+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16867
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 22
Most Online Ever: 1208
(March 28, 2024, 07:28:27 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

Author Topic: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years  (Read 1910 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
« on: November 13, 2013, 04:04:22 pm »
Sun Is Weakest In 200 years
Posted on November 12, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
Sunspot Activity at Record Low, And Magnetic Orientation Is Puzzling
Propaganda 101Key words above and hidden persuader:


2. LOW------------>COOLING



Does the above mean we no longer have to worry about Global Warming?

Do you not find it suspicious that the WALL STREET JOURNAL is so concerned with our welfare?
You normally are quite suspicious of news that would OBVIOUSLY bolster the dirty energy status quo. You don't think this one does that?

Do you, or do you not, agree that the above news LACKS one important feature of serious scientific inquiry (i.e. The statement that RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF THIS PHENOMENON ON EARTH'S CLIMATE)?

Isn't it just AMAZING how we can be showered with erudite and "scientific caution to not jump to conclusions because more research is needed" when severe weather frequency and strength (as claimed WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA by over half of climate scientists) is caused by Global Warming from burning fossil fuels but when a phenomenon that they "ADMITTEDLY HAVE NO CAUSE AND EFFECT SCIENCE OR TRACK RECORD TO JUDGE ITS EFFECT ON GLOBAL WEATHER" occurs (i.e. the "WEAKEST SUN" in "200 years" - nice round number, EH, Surly? Would you like to CHECK meteorological and solar output science QUALITY and PRECISION in 1813?).

Do you STILL not smell a Big Oil Koch propaganda rat here? Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

They DELIBERATELY used the word "WEAKEST", not "COOLEST" to describe the trend in solar output. They did, that, friend, BECAUSE solar radiation is in many frequencies, WITHOUT a proportionally equal heating effect per frequency. Yes, it's a bit confusing to the layman. But not to the scientist. That's why these clever PROPAGANDA PIECES are careful with their phraseology (they want to make it hard for real scientists to accuse them of mendacity and pseudo science agenda BS in the service of big oil).

Why is the types of radiation IMPORTANT to this debate? Because the earth's atmosphere is HEATING from the ABSOLUTELY WEAKEST PART OF THE SOLAR RADiATION SPECTRUM!!!

A WEAKER Sun will produce LESS of it's main JUICE in radiation (Gamma rays and maybe part of the high powered UV, NOT the weaker UV that is making it to our atmosphere, converting to IR and being trapped by CO2).

So what is the point? The point is to leave it HANGING in the AIR that the "SUN is WEAKER" so the layperson will put 2 and 2 together and get THREE as far as Global WARMING is concerned. If the article was REALLY science based, it would have said:

ONE. More research is needed to determine if this has an effect on earth's climate.

TWO. There is presently no scientific evidence that a reduction in the gamma, X-ray and upper UV solar radiation spectrum will reverse the current scientific consensus that CO2 is causing global warming because it is the weakest UV A and B converting to IR that has been proven to heat our atmosphere.

THREE. The solar irradiance weakening appears to be limited to the high energy spectrum. Research is needed to determine if the lower energy spectrum is also weakening in order to assume we are no longer at risk of global warming induced severe weather and biosphere damage from the burning of fossil fuels.

Surly, ONE. TWO, THREE, look at MR Propaganda LEE doing his dance for fossil fuel profits and Global Warming denial by OMITTING ONE, TWO and THREE. The pupose is, as the Marshall Institute, infamous for the Tobacco strategy and ozone problem denial before they went to GW denial, is NOT to attack the science DIRECTLY.

The Purpose is to SEED DOUBT
The truth is that no one knows.  ;)
in order to DELAY the transition away from fossil fuels and the ASSIGNMENT of RESPONSIBILITY for the damage to the Fossil Fuel Industry predatory, profit worshipping liars... Hey, the SUN is WEAKENING! Hot Dog! Let's go fill er' up with premium and PARTY! We are SAVED! No more Global Warming to worry about or those silly ALARMISTS wanting to take my SUV away! 

If you believe the story you posted above is serious science, you are being taken for a fool.  Don't say I didn't warn you.



Jesus, AG, take a chill pill.
The article addresses sunspot activity and a kind of magnetic orientation uncertainty, and cites a NASA scientist. Nothing in there from the hireling Lee, nor from the Marshall Institute, CO2Science, or any other denialist organization. I don't have your knowledge of the science involved; but what I took from this article was that, if the sun were in a normal cycle, global warming would be worse than it already is, and we'd already be enjoying methane hydrates popping up from the seabed.

I didn't stop to parse the fine shadings of meaning between "weaker" and "cooler," and I am well aware that the Kochs, like rust, never sleep, but I did not get "happy motoring" out of that article.

Having done battle here with the likes of MKing and other cornucopian shills, I assumed you would understand that then article seemed to represent an odd bit of scientific business rather than a denialist salvo. Evidence, if you will. And we always go where the evidence leads, yes?

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -  Louis Brandeis


Golden Oxen:

Same here Agelbert, I said to myself, " My Goodness what would our weather be like without this having happened. You have to understand that some of us here have little knowledge in these matters and are more or less dependent on what we read. On the face of it, it appeared an interesting article to a layman such as myself. No doubt would have posted it myself if I came across it.

Your rebuttal of the article and it's intent was enlightening and has lessened the articles stature and importance to my mind at least. Thanks for pointing out facts that certainly seem to have been omitted. 

GO and Surly,
I apologize if I seemed somewhat vitriolic. Decreasing sunspot activity has been a big part of the GW denial machine for almost a decade. I think there is a LOT of money out there to whisper (indirectly, of course) into people's ears that fossil fuels and nuclear power are being victimized by alarmist sky is falling chicken little tree huggers. 

The Wall Street Journal and Zero Hedge get quite a bit of readership and, as muck racking as they seem, can be insufferably pro-status quo dirty energy.

Surly, if you posted that article on FB, why not post my hollered critique? It may get you more readers and give my forum some views too.  :icon_mrgreen: A vigorous debate can attract readers. Reduce it to the ONE, TWO, THREE points I brought up and pull anything else out of it you want. If I am right, you will get an INSTANT herd of GW deniers out to defend their innocent sounding article. If I'm wrong, my answer will be ignored (propagandists scour the web 24/7 looking for anything that can undermine their bought and paid for messages). Of course, since they generally ignore low traffic areas, the result may be inconclusive.

Also, please watch Washingtonblog for a piece in the next week or so defending or denying Global Warming science or fossil fuels' liability for environmental and property damage claims. The innocent sounding piece may be a credibility building gesture. ;)

I'm glad you  agree how adding ONE, TWO and THREE to the article changes the picture. :emthup:

Nowadays, whether people are conscious of it or not, we ALL are looking for evidence for or against an acceleration of the environmental storm inertia. Massive Fortunes are riding on it.

Ironically, our survival, which is much more important, is NOT what the main debate is about. :P  :o 

It's about WHO PAYS FOR THIS ****. Fossil fuel foolers DON'T WANT TO PAY. So I weigh absolutely anything I read out there based on that 60 million dollars (from the Koch crooks alone in the last decade!) paying people to lie through their teeth. I am a tiny voice but I'm not going to make it easy for those conscience free criminals.

By the way, my invitation for you to sign up on my forum is a permanent one even if we may get into a good old fashioned shouting match from time to time. ;)

« Last Edit: November 13, 2013, 10:35:11 pm by AGelbert »
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37


+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm