in a jungle of links which makes it difficult to find and download data. Plus you have to register to get access which is a completely unnecessary obstacle.
The AR5 dataset appears to contain low cloud cover data. But I could not find any data set spanning the period from 1983 to 2008 which is referenced in the article. I assume it is hidden in the AR5 dataset, somewhere on level 15 perhaps.
If you want to know what data the authors used ask them. An email adress is provided at the end of the arxiv paper.
There is no need to understand the physical relationship between cloud cover and temperature for determining how they correlate. However it should be clear to even a lay person that clouds prevent solar radiation, also known as light, all the way from UV to infrared, from reaching the air below the clouds and the land or ocean surface. So what is your problem? Cannot think for yourself?
The "Climate Feedback"ers did apparently not read the article very accurately. Plus: computer models are indeed models, simulations and provide no evidence whatsoever for anything. So again, what is your problem? Cannot think for yourself?
Perhaps you take the opportunity presented with the above arxiv paper to begin thinking for yourself rather than merely cite another remote and highly disorganized comment which is based on nothing but a debunking attitude to get rid of valid criticism.
Newer monthly average cloud cover data, or cloud fraction as it is called on the NASA page, can be found here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MODAL2_M_CLD_FR https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/globalmaps/data/mov/MOD AL2_M_CLD_FR.mov
I wonder if the IPCC has ever noticed them. I very much doubt it as the IPCC is only revolving around their mantras and temples very much in the fashion of a climate change prayer mill.
Their (IPCC) first step to openness would be to reorganize all data used for their models in non-obfuscating ways. Right now the presentation and access to IPCC AR5 (and previous) data set reminds me of the "obfuscated code competion" in Dr.Dobbs Journal of earlier days.
Perhaps you want to try yourself to download the IPCC AR5 low cloud cover and temperature data? That might be very instructive for your own development.
sequoia
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16411] [16412] [16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] |
|
16411 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 12:13:20
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
|
"The AR5 dataset appears to contain low cloud cover data. But I could not find any data set spanning the period from 1983 to 2008 which is referenced in the article. I assume it is hidden in the AR5 dataset, somewhere on level 15 perhaps.
If you want to know what data the authors used ask them. An email adress is provided at the end of the arxiv paper."
You posted the paper with its lack of data source - up to them or you if you can find it. Not my job, I'll leave that you to count and double check the pixels for accuracy as the OP if you can find the time in your busy schedule counting errant goats and stampeding earthquake snails as is your peculiarity.
The "Climate Feedback"ers did apparently not read the article very accurately. Plus: computer models are indeed models, simulations and provide no evidence whatsoever for anything. So again, what is your problem? Cannot think for yourself?
Ever wonder why there's a reliance on certain models to account for certain things before half-way or so through the 20th Century, and why if you demand direct data it won't help in the slightest - heck I even gave you a major clue in my previous post.
Here's clue 2 to help
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16412] [16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] |
|
16412 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 13:31:51
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
|
Hi Alan,
you are wearing your nose way too high.
I am not your servant. It is not my job to find data for you. I assume the authors did not provide a link to the data because they used the AR5 data for the re-analysis. They seem to refer to AR5 data only. The fact that the IPCC data are hidden behind a registration check does not help. It is IPCC data mismanagement and intransparency not necessarily a shortcoming of these authors. Maybe the authors are not even allowed to release data or provide a link in their publication if the data used are from AR5 because of licensing issues or some such stuff. The IPCC data repository seems to be a mighty strange operation.
Your clues I really don't need. You can send them all to the sea lion in charge at Pier 39 in San Francisco for honorable distribution among the resident crowd. Those sea lions are always hungry and will eat them in no time flat.
Plus I rather think for myself. You can of course choose to let other people do the thinking for you. That is easier on your brain so that your high nose can point skyward.
sequoia .
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16414] [16416] [16417] [16418] [16413] |
|
16414 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 16:54:38
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
URL: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL-1.pdf |
|
with a bit of searching, it didn't take long at all to find IPCCs AR5 chapter 7 "Clouds and Aerosols" It's at the link. I also found the IPCC Summary as well but for this purpose, thought you'd enjoy reading the chapter on Clouds, etc. It's 88 pages though, enjoy!
I can't imagine why the authors of your favorite climate denial paper couldn't have provided a link. Most peer reviewed science papers do just that with all their referenced papers, at least the hundreds that I've read. BTW, the authors didn't "prove" anything as they claim. As the old saying goes; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.
I have bigger fish to fry as that paper is junk science IMHO so carry on.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16416] [16417] [16418] |
|
16416 |
|
|
Date: September 09, 2019 at 09:45:33
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
|
Hi Sheila,
I was referring to the IPCC data repository which, in my opinion, is a chaotic jungle of links where everyone can sort of pick whatever data they want to pick to arrive at whatever result they want to get.
Until a few years a go it was not routine at all to provide access to data. Today it is more common. But it is still the author's choice. I would not dare call a well-written scientific article junk because there is no online link to the data. If you applied this standard backwards and everywhere then 99% of scientific articles and books ever written could be considered junk.
The reasoning in the article is very simple. Even a kindergartner can understand it. Whenever you have increased cloud cover then less radiation from the sun arrives in the region below the clouds. What is is unscientific about this?
The authors have shown clear evidence supporting their claim that low cloud cover and temperature are anti-correlated, furthermore that the IPCC has directly or indirectly ignored this relationship because they give far too little weight to it and way too much to their biased choice.
There claim is anything but extraordinary. It is well founded reasoning which makes them arrive at their conclusion. Your "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is simply a hidden mechanims to stifle real discussion.
