New York Times Tries To Explain Sunspots But Fails Miserably

The New York Times pretends to be intelligent and rational.  It is, of course, a propaganda machine that is easily revealed to be run by a bunch of delusional lying bastards and today’s ‘science editorial’ illustrates this very well: Living With a Star – by Dennis Overbye.  His story ends with a series of corrections:


Correction: February 4, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated the size of the sun compared with Earth. The sun is more than a million times as big as Earth, not millions of times as big. It also misstated the timeframe on which the sun’s magnetic field reverses. It reverses direction every 11 years, not 22.


But this isn’t the only stupid stuff!  It has lots of lies inside the story.


It doesn’t oscillate or explode, periodically scorching us or freezing us out. In all of recorded history, as far as scientists have been able to tell, the sun’s output has varied by only a tenth of a percent.


How long is ‘recorded history’? Is the author referring to the last 100 years? There were no continuous observation of the sun before then. My grandfather, Edison Pettit, and Dr. Hubble studied sun spots intensely and then my father, Dr. Aden Meinel, pushed through the Kitt Peak Solar Observatory in the 1960’s.


Before then, there were occasional peeks at the sun but nothing very sustained. If by ‘recorded history’ this guy means, ‘Since writing was invented’ then we know for certain there has been terrible cold cycles and incredible warm cycles in the past and writers noted the vast change in climate conditions when the climate oscillated between warm and cold cycles.


So-called sunspots, which look dark only compared with the brilliance of the disk around them, occur in some regions where intense magnetic fields choke off the rising energy. They wax and wane in concert with the sun’s magnetic field, which reverses its direction every 11 years.


Every sunspot cycle is slightly different and unpredictable. For the last half of the 17th century and partway into the next, sunspots nearly disappeared from the sun. That period corresponded to a prolonged era of European winters known as the Little Ice Age, and some astronomers have suggested there is a connection between low magnetic and sunspot activity and cooler temperatures on Earth.


But solar scientists do know how the sun will perform in the future!  My own father wrote me to warn me that the interior of the sun was behaving in a troubling way which led himself and other scientists to think that the sun is preparing to go into another hibernation era lasting at least 50 but more likely 500 years.  He and others predicted that this present solar cycle would be weak and so it was.


For generations, climate predictors who crunched sunspot data could pretty closely predict climate changes.  Then suddenly it was tossed aside as all sorts of funky things were replacing the honest, trustworthy sun spot counting business.  Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong | Watts Up With That? is yet another example of this.  The volcanoes do have cycles, too. So do tides in the oceans and other systems all of which are actually tied into the solar cycles.  The sun rules all.


The NYT hit piece claims the sun varies only by 10%.  But the sun is gigantic, the earth tiny and a 10% change in a monster sized object has huge implications for the much much smaller satellite objects. The ratio differential is gigantic, almost impossible to comprehend because the sun looks so small in the sky.


The NYT used to pride itself on being scientific and careful.  This has been chucked out the window and flushed down the toilet in order to keep the global warming scam alive.  Here is another trick of the propaganda trade: telling people half of the story and concealing the important bit of information that they need to know but which contradicts the propaganda push:


A solar flare in 1859 produced auroral lights as far south as Hawaii and set telegraphs sparking.


Sunspots recently peaked again in 2014 and are still dangerously high. So far the planet has escaped any direct hits this time around, but scientists are keeping a weather eye on the good old sun.


Living with a star is exciting, but it requires eternal vigilance for the inevitable outbursts.


Sunspot activity has peaked, probably for the next century and this latest ‘peak’ has actually been a decapitated peak. The ‘double peak’ of energy activity was actually the result of it being a weak solar cycle.  Far from being ‘DANGEROUSLY HIGH’ it is lower than half the level of sunspot activity in 1998.  Indeed, the global warmists have reduced that hot el Nino year to 12 levels cooler than the last 12 years which is utterly insane and infuriates me.  The last decade has never been even slightly close to as warm as 1998.  Even young people should figure this out.

And then we have the Washington Post Competing With New York Times For Top Climate Liar Position | Real Science.


Weather and climate agencies around the world have been almost unanimous in declaring 2014 the hottest year on record — something that has promoted considerable chagrin among climate change doubters. That’s because these “skeptics” have long sought to cast doubt on man-made global warming by pointing to an alleged global warming “pause” or “slowdown” — going on to suggest that the computerized climate models that scientists use to project future temperatures are flawed, and overestimate carbon dioxide’s warming effect.


So, is that true? Do the models consistently overestimate the warming effects of greenhouse gases like CO2?


As a recent study suggests, the answer is no. While many models didn’t predict the relatively modest surface-warming “hiatus,” it’s not because they’re biased in favor of greenhouse-gas emissions’ warming effects. Rather, researchers report in Nature, these computer simulations just struggle to predict “chaotic” (or random) short-term changes in the climate system that can temporarily add or subtract from CO2 emissions’ warming effects.


This isn’t ‘chaos’.  If one wishes to know if there is going to be more lightning storms, hurricanes, hot weather and droughts, count the sun spots!  If there are few or none, these other things get much scarcer.  If there are no sunspots, then we have more blizzards, cold weather, early and late frosts and growing ice in both poles! How easy is that???  All too easy!


Instead, the WP claims that No, climate models aren’t exaggerating global warming when there isn’t any global warming and precious little local warming.  Yes, LA is still warm.  It is one of the last places on earth to cool off.


sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:



209 Greenhollow Rd

Petersburgh, NY 12138

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.


sunset borger



Filed under weather news

2 responses to “New York Times Tries To Explain Sunspots But Fails Miserably

  1. e sutton

    Reading news items in MSM is an exercise in bullshit detection. I noticed a similar obfuscation at CNN when I clicked an article, “What Is Causing the Unrest in Ukraine?” or some such. This latest Brian Williams outright lie is making the rounds all over the web. I’m hoping that a few more minds will become open to the truth but I’m not holding my breath.

  2. Pingback: ingenieurs marocains

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s