Things You’re Going To See On The CBC

Just straight up propaganda: The sun is quieter than normal, but don’t panic!

“No Maunder Minimum. Certainly no Little Ice Age,” said David Hathaway, an astrophysicist who once headed NASA’s solar physics branch at the Marshall Space Flight Center. “The next cycle looks like it’s going to be very much like this one.”
He explains that, while the sun does dim during a minimum, it’s only by a tenth of a per cent, which translates into a tenth of a degree Celsius. And with the warming by about 1C that we’ve seen due to climate change — and the warming that is to come — it’s unlikely that we’ll notice.

Because while a rise from .03 to .04 percent of the atmosphere is the driver of catastrophic climate change that demands the complete destruction of the world economy — a .1 percent drop in energy coming from the sun is completely insignificant.

53 Replies to “Things You’re Going To See On The CBC”


    Fogo Island fisherman Jerry Best has been tracking icing conditions as well.

    While there’s a lot of ice in Notre Dame Bay – so much that an ice breaker has to assist the Fogo Island-Change Islands ferry for one run per day – Best said it’s hard to determine what it will mean for fishing.

    He noted it’s the heaviest ice he’s seen around the island for the last five or six years, but, like Roberts, Simms said it all depends on the wind.


    While the northeast coast is cinched, Brad Durnford, superintendent of ice breaking operations for the Coast Guard’s Atlantic region, said it’s on par with the 30-year average.

    The bulk of the concentration, he said, lies between St. Anthony and Cape Freels, with charts showing nine-tenths coverage, meaning very little open water.

    Ice thickness ranges from six inches to six feet.

    “We are looking at multiyear heavy ice showing 60 miles north of Bell Isle, up around Black Tickle, that’s the heavy stuff, if that comes all the way down south it will get a little worse due to the size of the ice,” he said.

    “On par with the 30 year average.”

  2. Had a good laugh reading that one this morning too Kate. Did you read Don Pitts piece on how this SNC “political” stuff is taking away from problems with the economy (coming recession while our largest trading partner is thru the roof) house buys/starts and ballooning personal debt? Like how the politicians need to be discussing ideas and solutions in an election year? Cripes, turn ya stomach!

    The snc illegality on behalf of the Liberals kills two birds with one stone there Donny.

  3. The Sun varies a bit – Don’t Panic ! (Good advice)
    We have a wee bit more CO2 – Don’t Panic ! (The plants love it)

    Our governments are full of commies and tyrants that want to control every aspect of our lives and control what we think and say – Don’t Panic (But buy more ammo just in case)

    1. You have it right. Ammo pile it is.

      I laugh when I read that the sun is dimmed and has been for awhile and may be for awhile yet. But we won’t let that maunder minimum situation detract from the never-ending claims of global warming that’s coming to kill us all … unless of course … we give all our money and total control of our lives to the psychopaths of the left.

      Do I have that right?

      1. Short answer is yes. They want to control everything you do. Just like their ideological buddy Lenin.

    1. The answer to that question is no. I’ve followed NSIDC for close to twenty years, and to say they play fast and loose with the data is being kind. I’ve watched them delete, manipulate, fold, massage and utterly distort data since the 90s. Historically, the world average temperature has been 15 degrees celcius. In the 90s, with Hansen’s assistance they rewrote history and changed the historical average to 14 degrees. Then, around 2007, they recalculated what constituted ice in the arctic. Once they measured the average to be three feet, but then they decided five feet was better. Immediately, we started having record low ice years. It’s is so much a scam, that these people should be in jail, all their properties seized, and their organs sold to the chinese.

  4. Some say this ….
    Some say that ….

    ….. and its news at the CeeBeeCee.

    Well ….. I’ll be ….

