Earth Looks Like Jupiter–Is This What NASA Has Descended to?
June 22, 2023
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
I’m struggling to think of anything more fraudulent than this from NASA:
It goes without saying that the Earth looks nothing like this at all. Neither are GHGs “wreaking havoc”. And as CO2 is invisible, why try to persuade people it is not?
If NASA really wants to inform the public about the effects of carbon dioxide, why don’t they publish instead what their own satellite data shows?
42 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
What an absolutely appalling article.
Surely you mean Homewoods— the image is the end frame of NASA’s highly realistic model of CO2 emissions tagged by source as they travel from their origins into the global circulation over a year—
Watch all 365 days of 2021 in motion at :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-where-it-comes-from-and-where-it.html
Lowering emissions takes none of that unseen CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So what is it that NASA scientists recommend we do about all the havoc?
“havoc”.
Remember, we’re not talking about scientists, but activists. A completely different beast and utterly without scruples or conscience.
Carbon dioxide is not understood. It does not warm the atmosphere, it warms the surface – which is entirely fortunate.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3aavmbj18cc5n21/RvC_scan.pdf?dl=0
They tell us that man made CO2 is one molecule added to ten thousand molecules of atmosphere, almost nothing, then they try to convince us that that one in ten thousand is in control, but common sense and facts have no influence on people who benefit from the green subsidies, or who are afraid to question consensus.
Yes popes……..
Its a large scale corruption of objectivity and morality in science. Should there be any future for such ‘experts’, the publishers who feed the fears of the public and the jeremiad cult.
‘The primary source of CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels’
They are off by only 2400%.
>96% is of natural origins. Man’s contribution is <4%.
Junk science writ large.
From 280 ppm (pre-industrial) to 420 ppm is 140 ppm. Multiplied by 7.8 Gt that represents more than a 1,000 billion metric tons. That’s Man’s contribution. Amazing how little effect it has had on global temperatures.
So CO2 turns the earth to custard – that’s as credible as most other alarmist claims.
I’m seeing salted caramel ice cream…
I thought it was the Moon that was made of green cheese!
I think it was found to be more of a Wensleydale after the UK sent 2 of our top cheese experts on a fact finding mission.
NASA lost all credibility when they came up with the Space Shuttle, throwing away all the Apollo technology and experience. You need one type of vehicle for heavy lifting and one for crewed missions. Trying to combine these in one vehicle was madness in my opinion. Then they had no plans for what was to replace the Shuttle, relying on the Russians to give them a lift to the Space Station. You couldn’t make it up.
As an engineer with an interest in this I completely agree.
The Russians never got anywhere with Буран which was simply left to rust away.
Yep, looks like 999,996 parts per million of CO2 when coloured makes up most of the Earth’s atmosphere. You see, who says modelling doesn’t work? Did NASA scientists receive their degrees from Disney World? Are they paid real money? Do their bosses actually pay them?
As it takes roughly a million drops of water to fill a bathtub, your analogy approximates to denying that the addition of ten pens full of India ink to one will make it hard to see the bottom.
So please do the math.
We’ll all feel better whe you do.
You really counted all the drops of water in your bath tub? Were you in it at the time, or counting from aside. Either way, it sounds like you have way too much time on your hands. Come to think of it, this is my problem as well; wasting time blathering on about drops of water in a bath tub. Pure projection on my part. Please forgive me.
There are 20 drops in a teaspoon , 768 teaspoons in a gallon , and a bathtub holds roughly 75 gallons.
Take it from there.
Like I said–way to mach time on your hands.
Meanwhile, in the real world…
Beware, commentors: Everything but the YouTube box is by India Today. While NASA is full of shit when it comes to climate spin, none of the narrative here comes from them.
Just so.
You can make a model do anything you want with the right inputs. My faith in NASA has long been on the wane. Like Scientific American, they have clearly become an activist organization and moved away from promoting science.
How dare you say that CO2 is invisible. I seem to remember Greta (or was it her mother?) telling us some time ago that she can see it.
I remember that. Unfortunately, I don’t remember what Greta said it looked like. Perhaps incurious journalists didn’t ask her. Perhaps they didn’t ask because they didn’t actually believe her.
I predict that the image – so obviously a fake construct – will very soon appear as an enlarged poster at the forefront of JSO/XR demos in the very near future. I also predict that some clueless, activist MP (Lucas?) raises the topic in the House.
This is clearly a cappuccino in a paper cup photographed from above…..
Looks like Mexico City sky.
Probably some Chinese city skies, too.
Had a pickup game of golf with a man about 5 years ago. He was accompanied by his non-playing, Chinese wife. She was taking pictures. Of the sky. Some spy thing? He explained that where she came from in China she had never seen a blue sky. She was enthralled by it.
I’m sure it’s lot worse than when I lived there. It was occasionally possible to sight Popo and Ixta from near our home off Avenida Palmas up the hill from the Western end of Reforma.
I haven’t been to Mexico City since 1990. Looking at views on Google Earth, the last year showing the extreme air pollution there is year 2000. Maybe they have fixed it.
They were trying when I was there, with alternate day driving law.
Is the photo in question an AI Deep Fake, or just the product of a fourteen-year-old with a new ‘puter and some graphics software? Either way, for NASA to put this out there with the patina of truth their name lends it is disgraceful. Climate is a grift, and this is more evidence. China and India must be holding their sides with laughter.
It’s a scoop of Ben and Jerry’s caramel and vanilla ice cream.
Tick, by.
Tick, VG
“If NASA really wants to inform the public about the effects of carbon dioxide, why don’t they publish instead what their own satellite data shows?”
They may also wish to mention their ‘Planetary Spectrum Generator’ (https://psg.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.php) which can be used to demonstrate just how small the effect of a doubling of ‘greenhouse gases’ really is. (e.g. https://cw50b.wordpress.com/the-methane-myth/)
NASA, it would appear, is just like any other over-large organisation. The technical types know what is really going on but the Marketing department trots out any old bulls**t that brings in money, in this case more grants.
““If NASA really wants to inform the public about the effects of carbon dioxide, why don’t they publish instead what their own satellite data shows?”
They do- why aren’t you looking ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-where-it-comes-from-and-where-it.html
“Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” — Conquest
This applies to government agencies as well.
In fact, Obama overtly compelled NASA to provide aid to Muslims.
‘Obama’s new mission for NASA: Reach out to Muslim world
by Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent |
July 04, 2010’
I don’t know why you are all taking NASA so seriously. They never even went to the moon!
Then where did the moon rocks come from?
To make a cloudy picture of atmospheric CO2, the camera must be tuned to the thin 15 micron wavelength band, which has an energy density too low to heat any black body higher than -80C, colder than dry ice. The Earth’s surface is a black body.
That alone kills the U.N. IPCC greenhouse gas warming theory, but recently I discovered that it isn’t even honest physics but based on a sleazy energy double-counting magic trick, revealing that their physicists knew it was garbage all along and resorted to a magic trick to make their useful idiots. Who wants to pay for tickets to see the lady sawed in half after you learn about the trick saw?
See how the trick works and laugh the IPCC off forever:
https://www.quora.com/Peter-Singer-How-can-climate-change-skeptics-be-persuaded/answer/TL-Winslow