Your Feedback

CPB seeks to make public broadcasting more accessible to the public it serves. To do so CPB maintains a toll-free, 24-hour telephone line (1-800-272-2190), an online contact form, and accepts letters sent directly to CPB.

All comments are available on this website to be viewed by the general public. Each year, by statute, CPB transmits this public link to the White House for its report to Congress. Additionally, comments pertaining to programming are shared with the CPB Board of Directors and relevant public media staff.


January 2021 Ombudsman piece on NewsHour hits


I was surprised at the end paragraph saying the News Hours has to endure more criticism than some? most? other commercial broadcasters. Has she checked the comments section on any MSNBC video? Half of them are trashing MSNBC and CNN. I think the News Hour is going to have to put on their big boy pants. Things have changed. I don't agree with all or even most of the criticisms the ombudsman listed as coming from viewers, but I have my own less than 5 star reviews of the show. It's not a dinner party. It's not Lawrence Welk. It's the news being given at a point in our country's history where people need facts, not polite conversation.

Note from CPB: Thank you for contacting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). CPB does not broadcast programming. Your comments about PBS NewsHour will have more weight if you contact NewsHour directly:

PBS News Hour


I also need to add my voice to my disappointment with the PBS Newshour. I realize that the Wall Street Journal is somewhat right of center, but their news coverage is balanced and they include the more liberal perspectives. I find their coverage to be biased, and driven by the so-called Woke Culture. When I want to watch news, I want balanced information, professional and well thought questions by the newscasters and the avoidance of opinionated information, unless it is an editorial. I am appalled by Judy Woodruff's editorial comments which I find to be unprofessional. I am noticing repetitive questions, more coverage of lived experiences, That can easily be covered elsewhere. I am looking for information and not personal propaganda, for either left or right wing sides. We read the Atlantic, the Economist and I get information analysis from podcasts. I listen to both conservative and liberal perspectives and avoid any podcasts that are parochial. The bar of excellence has slipped tremendously with your coverage, with some notable exceptions such as Amy Walters and David Brooks.

Note from CPB: Thank you for contacting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). By law, CPB is prohibited from producing or broadcasting programming. Each local public broadcasting station makes its own programming choices, as CPB is prohibited from interfering with editorial decisions related to programming on local public television and radio stations. Your comments will have more weight if you contact PBS NewsHour directly:


New York

The BBC has numerous journalists working for its Arabic service who have launched anti-Israel broadsides on their personal Twitter accounts — all of which state they are employed by the BBC — that seemingly fall afoul of the broadcaster’s rules. The fact that CPB carries BBC stops my family from supporting CPB. You can pressure the BBC to live by decent broadcast rules.

Note from CPB: Thank you for contacting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). CPB does not fund stations, producing organizations or programs outside the United States.

Is the PBS Newshour really a news organization?


Dear Ms. Woodruff,

I don’t usually watch the weekend edition of the Newshour, but I knew with the ongoing conflict in southern Israel and Gaza last weekend there would be mistakes, misrepresentations, and unbalanced, biased reporting. Recent Newshour reporting did not disappoint!

On Saturday, 6 August 2022, Ms. Lisa Desjardins started her report with the sentence “There is escalating violence in the Gaza Strip amid an Israeli crackdown.” (emphasis added)

I’m not sure exactly how defending the safety of a country’s own civilians as Israel was doing at the time can be called a “crackdown”.

Even though I did appreciate Ms. Desjardins mentioning to your viewers about Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rockets that misfired and landed back in Gaza, she then went on to state that “Israel claims stray rocket fire from Palestinian militants caused more civilian deaths in northern Gaza.” (emphasis added, and I’ll get to the “militants” issue a bit later)

But why “claims”? I have seen several videos of this.[1,2,3] Have you not? I can clearly see the rockets go up, slow its descent or change direction, and fall back to earth in Gaza. So did you think these videos were a deep fake by the Israeli military? If not, why not report it as fact.

And then on Sunday, 7 August 2022, Ms. Desjardins ended the section on this latest conflict by stating “Gaza officials say 31 Palestinians have been killed, including civilians.”

So Palestinian officials “say” while Israel “claims”?

And who exactly were the “officials” in Gaza?? I presume it was the Gaza health ministry. But how many of those were affiliated with terror groups.? And how many were killed by Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) rockets that fell back into Gaza?

Don’t you think these are important questions? Context is critical in journalism. So are details.

I think you do a disservice to your viewers by not identifying these “officials.” And if it was the Gaza health ministry, you needed to note that it is under the control of the Hamas terror group, the rulers of the Gaza Strip. It is only an extension of the Hamas propaganda machine.

Did the Newshour not learn anything from the 2014 Gaza war when almost everything that was reported regarding casualties from the Gaza health ministry was ultimately proven wrong?[4] Would you accept statistics on casualties and information from ISIS or the Taliban as fact? I doubt it.

On Monday, 8 August 2022, you reported Ms. Woodruff that “A cease-fire held today between Israel and Islamic Jihad militants in Gaza after weekend fighting killed at least 44 Palestinians.” (emphasis added)

I’ll bet you already know where I am going with this…

In a statement by President Biden on the ceasefire in Gaza on 7 August 2022 [5], the President of the United States of America said something that apparently the PBS Newshour can’t acknowledge… "Over these recent days, Israel has defended its people from indiscriminate rocket attacks launched by the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the United States is proud of our support for Israel’s Iron-Dome, which intercepted hundreds of rockets and saved countless lives.” (emphasis added)

PIJ is an Iranian backed terrorist group intent on wiping Israel from the map. PIJ has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States[6], the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.[7]

Ms.Woodruff, you yourself apparently can use the word “terrorist” when talking about certain groups. On 17 Dec 2018, you stated, “The U.S. military says weekend airstrikes in Somalia killed 62 members of the terrorist group Al-Shabaab.”  (emphasis added)

Please, please, please explain your policy on using the word “terrorist”?? There must be some policy statement, no? And then explain why wouldn’t PIJ meet the Newshour’s definition of a terrorist organization?

And finally, in the online summary of the News Wrap for Monday, 8 Aug 2022 it is written that “a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza is holding after Israel killed 44 Palestinians”. (emphasis added)

Honestly now, did Israel “killed 44 Palestinians”???? Where have you guys been for the last week?? Who writes this stuff? Again PBS Newshour blaming Israel and letting the Palestinians off the hook!

Numerous reports of the ~200 misfired rockets out of Gaza killing innocent Palestinian civilians [8,9] and the Newshour falsely claims that Israel “killed 44 Palestinians”???? Somehow last Saturday, even Ms. Desjardins got that detail correct.

On the same day that this false statement was posted on your website, the AP reported [10] about PIJ killing civilians in Gaza. Are they privileged to some information that the Newshour can’t get?

In fact, the majority of the Gaza civilian deaths were caused by PIJ.[11,12] A very different story than Israel “killed 44 Palestinians”, isn’t it?

Furthermore, of note the Israeli Air Force called off several attacks when children or civilians were seen near a target.[13] Did PIJ stop firing rockets because they were aimed at civilian populations? Of course not.

As a matter of fact, every one of the ~1,000 rocket fired by PIJ into Israel was a double war crime. Yes, a double war crime. Firing rockets from a civilian area is a war crime just as targeting civilian areas is another war crime. Has this ever been reported by the Newshour? Of course not.

Colonel Richard Kemp, who was the commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, has said on several occasions that Israel is “the world’s most moral army.” [14] Why not quote him when reporting on Israel military actions?

So it does make one question if the PBS Newshour is really a news organization if it continues to get so many facts wrong?

ER S*****n Richmond, VA 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Note from CPB: Thank you for contacting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. We welcome all comments about public media’s content and services. Your comments will have more weight if you contact PBS NewsHour directly:

CPB gone Woke


I don't understand why or how you don't realize that there are not only Democrats that might have watched your programs! The "wokeness" you have adopted leaves so many of us choosing to opt out and with no looking back! Enough is enough!!!

Note from CPB: Thank you for contacting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). By law, CPB is prohibited from producing or broadcasting programming. Local public broadcasting stations are independent of CPB. They are responsible for their own programming choices, and CPB is prohibited by law from controlling or influencing the editorial or other content of local public television and radio programs.

Over crowding in prison

I do not believe that building more prisons is the answer to the violence and overcrowding the legislative laws that were passed in Alabama for non-violent criminals to be sent to prison should be demolished it's nonsense more appropriate help should be offered and probation instead of sending them to prison these young people a lot of them are on drugs and that is the main factor to some of the problems that lead them to crime I do not agree to send someone with nonviolent crimes to prison it hurts the young adult more than it helps them has any of these people that agree to send these people to prison actually ever been in prison and if not maybe they ought to watch some of these prisoners stories and what they go through it's traumatizing so how does prison help anybody they need more programs to help these young people yes they commit crime so furthermore they should be punished at more accurately according to the crime committed but some of the laws that have been passing the state of Alabama and I don't know about other states but it's beyond ridiculous prison is not a rehabilitation for young adults and our youth and shouldn't be treated or looked upon no different than other people they are human beings too and if God can't forgive them and love them so should we my point is prison is not the answer for some crimes I also believe that law enforcement judges das should be investigated in little small hick towns like Alabama because a lot of them are biased against your character this includes Randolph county Alabama Clay county Alabama Cleveland county Alabama and so on and so on

Firing Line

Your Firing Line host is a clueless white woman who is out of touch with the history of institutional racism and an evolving United States. She's smarmy, self-satisfied, and unaware of her white privilege and bias. Replace her with Ayesha Rascoe, or someone like her. You can't claim to be part of a public broadcasting system if your hosts do not represent the public.

Washington Week and Yamiche Alcindor

New York
When Ms. Alcindor speaks, she has a rushed and breathless quality that detracts from her generally cogent points. It feels as if her speech can’t keep up with her head. I’ve started avoiding watching her.

Political Division

New York
Hear me now. I understand you have zero control over this at the time of writing, but that doesn't change the fact I'll happily utilize this platform of relative publicity. Politics, are not opinions. Policy, should not be based upon such. The growing divide between heavily opinionated Americans, is not Political. It is Social. Now please, whoever you are, (socialists? maybe I guess) Stop mixing the two up. Every time you confuse the two you are making matters worse. Policy is supposed to shape public opinion, it is NOT supposed to be shaped by it. I.e. I don't make the rules, I just enforce em. Now that being said, it shouldn't matter whose feelings got hurt. What should, is why they were so goddamn sensitive in the first place. Thank you, and good night.

Arthur children's show

My kids grew up watching Arthur. It was their absolute favorite show! I was so pleased to sit down with my granddaughter to continue the tradition, and to my horror, Arthur had a teacher who was gay and had a husband. I cannot believe this company would expose 95% of children who live in a traditional home to homosexually at 4 years of age to cater to the less than 5% of the population who live that lifestyle. Everyone is entitled to live as they please but our children should not be exposed to this politicized and hotly debated issue (or any other adult content). I am very disappointed in this company and will not be watching anything you produce anymore. I will aso spread the word to my church, friends, and community to do the same.

Public Broadcast for the Milwaukee Brewers and Colorado Rockies Baseball Broadcast on Sunday July 24, 2022

So I also sent an e-mail to the, but got an automated response back letting me know that they receive so many e-mails that I should not expect a response. I reached out to them because I really just want to know who to report a term being used on public broadcasts during MLB baseball broadcasts. I do not know if the broadcasters have to be licensed and belong to an organization or if there is a department at MLB. I could not locate anything in a google search. I want to tell you that one broadcaster in baseball that also does public national broadcasts uses the term FISTED when there are other terms to outline this type of batter's hit. Sometimes a batter will swing at the ball and it hits the ball inside close to the fists. I cannot take listening to the TERM it has DEROGATORY meaning and it does not need to be used to outline this type of hit. You are not using a clinched fist to bat at the ball, you are using a bat. I am familiar with the derogatory meaning because I stumbled into it do to some investigations on sexual assault. Maybe people in baseball do not know the derogatory meaning, but I cannot believe it. Who can I report this do along with signatures to get it addressed......maybe there is someone in the NPR org or CPB that would CARE!


Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling Valentina Zharkova Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature. Sun is the main source of energy for all planets of the solar system. This energy is delivered to Earth in a form of solar radiation in different wavelengths, called total solar irradiance. Variations of solar irradiance lead to heating of upper planetary atmosphere and complex processes of solar energy transport toward a planetary surface. The signs of solar activity are seen in cyclic 11-year variations of a number of sunspots on the solar surface using averaged monthly sunspot numbers as a proxy of solar activity for the past 150 years. Solar cycles were described by the action of solar dynamo mechanism in the solar interior generating magnetic ropes at the bottom of solar convective zone. These magnetic ropes travel through the solar interior appearing on the solar surface, or photosphere, as sunspots indicating the footpoints where these magnetic ropes are embedded into the photosphere. Magnetic field of sunspots forms toroidal field while solar background magnetic field forms poloidal field. Solar dynamo cyclically converts poloidal field into toroidal one reaching its maximum at a solar cycle maximum and then the toroidal field back to the poloidal one toward a solar minimum. It is evident that for the same leading polarity of the magnetic field in sunspots in the same hemisphere the solar cycle length should be extended to 22 years. Despite understanding the general picture of a solar cycle, it was rather difficult to match the observed sunspot numbers with the modeled ones unless the cycle is well progressed. This difficulty is a clear indication of some missing points in the definition of solar activity by sunspot numbers that turned our attention to the research of solar (poloidal) background magnetic field (SBMF) [1]. By applying Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to the low-resolution full disk magnetograms captured in cycles 21–23 by the Wilcox Solar Observatory, we discovered not one but two principal components of this solar background magnetic field (see Figure 1, top plot) associated with two magnetic waves marked by red and blue lines. The authors derived mathematical formulae for these two waves fitting principal components from the data of cycles 21–23 with the series of periodic functions and used these formulae to predict these waves for cycles 24–26. These two waves are found generated in different layers of the solar interior gaining close but not equal frequencies [1]. The summary curve of these two magnetic waves (Figure 1, bottom plot) reveals the interference of these waves forming maxima and minima of solar cycles. Figure 1. Top plot: two principal components (PCs) of solar background magnetic field (blue and green curves, arbitrary numbers) obtained for cycles 21–23 (historic data) and predicted for cycles 24–26 using the mathematical formulae derived from the historical data (from the data by Zharkova et al. [1]). The bottom plot: The summary curve derived from the two PCs above for the “historical” data (cycles 21–23) and predicted for solar cycle 24 (2008–2019), cycle 25 (2020–2031), cycle 26 (2031–2042) (from the data by Zharkova et al. [1]). The summary curve of two magnetic waves explains many features of 11-year cycles, like double maxima in some cycles, or asymmetry of the solar activity in the opposite hemispheres during different cycles. Zharkova et al. [1] linked the modulus summary curve to the averaged sunspot numbers for cycles 21–23 as shown in Figure 2 (top plot) and extended this curve to cycles 24–26 as shown in Figure 2 (bottom plot). It appears that the amplitude of the summary solar magnetic field shown in the summary curve is reducing toward cycles 24–25 becoming nearly zero in cycle 26. Figure 2. Top plot: The modulus summary curve (black curve) obtained from the summary curve (Figure 1, bottom plot) versus the averaged sunspot numbers (red curve) for the historical data (cycles 21–23). Bottom plot: The modulus summary curve associated with the sunspot numbers derived for cycles 21–23 (and calculated for cycles 24–26 (built from the data obtained by Zharkova et al. [1])). Zharkova et al. [1] suggested to use the summary curve as a new proxy of solar activity, which utilizes not only amplitude of a solar cycle but also its leading magnetic polarity of solar magnetic field. Figure 3 presents the summary curve calculated with the derived mathematical formulae forwards for 1200 years and backwards 800 years. This curve reveals appearance of Grand Solar Cycles of 350–400 years caused by the interference of two magnetic waves. These grand cycles are separated by the grand solar minima, or the periods of very low solar activity [1]. The previous grand solar minimum was Maunder minimum (1645–1710), and the other one before named Wolf minimum (1270–1350). As seen in Figure 3 from prediction by Zharkova et al. [1], in the next 500 years there are two modern grand solar minima approaching in the Sun: the modern one in the 21st century (2020–2053) and the second one in the 24th century (2370–2415). Figure 3. Solar activity (summary) curve restored for 1200–3300 AD (built from the data obtained by Zharkova et al. [1]). The observational properties of the two magnetic waves and their summary curve were closely fit by double dynamo waves generated by dipole magnetic sources in two layers of the solar interior: inner and outer layers [1], while other three pairs of magnetic waves can be produced by quadruple, sextuple, and octuple magnetic sources altogether with dipole source defining the visible appearance of solar activity on the surface. Currently, the Sun has completed solar cycle 24 – the weakest cycle of the past 100+ years – and in 2020, has started cycle 25. During the periods of low solar activity, such as the modern grand solar minimum, the Sun will often be devoid of sunspots. This is what is observed now at the start of this minimum, because in 2020 the Sun has seen, in total, 115 spotless days (or 78%), meaning 2020 is on track to surpass the space-age record of 281 spotless days (or 77%) observed in 2019. However, the cycle 25 start is still slow in firing active regions and flares, so with every extra day/week/month that passes, the null in solar activity is extended marking a start of grand solar minimum. What are the consequences for Earth of this decrease of solar activity? Go to:Go to: Total solar irradiance (TSI) reduction during Maunder Minimum Let us explore what has happened with the solar irradiance during the previous grand solar minimum – Maunder Minimum. During this period, very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun, and the overall brightness of the Sun was slightly decreased. The reconstruction of the cycle-averaged solar total irradiance back to 1610 (Figure 4, top plot) suggests a decrease of the solar irradiance during Maunder minimum by a value of about 3 W/m2 [2], or about 0.22% of the total solar irradiance in 1710, after the Maunder minimum was over. Figure 4. Top plot: restored total solar irradiance from 1600 until 2014 by Lean et al. [2]. Modified by Easterbrook [3], from Lean, Beer, Bradley [2]. Bottom plot: Central England temperatures (CET) recorded continuously since 1658. Blue areas are reoccurring cool periods; red areas are warm periods. All times of solar minima were coincident with cool periods in central England. Adopted from Easterbrook [3], with the Elsevier publisher permissions. Go to:Go to: Temperature decrease during Maunder minimum From 1645 to 1710, the temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. This likely occurred because the total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.22%, shown in Figure 4 (top plot) [2], that led to a decrease of the average terrestrial temperature measured mainly in the Northern hemisphere in Europe by 1.0–1.5°C as shown in Figure 4 (bottom plot) [3]. This seemingly small decrease of the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere led to frozen rivers, cold long winters, and cold summers. The surface temperature of the Earth was reduced all over the Globe (see Figure 1 in [4]), especially, in the countries of Northern hemisphere. Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; Dunab and Thames rivers froze regularly during these years as well as the famous canals in the Netherlands. Shindell et al. [4] have shown that the drop in the temperature was related to dropped abundances of ozone created by solar ultra-violate light in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere located between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Since during the Maunder Minimum the Sun emitted less radiation, in total, including strong ultraviolet emission, less ozone was formed affecting planetary atmosphere waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream. Shindell et al. [4] in p. 2150 suggest that “a change to the planetary waves during the Maunder Minimum kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south – into a negative phase, that led to Europe to remain unusually cold during the MM.” Go to:Go to: Role of magnetic field in terrestrial cooling in Grand Solar Minima However, not only solar radiation was changed during Maunder minimum. There is another contributor to the reduction of terrestrial temperature during Maunder minimum – this is the solar background magnetic field, whose role has been overlooked so far. After the discovery [1] of a significant reduction of magnetic field in the upcoming modern grand solar minimum and during Maunder minimum, the solar magnetic field was recognized to control the level of cosmic rays reaching planetary atmospheres of the solar system, including the Earth. A significant reduction of the solar magnetic field during grand solar minima will undoubtedly lead to the increase of intensity of galactic and extra-galactic cosmic rays, which, in turn, lead to a formation of high clouds in the terrestrial atmospheres and assist to atmospheric cooling as shown by Svensmark et al. [5]. In the previous solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24, the cosmic ray intensity increased by 19%. Currently, solar magnetic field predicted in Figure 1 by Zharkova et al. [1] is radically dropping in the sun that, in turn, leads to a sharp decline in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field down to only 4 nanoTesla (nT) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT. This decrease of interplanetary magnetic field naturally leads to a significant increase of the intensity of cosmic rays passing to the planet’s atmospheres as reported by the recent space missions [6]. Hence, this process of solar magnetic field reduction is progressing as predicted by Zharkova et al. [1], and its contribution will be absorbed by the planetary atmospheres including Earth. This can decrease the terrestrial temperature during the modern grand solar minimum that has already started in 2020. Go to:Go to: Expected reduction of terrestrial temperature in modern Grand Solar Minima This summary curve also indicated the upcoming modern grand solar minimum 1 in cycles 25–27 (2020–2053) and modern grand solar minimum 2 (2370–2415). This will bring to the modern times the unique low activity conditions of the Sun, which occurred during Maunder minimum. It is expected that during the modern grand solar minimum, the solar activity will be reduced significantly as this happened during Maunder minimum (Figure 4, bottom plot). Similarly to Maunder Minimum, as discussed above, the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25–27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020–2053) and four solar cycles from the second modern grand minimum (2370–2415). This, in turn, can lead to a drop of the terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C from the current temperature during the next three cycles (25–27) of grand minimum 1. The largest temperature drops will be approaching during the local minima between cycles 25 − 26 and cycles 26–27 when the lowest solar activity level is achieved using the estimations in Figure 2 (bottom plot) and Figure 3. Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0°C from the current temperature, which was increased by 1.4°C since Maunder minimum. This will result in the average temperature to become lower than the current one to be only 0.4°C higher than the temperature measured in 1710. Then, after the modern grand solar minimum 1 is over, the solar activity in cycle 28 will be restored to normal in the rather short but powerful grand solar cycle lasting between 2053 and 2370, as shown in Figure 3, before it approaches the next grand solar minimum 2 in 2370. Go to:Go to: Conclusions In this editorial, I have demonstrated that the recent progress with understanding a role of the solar background magnetic field in defining solar activity and with quantifying the observed magnitudes of magnetic field at different times allowed us to enable reliable long-term prediction of solar activity on a millennium timescale. This approach revealed a presence of not only 11-year solar cycles but also of grand solar cycles with duration of 350–400 years. We demonstrated that these grand cycles are formed by the interferences of two magnetic waves with close but not equal frequencies produced by the double solar dynamo action at different depths of the solar interior. These grand cycles are always separated by grand solar minima of Maunder minimum type, which regularly occurred in the past forming well-known Maunder, Wolf, Oort, Homeric, and other grand minima. During these grand solar minima, there is a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance, which impose the reduction of terrestrial temperatures derived for these periods from the analysis of terrestrial biomass during the past 12,000 or more years. The most recent grand solar minimum occurred during Maunder Minimum (1645–1710), which led to reduction of solar irradiance by 0.22% from the modern one and a decrease of the average terrestrial temperature by 1.0–1.5°C. This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043. The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth. Go to:Go to: References [1] Zharkova VV, Shepherd SJ, Popova E, et al. Heartbeat of the sun from principal component analysis and prediction of solar activity on a millennium timescale. Sci Rep. 2015;5:15689 Available from: [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [2] Lean JL, Beer J, Bradley R.. Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: implications for climatic change. Geophys Res Lett. 1995;22:3195–3198. [Google Scholar] [3] Easterbrook DJ. Cause of global climate changes In: Evidence-based climate science. 2nd ed. Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 245–262. [Google Scholar] [4] Shindell DT, Schmidt GA, Mann ME, et al. Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder minimum. Science. 2001;294:2149. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [5] Svensmark H, Enghoff MB, Shaviv NJ, et al. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei. Nat Comms. 2017;8:2199. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [6] Schwadron NA, Rahmanifard F, Wilson J, et al. Update on the worsening particle radiation environment observed by CRaTER and implications for future human deep-space exploration. Space Weather. 2018;16:289–303. [Google Scholar] Articles from Temperature: Multidisciplinary Biomedical Journal are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

Financial stimulus

why are kansas citizens not receiving stimulus checks july 2022?


I listen to npr on a tube stereo receiver with an antenna. Your reception still sucks. On 104 and 90.3 both. It's infuriating. Often I just turn it off.

Public Broadcasting is becoming less public for a certain class of potential viewers.

I have contributed to my local NPR station twice a year for the past 40 years and also to a few particular shows I really enjoyed. I have been living under the poverty line for that entire time….but would always send $10-$15 when donations are matched by thoughtful donors. Here in Michigan we get a lot of older shows on PBS….they run for a few weeks or months and then they either disappear or a few episodes rerun over and over each week. It would be so great if we could go to the PBS website and continue watching all the other seasons of shows we like. But now, with Passport, a large donation is required. Great for the yuppies and the fabulously wealthy….but what about those of us who are poor? I wish there were exceptions made for the elderly and the poor. Social security for many doesn’t even cover the bills. I feel like I am being excluded from the public domain because of my social status. I have never been in debt and pay my credit bills in full…I simply live simply, frugally and carefully. Public Television and Radio have been a godsend. I guess it couldn’t last. Maybe if the government properly funded public broadcasting like it used to and like it should…it wouldn’t be necessary to ask people to pay. I understand why it is necessary but it leaves a huge segment of the PUBLIC behind. If I were well off…I would not only pay for a passport but I would also gift a passport to someone who would appreciate it like myself, but who can’t afford it themself. I am sure if you made that an option, generous people would contribute to the funding.

NPR programming bias.

NPR and WPR have always leaned toward the liberal side of event coverage in our state and nation. These past few years have gotten substantially worse in this biased coverage. It's not news anymore or information. NPR and WPR are now strictly about agendas from the left and pushing those agendas forward. Its unfortunate they have become so one sided in their approach to covering issues. They have a good broadcast format set up and are wasting it with their personal political agendas. I used to rely on them for objectivity. Now I may as well tune into Entertainment tonight or Sunday comics pages because the coverage is similarly a joke.

Nova The Universe Revealed

I was greatly excited to view this program and ended up turning it off because of the ghastly narration. This person does not seem actually engaged with her script, is annoying in her presentation and sounds more like she should be narrating Sesame Stret or Daniel Tiger. If she were she would sound so insin cere and as though laughing at something funny that I would refuse to watch those as well! Ugh.. way to ruin a good program The actual scientists were fabulous! Such a loss.


North Carolina
I like public tv

PBS Fourth of July show from Washington, D.C.

New York
I just wanted to tell PBS how much i enjoyed the was well planned..a great mix of many elements...patriotic...poignant...and extremely respectful to this wonderful country....keep up the good work as you always do....

A Capital Fourth

We LOVE this presentation!! Thank you!!! I would recommend the Young People’s Chorus of New York City as the backup groups next year. Truly a group representing all ethnicities and hopes of our great country. They have an impeccable reputation and history. Ron Chronister