  5. One thing that I spent a little time idly rolling around in my brain… if you inhabit one of the many points on the planet where the temperature swings from -30 in winter to +30 in summer due to the Earth’s tilt during orbit does this mean a seasonal fluctuation of (very rough number crunch/guesstimate) 0.01% of your point’s distance from the sun can result in that much temperature variance?

    1. I live in Chinook country…I’m sorry, Unprecedented Global Warming country (thanks Leo!). We can get 20-30 degrees C of warming in a day. Hasn’t killed us yet.

      1. Winter didn’t show up for most of the “winter”, in Calgary. Come February, winter arrived like someone threw a switch! Only 5 weeks of real “winter” this year. So far. However, “winter” has been known to strike even in June around here.

        I’m a Murphy’s Law kinda guy (plus 30 odd years of Calgary “weather” experience), so my prediction this year is winter will also occur in June. Bets?

    2. The change in distance due to the Earth’s tilt is small, insignificant.
      The Earth’s orbit around the sun is not circular – it’s an ellipse. It varies from 91.4 to 94.5 million miles, 3%.
      For the northern hemisphere (Canada) we are closest to the sun in January. So the extra warmth of being closer is cancelled out by the reduced angle and reduced amount of sunshine in winter.

      1. If you think about it, however small the effect, the cold winter in the northern hemisphere is somewhat tempered by the fact that we are at or near perihelion. On the other hand, the southern hemisphere’s winter would be even colder because of the added distance to the sun, except that there the total effect is moderated because the southern hemisphere is mostly water.

        Of course, all of that, and the fact that we have growth seasons due to the tilt of the axis to begin with are all purely accidental.

        1. Our current situation is not constant. Our orbit precesses and this will lead to actual climate change (the real thing not man made). Look up Milankovitch cycles . . .

    3. There is a tiny bit more to it that the tilt of the earth moving you away from the sun.
      That is, as you imply, pretty much irrelevant. What is relevant is that with the sun lower in the sky, radiation from the sun has to travel through more atmosphere to get to you, and that radiation is spread over a wider area. Then add in the fact that daytime is much shorter, so less time to warm you up, and more night time for the heat you do receive to radiate away.

  6. The journalist had a narrative to reinforce and she found a consenting scientist to help. She wouldn’t be doing her job at the CBC if she had sought dissenting opinion form other scientists. The result is that the constituency representing the vast majority of the CBC audience has been reassured in their belief of “settled science”.

      1. “Consenter” is an excellent riposte to the Left calling legitimate critics of climate change science “deniers” when they’re individuals who follow the evidence. Whereas scientists who massage the evidence to receive government grants for supporting the message that government must control everything in our lives to save people living 100 years from now are….consenting “scientists” or consenters.

    1. And did you notice in the “corrections” section that originally the life of the sun was off by a factor of one thousand and the length of the solar cycle by a factor of two? Scientific virgins preaching to us. Learn to code. I am so looking forward to the Friends of Science presentation “Polar Bears and Solar Flares” on April 10.

  7. Anyone who has followed the global warming narrative over the years recognizes that it is full of holes. Amazing to me that people are still so willing to go along with the manipulation instead of calling their bluff. I predict that that it will all disappear (the story) when there is some real natural disaster. Not looking forward to this, but it seems probable. A major event would allow them to duck the claim that they have been lying about the climate for many years.

    1. A fine list of holes highlighted in

      Ian Plimer “Not for greens”

      An abrasive removal of the green coating IMO

    1. About 400+ parts per million
      400 / 1000000 = .0004 (*100%) = 0.04%
      At my school in 1972 that would earn an F, in today’s more progressive environment an A-.

        1. So, with Canada’s CO2 contributions said to be @ 1.6% (not including Boreal carbon sink), that would put our PPM contribution
          at (0.04 * .016) 0.00064%.

          And we’re trying to reduce it by how much in order to change the climate?

    1. Don’t be so tough on the math. Our societal illiteracy extends into science and math. That’s why there’s a % key on a calculator.
      But the rent seekers will argue a “doubling” from .02-.04%, requiring our immediate reaction.
      Except for coal to China and India while banning 4th generation nuclear and pipelines.
      Heads they win, tails you lose, 97% of the time apparently (actually 100%).
      Meanwhile, the best ice core samples show not only correlation, but causation between temperatures and solar activity.
      Too bad they were mysteriously damaged eh? The only correlation to causation here is between socialism and junk science.
      No worries anyway, the “adjustments” to thermometers show the past was cooler than initially known, er thought.
      All the climate change catastrophe resides in the adjustments, which resides in models with specious CO2 heat retention.
      If you can’t see the obvious case for (always in the) future catastrophe, you must be a heretic to be burned at the statist stake.
      That’s how “science” worked in Galileo’s day. We’ve come full circle, imho. Renaissance required.

      1. Well said. Too many of Lysenko’s descendants in our government salaried or grant paid for science departments.

  8. “And it plays an important role in our day-to-day lives, more so than just providing the sunlight needed for life to thrive.”
    Umm I think that’s a bit of an understatement, Nicole.

  9. What is not mentioned in the article is the TSI is not the only thing that fluctuates in the solar cycle. Cloud cover also changes in response to the amount of cosmic rays produced by the sun:

    “DURING THE SOLAR MAXIMUM When the sun is more active–more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.–fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures.”

    “During periods of low solar activity, which we are now experiencing, the solar winds decrease allowing more cosmic rays to penetrate the earth atmosphere, which increases cloud formation, which would be the main cooling mechanism from the diminished solar activity.”

    Cloud cover has a large effect on temperature, weather and climate. Clear days in summer are hotter, clear days in winter are colder. Fewer clouds means less precipitation. Clouds are poorly understood in climate change research. Perhaps deliberately so in order to try to disregrard the role of the Sun in the modern warming period and any periods of cooling.

    The politics demands that:
    1)it must always be warming
    2) the warming must be **anthropogenic**
    3) warming must be catastrophic (CAGW).

    1. Here’s a condensed version of the theory of sun spots, cosmic rays and Earth’s cloud cover :

      “For two decades, Svensmark, of the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) at the Technical University of Denmark, has propounded a theory of “cosmoclimatology”, which holds that cosmic rays and sunspots are the real drivers of climate change.

      Atmospheric ions, produced by the energetic cosmic rays raining down through the atmosphere, helps the growth and formation of cloud condensation nuclei — the seeds necessary for forming clouds in the atmosphere. When the ionization in the atmosphere changes, the number of cloud condensation nuclei changes affecting the properties of clouds. More cloud condensation nuclei mean more clouds and a colder climate, and vice versa. Since clouds are essential for the amount of Solar energy reaching the surface of Earth the implications can be significant for our understanding of why climate has varied in the past and also for future climate changes.”

      The scientist and his work have been villified, of course. As is any scientist, research or organization not in complete lockstep with CAGW and proposed political solutions. All must support the settled science that humans control the climate…just like all were required to supporr that idea that humans were at the center of the solar system. Competing theories of any kind that challenge the human centered ideology are heresy of the highest order. In the future, I think CAGW will be looked at in the same way we now see an earth centered system —obviously wrong.

      Once again the poor old Sun gets the cold shoulder because humans have decided that, in our solar system, we are more powerful than The Star. /s

    2. “Cloud cover also changes in response to the amount of cosmic rays produced by the sun”

      Most cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere originate from outside our solar system. Other than that bit of trivia, the rest of your comment is right on.

      The CBC “journalist” likely ignored this to either “keep it simple” or she was either ignorant of it or forgot to ask her consenting scientist to downplay its effects.

      1. I suspect that cosmic rays from outside the solar system are relatively constant while the fluctuation of rays from out nearby star has more impact on Earth’s cloud cover changes. Shorter travel distance of the rays from the Sun to the Earth, for instance.