You appear to hang on to mainstream opinions. You let no one get even close to questioning mainstream methods, procedures, algorithms, data handling and such.
"The phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere."
It is a phrase mostly used to denounce critical thinking when no real arguments are available. You have presented not one argument invalidating the paper in question.
You or the IPCC are not the only ones in this world who can think. It is disrespectful to denigrate critical voices.
If you have bigger fish to fry that is fine with me. However, keep in mind that whenever there are low clouds hanging in the air your solar oven may be quite dysfunctional as the necessary rays from the sun don't make it to its focus or cooking chamber and your fish will remain quite unfried and unfit for human consumption.
Your criticism here is way below the standards you impose on other contributors to this board.
sequoia
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16417] [16418] |
|
16417 |
|
|
Date: September 09, 2019 at 13:34:08
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
|
"The reasoning in the article is very simple. Even a kindergartner can understand it. Whenever you have increased cloud cover then less radiation from the sun arrives in the region below the clouds. What is is unscientific about this?"
"There is no need to understand the physical relationship between cloud cover and temperature for determining how they correlate."
So Venus should be in an ice age and Mars should be balmy or is it possibly a little bit more complicated...
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16418] |
|
16418 |
|
|
Date: September 09, 2019 at 14:08:33
From: sequoia, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
|
|
Hi Alan,
you obviously have no experience in analysing data yet care to chime in with your arrogant and unqualified comments.
You can compare any two series of numbers numerically and determine if there is some form of correlation. You can do this visually or with a program. There is absolute noe requirement whatsoever to even know the meaning of the two number sequences which you compare.
One could, for example, compare the length of hair on the left side of your brain to the width of your teeth. Ideally you have two numerical sequences of equal length, let's say 365 brain hair filament length numbers and 365 teeth width numbers which you probably come up with easily.
Then you compare those two numerical sequences either graphically or mathematically. In either case you can find out easily if there is some form of correlation and how much. Quite often it happens that one series is shifted relative to the other, your hair could lead your teeth by so and so many steps or vice versa your teeth could be in advance of your brain hair.
The determination of a correlation between two numerical series is entirely independent of the meaning of the sequences which are compared. And consequently there is no need whatsoever to understand if they are physically connected and if so, how you explain that connection or the forces that create it.
It appears you are far below kindergartner level in your mental development or you belong to the paid spook family which often uses 3-letter names.
I would not even rule out that your high-nosed arrogance creates enough linear and angular momentum to initiate an exchange of trajectory for Venus and Mars so that, as you suggest, Venus turns icy and Mars offers balmy conditions not unlike those in Florida so that you can spend some time on any of the beautiful sandy Mars beaches which are known to host sub-kindergartners.
sequoia
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16413 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 15:21:32
From: Alan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf |
URL: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations |
|
You really don't get it do you?
"There is no need to understand the physical relationship between cloud cover and temperature for determining how they correlate."
Another case of > https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Let me guess, you've been sucked in by Electrowooniverse...
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16389 |
|
|
Date: September 07, 2019 at 09:22:31
From: kay.so.or, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in... |
|
|
have you read Mitch battros book 'Solar rain'?...I have always believe that there are many factors going on, solar, earth shift, deliberate manipulation of the weather, and man made things affecting it...plus perhaps other factors and I don't think it can't be stopped. Mankind had polluted the air/sea/land and ourselves to the point that life is almost unsustainable, which we see with so many being sick and dying.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16392] [16404] |
|
16392 |
|
|
Date: September 07, 2019 at 14:34:17
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes/Kay |
URL: http://earthboppin.net/talkshop/archives/theend3-14to5-15/messages/50546.html |
|
Kay wrote:"plus perhaps other factors and I don't think it can't be stopped"
did you meant to write, I don't think it can be stopped?
I'm with you, allot of factors involved. Never read that book called Solar Rain. But according to my dream couple years ago, I called it, Plasma like bullets, told me that.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16404] |
|
16404 |
|
|
Date: September 07, 2019 at 18:26:36
From: kay.so.or, [DNS_Address]
Subject: lol....yuppers |
|
|
thats what I meant...a double negative huh....lol...thats my brain on migraine mode!
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16387 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 23:17:24
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in... |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16388] |
|
16388 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 23:18:26
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in... |
|
|
oops, outta order...
scuze please
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16386 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 22:49:39
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: 5 Surprising Scientific Facts About Earths Climate |
URL: LINK LINK |
|
It surprises many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16383 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 20:40:15
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re natural news |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16409] [16384] |
|
16409 |
|
|
Date: September 08, 2019 at 12:09:42
From: DebbyS-AbqNM, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Other sources... |
|
|
On YouTube: Adapt 2030; Suspicious0bservers; probably Thunderbolts Project; Piers Corbyn; Rolf Witzsche; Ice Age Farmer; Oppenheimer Ranch Project... and no doubt many I have missed as more and more folks become interested in theories that are not supported by the mainstream. Many YT channels are heavy into the science of what the Sun appears to be doing; others are observing what is happening on Earth now that we have many ways to watch and report. So you may enjoy increasing your knowledge :)
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16384 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 22:39:35
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Re natural news |
|
|
No doubt you're moving on to more fake news and more fake science that serve your AGENDA.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
16382 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 18:12:11
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in... |
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[16385] |
|
16385 |
|
|
Date: September 06, 2019 at 22:42:51
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: NASA admits that climate change occurs because of changes in... |
|
|
Now that IS charp! But even NASA can stumble onto something accurate once and awhile.
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |