Measurements Show Planets Axis Wobbling = Climate Change

OP

Does NASA know about this? I mean 'wobbling planets' is the kind of thing they'd be interested in.

 

Yes. NASA knows about the various wobbles. And there is nothing out of the ordinary happening right now.

 

So, you're in the southern USA.

How do I know that? Because angle from zenith of the sun at solar noon on an equinox day will closely match the observer's latitude.

Latitude matters. If your measurements were being made from the equator, that would be a problem. As they're being made from around N33, they're all quite normal.

 

“Collective Evolution” is a woo website that promotes many conspiracy theories, particularly about aliens, alien technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A brief glance at their website reveal posts talking about how Churchill supposedly believed in aliens and covered up UFO information, conspiracy theories about the United States government and financial system, crop circles in the Amazon, reptilian creatures in ancient civilizations, misinformation about nuclear power, secret governments, crank claims about quantum mechanics, the Illuminati, eastern mysticism about meridians, auras and the lost continent of Atlantis.

They call themselves an “alternative news” website, but just like “alternative facts” are actually falsehoods, “Collective Evolution” is a website with new age woo and alien conspiracy theories with very little actual news value. Their social media pages routinely post vague inspirational messages and have been parodied and mocked across the Internet.

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/02/23/collective-evolution-gets-banned-from-reddit/

 

Lol!

Would that be putting down critical thinking? Bwahahhhhhhaaa

It sure as h*ll is a cognitive distortion of "all or nothing thinking" with "labelling".

Damn, . . . cognitive infiltration ought to be subtle.

 

Correct, and some recent comparisions with ephemeris and LAN angles have gotten me realizing that the differences from the normal declination are not great now, but were significant last July. The measured angle has the latitude subtracted from it. Working to set up a spread sheet and process the measurements made since then and compare to the ephemeris.

Thanks! You nailed it.

Frankly, I am not surprised that the differences are not as great as they first appeared without proper processing. I expected about 3 or 4 degrees at certain times.

 

There are good reasons to think something else other than greenhouse gasses are causing climate change.

The Inuit saw it in 2014 when the sun moved in their sky and migratory animals changed their schedules. But NASA will not respond to their emails.
http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2015/04/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue.html

But NASA does say that ice is increasing at the south pole.
(2014)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
And there is confirming info.
(2015)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world/antarctica-ice-gain/index.html
Another view that includes north pole decreases and south pole increases.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
ICE MELTING FROM BELOW
https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2018/07/shocking-sea-ice-thickness-data-from.html?spref=fb
Does critical thinking serve us to indicate that the north pole is warming while the south is cooling. Is this consistent with the axis of the earth tilting towards the sun at the north pole?
I've thought about how a hijacking of science has been used to try and blame "global warming" on carbon emissions. NO doubt it has considerable effect, but the recent accelerations indicate that something else is actually to blame. It's pretty clear that axis wobble and tilt are the real cause.
Okay then, why the elaborate misrepresentation?
The only path of logic that is consistent is that energy companies are playing a shell game with the truth.
By stating that fossil fuel uses are to blame, the spotlight is moved from certain toxic effects of fossil fuels to a global threat of warming. And, it a appears that is what media is doing. It is reporting on "global warming", which this post shows is not happening, and instead shows that the northern hemisphere is warming while the southern is cooling. By doing this fossil fuels prolong their profits until populations figure out that it is not carbon loading causing climate change, and the issue of toxicity is simply ignored. Since the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, the people cannot share the true event or do anything about it and energy companies profits continue.

There are other factors
We have severe vulcanism, carbon in the atmosphere does not do that.

https://www.nps.gov/havo/planyourvisit/lava2.htm

in more than 1 place.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/04/guatemala-fuego-volcano-eruption/668253002

See the ring of fire
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/fuego/news.html

A yellowstone park statement about the fissure there. They don't tell you there is 80 miles between those 2 points.
“The Hidden Falls and Inspiration Point areas are currently closed due to elevated potential for rockfall. The area was closed to protect human safety on July 10 after expanding cracks in a rock buttress were detected. It is unknown how long the closure will be in effect. Geologists are monitoring the buttress for movement and have initiated a risk assessment for the area.”

Then fissures all over the planet. Rain? I think not

10-km-long earth crack opens on Elgeyo escarpment, Kenya
A 10-km-long (6.2 miles) earth crack has emerged on the slopes of Elgeyo escarpment in western Kenya last week, following heavy rain in the region. There are more than 10 000 households living on the escarpment, a part of the western wall of the Great Rift Valley....
May 31, 2018

Over 300 homes destroyed after big cracks appear in Uganda
Over 300 homes have been destroyed after several big cracks opened in Uganda's Namisinfwa district over the past couple of days. According to NTV Uganda, the cracks developed in Bupoto Sub County and Namisindwa town following heavy rain in the region. They go..
May 24, 2018

Large crack in East African Rift is evidence of continent splitting in two
A large crack, stretching several kilometers, made a sudden appearance recently in south-western Kenya. The tear, which continues to grow, caused part of the Nairobi-Narok highway to collapse and was accompanied by seismic activity in the area. The Earth is an...
March 30, 2018

New crevasses near Suswa shield volcano raise concerns, Great Rift Valley, Kenya
New crevasses appeared in Suswa shield volcano area, Kenya on March 19, 2018, severely damaging busy Mai Mahiu-Narok road just one week after a similar incident occurred on the same road. The tear is as much as 15 meters (50 feet) deep and more than 20 meters (65...
March 20, 2018

Large earth fissure discovered in Arizona
A new earth fissure, about 3.2 km (2 miles) long, was discovered 16 km (10 miles) SSW of Picacho Peak State Park of Arizona Trust Land in southern Pinal County, Arizona this month. The new fissure is oriented roughly north-south, and it parallels other fissures in...
January 25, 2015 just by the horizontal rising over a ridge east of me.
______
Others have noticed the sun is not setting in the same place. I've seen it set where it has never set before. There appears to be another component of the wobble on the ecliptic.

 

No there are not, that is utterly false. Gathering evidence that has all come together to lead to the opposite conclusion of that contrived propaganda has been the main thrust of the science for the past 20 years.

 

Please read your own reference. Even though the ice on one cap has gained more then the loss on the other, the net loss on one overall is far greater then the gain over the other. One has land mass, one doesn’t. It pretty much mimics what happens in comparing other places on earth. Some areas are cooling but they are far outweighed by the temp gains elsewhere. Rather then over think this, just read the summary conclusions of NASA and how global warming affects the world at large. Can we trust NASA ? Of course. Once we ( you) use them to buttress one idea, we pretty much accept their overall assessments. NASA takes objective measurements that major corporations, countries and land management entities throughout the world depend upon. You can trust their science as being some of the best man has ever had when it comes to climate change information.

Really, taking ideas out of context by just picking and choosing what we want, doesn’t tell us what NASA is about. We depend upon them more and more each year. I read their summary material FIRST.
At the very least, I’d read my own references.

 

Yes. It while sea ice extents were declining rapidly at the north pole they were increasing at the south pole culminating in a record high there. But that was then and this is now. South pole sea ice extents have since whipsawed to record lows. At this very moment both north and south pole sea ice extents are at record lows.

The south pole is actually warming too; just not as fast as the north pole. There are a few reasons for this, but the main reason is because the SH has a higher relative proportion of oceans than land.

If by recent acceleration you mean the runup in temperatures during 2016 then that was largely the result of a positive ENSO cycle. El Nino's accelerate the flux of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.

No they aren't. These orbital cycles have periods measured in tens of thousands of years. If you really want to attribute the 1C warming in air and 0.2C warming in the oceans soley on these orbital cycles then "steady-as-she-goes" yields confoundingly unrealistic amounts of warming if you let those cycles play out the same way they have over last 100 years.

As said before the southern hemisphere is warming. Also, the fossil fuel industry acknowledge that their products are a significant contributor to the warming after WWII. Recent court documents show that Shell and Exxon fully bought into this idea in the 1980's but hid it from the public and embarked on a disinformation campaign. Now, I'm not saying oil companies are to blame. They aren't. I'm just telling you that even they know that CO2 is a huge factor in climate change today.

Volcanism is a huge factor. For example, Pinatubo 1991 cooled the planet by 0.4C. And despite that the Earth still warmed by 0.6C since 1990. Undoubtedly a future VEI 6 eruption will suppress the warming effect of GHGs. It's inevitable. But, that in no way means GHGs are providing a persistent positive radiative forcing.

Solar grand cycles are also huge factors. The modern maximum occurred around 1960 and total solar irradidation has been declining for 60 years and yet the Earth continues to warm.

 

Vulcanism explains the subsea melting pretty good. My posted links has two about that I think.

My trust of oil companies is zero as they appear to be players in the scheme. They too would prefer misinfo in this case. Too closely linked to government.

My limited review of temperatures in the southern hemisphere has not found many very high temps. Displaced jet stream heatwaves mostly. Cooling has been prominent. Sumatra had its first hail.



This is pretty difficult information to contain.

The solar observatory suddenly has a huge security problem and is closed indefinitely.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sunspot-solar-observatory-closed-new-mexico-ongoing-security-concern/

Yes, grand cycles exist, but the evidence for a coverup of this is pretty good, and the sudden onset in 2014 was noticed by a lot of people using clocks and watching shadows.

It appears the reverse is true because the presentations of science do not explain things. Occams razor is also something to consider Being pushed so hard, with multiple explanatory scenarios, none really sensical, makes for theatre. A ruse and a fraud.

 

I saw the mention of both poles melting in the one link, but it lacked the specificity that others had while also explaining things.

Accountability applies to federal agencies just like everyone else, and they are not being accountable to anecdotal info from the people.

It's actually quite like them to confirm something they've been told not to mention by doing a study that indirectly confirms. NASA has integrity, but still very controlled.

The science of controlled information is definitely mastered. They know what they can get away with.

 

I only saw one and it was only reporting a single research publication. One of anything isn't usually very convincing. Now if you can show me a dozen research publications that have no convincing rebuttals then that'll pique my interest. In the meantime I'll hang my hat on the abundance of evidence that shows there are better explanations and that volcanism from below is unlikely to cause the melting even if these volcanoes are active.

This is a common misunderstanding. Global warming is not in reference to the daily high temperatures. It is in reference to the global mean surface temperature. The mean in this case is the average throughout the entire day everyday of the year over the entire surface area of Earth. The warming is more pronounced during the night and during the winter.

There's no cover up. Solar cycles are monitored by many different organizations and everyone generally agrees with the data that everyone else is collecting. You can't look at shadows to determine when the solar cycles are peaking or troughing. You need to look at sunspots or measure the total solar irradiation.

 

Ha ha. Lacked specificity ?
The article LEAD with this editor’s note statement along with the link to a back up study.

>Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.<

IT WAS THE FIRST STATEMENT MADE IN THE ARTICLE. The highlighted link “studies show” takes you DIRECTLY to the study before you even continue reading the article. How can a NASA publication be more specific !
How can you lie about the article “lacking specificity ?”
You use NASA and an incomplete reference to bolsted a failed argument, then go on to diss their specificity ? That’s lying by omission and it’s deceitful.

 

deleted - wrong thread.

 

What critical thinking?
If you embrace conspiracy websites, fine; just don’t expect to be taken seriously.

 

There is no such thing as the “science of controlled information “ by NASA. Science is the free flow of information with the exception of that which is classified for military and the like purposes. All global warming studies done, initiated or approved by NASA are available for scrutiny, even by frauds who attempt to subvert the messages by taking them out of context.
If deniers actually knew a little science they wouldn’t try so hard to lie about it.

 

The article lacked explanation for the different rate of losses while the mention of land masses was not shown as related.

 

What

What? More “all or nothing thinking” and labeling? Seriously now, cognitive infiltration really is supposed to be subtle. Constant cognitive distortion exposes an unreasonable agenda.

 

It is an ideal that controlled information is not a science perfected by our intelligence agencies. An ideal that our country is supposed to exercise. It’s a front for many scams.

Information is so controlled that I cannot even present collateral evidence and fact because it will be termed a “conspiracy theory” and moved. Controlled information is heavily exercised at all levels.

 

The United States (or any country or entity engaged in scientific research) does not have a monopoly on this information though. If it's observable the information is going to get out sooner or later. And with the ubiquitous nature of the internet more frequently than ever it occurs sooner rather than later. My point...it would be impossible to hide a hypothetical wobble that was significant and which started recently.

 

Not by good science, not by NASA, not by accredited universities throughout the would. You're a conspiracy theorist or really ignorant how science based institutions work. Major corporations develop science based solutions themselves and depend upon help in the science from these other sources. You depend upon medical science. Your selectivity in pretending that good science is not available to everyone is laughable. You don’t even get that the same science used to enhance our understanding of AGW, is also used to help agriculture, find oil,prepare our military and determine long term business goals. The connectivity goes far beyond your simpleton devotion to remaining ignorant and promoting political agendas.

 

The part you haven't explained is how that would affect the amount of heat that the Earth retains.

Without that, you may have identified a change, but not one that causes the planet to heat up.

 

Goo

Good point, one that I had considered. Its the impact of increased sun in areas at the least. Did you see the link to the article about the solar observatory being shut down because of an ongoing security risk?
.
There is also a possible explanation for a solar system wide disturbance of axist that includes the sun, that is cyclical. Good evidence exists of for a 9th planet. It is about 30 degrees of the ecliptic, 10 times earths size and 20 x the orbit distance. Mathmatical models say it is there, but its not been seen yet. There are more articles on it if you search.

https://www.ancient-code.com/someth...m_source=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=SocialPilot

 

What mechanism do you propose that would increase the amount of radiation reaching the atmosphere?

I happen to agree that the evidence for a 9th planet is intriguing. But, I don't see how a planet so far away could have any significant influence on Earth's orbital/rotational parameters nor it's climate.