        I think of it as the difference between a constant humming background noise (outside cosmic rays) and the effect of a periodic air horn sound in the next room (our Sun’s fluctuating cosmic ray output).

        1. NO LC, cosmic rays from outer space can be considered to be the only ones that effect out cloud cover. The magnetic fields of the sun keep them away normally, but far less so during a solar minimum .

          1. You’re right. I remember reading that, along with seeing a picture/computer simulation of the protective effect.

  10. An astrophysicist is a scientist, like a witch is a doctor.

    Both have the same credibility and should receive equal treatment.

  11. It always comes down to the nerds who comment here to be doing climate-math to prove their points of view.


    It’s not about climate or warming or rising tides or any of the stuff. It’s about big governments of the world wanting to destroy the western world’s wealth and power. There are those who desperately want a one world government whilst the rest of us are told what to do and how to do it.

    1. Disclosure: I am a nerd.

      No. It’s not “big governments of the world” – they are a symptom not the cause.
      It’s our close neighbors with the repeatedly discredited socialist ideas that threaten our way of life. Like the Albertans who voted NDP.

    2. “It always comes down to the nerds who comment here to be doing climate-math to prove their points of view.
      It’s not about climate or warming or rising tides or any of the stuff. It’s about big governments of the world wanting to destroy the western world’s wealth and power”

      All true….but before you call them greedy *&^%$#g, parasitic liars, you’re better off if you have the data to prove it.

  12. Despite their best efforts, they let the cat out of the bag anyway. The Vikings abandoned Greenland because it got too cold. Hmmm let that sink in. But Greenland is still cold, how were the Vikings able to survive there? It must have been warmer then than now. 600 years ago. Before fossil fuels.

  13. So called “Climate Science” is not a science at all. There is no such thing. It is a made up political narrative. Governments, of all stripes but mainly liberal, have discovered how easy it is to justify any action (law, education, propaganda, spending, taxing) just by relating them to this narrative. Facts are actually required in biology, physics, chemistry and other real sciences. Facts are the basis of physical laws. Theories can be any thought held by a scientist or other researcher. Theories are proven only through the scientific method that has existed since man first discovered science. No amount of “consensus” can prove a theory. No amount of computer modelling can prove a theory.
    Look closely. At the root of this whole scam is an anti-industrial, anti-capitalist and anti-western sentiment. If the world will end in twelve years, as claimed by a former bartender elected by 16,000 people in Queens, New York, to the US House of Representatives, ask yourself why she proposes anti-industrial, anti-capitalist and anti-western “solutions”. The strategy is clear. It’s been clear since Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring, in 1962.

    1. Exactly. The whole point is to undermine the free market society and impose some form of Marxism.

  14. This winter seems to fall into the 1 in 4 category for cold. Not an overly extraordinary cold one (although February kicked my butt) but certainly not “average” by any means. The Great Lakes peak ice hit 80.0% a couple of days ago with Lake Superior ~94%. That ice coverage is now dropping since the frigid air finally relented and the sun’s strength has returned but peak ice coverage has reached 80% or greater nine times in the last 47 years (so occurring roughly once every five years). Superior’s ice coverage has exceeded 90% five times in the last 20 years (one in four occurrence rate). None of this is remarkable if it’s considered in the context of a relatively stable climate but given how the media’s been pushing “the end of snow”, drowning starved polar bears and an imminent ice free North Pole the 2019 Winter should be portrayed as Nature’s freak otherwise in this reality of 12 years to a fiery Armageddon how is such lengthy freezing cold possible? No amount of hot air from the media’s able to explain it. But natural variability does…

  15. propaganda.
    soooo it aint just the sun and earth spinning?
    by the way, in 2041 when I turn 90, rest assured the ‘end’ will still be ’12 years away’.

  16. less sun rays?

    that means solar panels will be even less efficient

    now how will the global warming scammers spin this into the opposite of what it is?