Sun in a new lower sunspot phase in the coming decades?

There is growing discussion about Solar 26 as being as weak as 25 has become, which is even weaker than the weak 24 cycle.

Cornell University

Will Solar Cycles 25 and 26 Be Weaker than Cycle 24 ?

NASA predicts weakest solar activity in 200 years

What will this mean?

The last time there was consecutive weak solar cycles the world cooled, and with three consecutive weak cycles (a possibility being discussed) a large cooling trend happened in the 1600's-1700"s.

======

Meanwhile Solar cycle 25 is becoming the weakest in 200+ years as shown here:




If the AMO and PDO switch to negative (cool) phase, along with consecutive weak solar cycles. in the next few years, it could be a major climate shift in the making.

America has been cooling for at least 20 years already.....

 

Wouldn't this trend be beneficial, with regard to global warming? Cooler temps mean less ice melt, means less trapped carbon released into the atmosphere, and more light reflected, at the poles, away from Earth. This also means lower sea levels/less coastal flooding, and cooler seas which are both better for life, I think, and definitely mean weaker tropical storms (hurricanes & cyclones).

 

Yup, something important may be happening.
The paper, entitled The Next Solar Cycle, And Why It Matters For Climate, can be downloaded here

 

It's Henrik Svensmark's world. We're just living in it.
Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

 

Cycle 25 certainly seems to have started weakly. If it continues to be weak, we can expect some global cooling -- i.e., temperature readings from past decades will be reduced retroactively even more. At some point, they'll have to move the date of the last Frost Fair on the frozen Thames from 1814 to the 1850s...

 

Yep. The Sun will be taking it easy.

Researchers Foresee Weak Solar Cycles Until 2050… “Unwelcome Meteorological And Climatic Consequences”!
By P Gosselin on 20. June 2021

Share this...
Analyzing the cyclic nature of solar activity, leading scientists suggest a solar minimum is set to persist until 2050.

It’s important to estimate the features of the next solar cycle because they serve to improve preparedness in space exploration and minimizing risks in technological and sociological activities.

The ability to understand historical solar magnetic parameters more accurately, beyond the highly dominant 11-year cycle, is a key to estimating solar variability, researchers say. Moreover, a number of scientists believe there is a clear link between solar activity and climatic patterns in terms of precipitation and temperature worldwide.

New study foresees weak solar activity until 2050

A new study appearing in the Journal Advancing in Space Research by Herrera et al forecasts that the upcoming solar cycle 25 (SC 25) will be a weak one with a peak annual sunspot number (SSN) of 95 and a probable range of 80–115 between 2023 and 2025. . . .

 

Sun significantly weakens: Global warmists and eco-alarmists hurt worst.

 

America has not been cooling for 20+ years. I don't trust your source at "What's Up With That"

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change? | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (noaa.gov)

A warmer normal
The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

 

"If the AMO and PDO switch to negative (cool) phase, along with consecutive weak solar cycles. in the next few years, it could be a major climate shift in the making."

It is impossible to project shifts in the PDO and it is impossible to project significant changes in solar activity with any degree of confidence.
PDO changes averaged over 50 years or more are neutral. Hoping that a number of changes in ocean circulation and solar activity may produce
a respite from a warmer climate is just wishful thinking and won't matter in the long term.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation/Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation Outlook - Climate Impact Company

Pacific decadal oscillation discussion: During recent months a cool phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation (-PDO) has developed and strengthened in November (Fig. 1). The moderate -PDO is NOT classic as waters in the northeast Pacific are quite warm but less warm (near normal) near the immediate North America West Coast qualifying the SSTA pattern to represent -PDO conditions. The developing -PDO is no surprise given the presence of La Nina. Normally, -PDO runs parallel to La Nina (about 80% of the time in the 1950-2020 climatology).

The warm SSTA pattern across much of the remainder of the mid-latitude North Pacific basin does not bode well for -PDO continuing (or intensifying). The analog forecast indicates the moderate cool phase is short-lived and weakens (with La Nina) during quarter 1 of 2021 becoming neutral phase for quarter 2 through 4 of 2021.

 

The data are in question.
Alterations To The US Temperature Record

Here is an animation showing how the data has been altered over the past 20 years.



Posted on October 1, 2020 by tonyheller
For the past decade or so, I have been documenting how US temperature graphs released by NOAA and NASA are not representative of their own raw data. This work has been high profile on a number of occasions, but has … Continue reading →

 

The above graphs are from a conspiracy website that doesn't explain why raw data is not accurate to use in making long-term comparisons and
why adjustments are done. The above graphs don't show the past 20 years of data.

Are you suggesting that a conspiracy by NASA and other organizations is reasonable?

I only included a small portion from the Skeptical Science site and it is very detailed.

ttps://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.

Time of observation changes from afternoon to morning also can add a cooling bias of up to 0.5 C, affecting maximum and minimum temperatures similarly. The reasons why this occurs, how it is tested, and how we know that documented time of observations are correct (or not) will be discussed in detail in the subsequent post. There are also significant positive minimum temperature biases from urban heat islands that add a trend bias up to 0.2 C nationwide to raw readings.

Because the biases are large and systemic, ignoring them is not a viable option. If some corrections to the data are necessary, there is a need for systems to make these corrections in a way that does not introduce more bias than they remove.

What are the Adjustments?
Two independent groups, the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) and Berkeley Earth (hereafter Berkeley) start with raw data and use differing methods to create a best estimate of global (and U.S.) temperatures. Other groups like NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) take data from NCDC and other sources and perform additional adjustments, like GISS’s nightlight-based urban heat island corrections.

 

There is no conspiracy but there is motivated reasoning, noble cause corruption and groupthink.

 

could be, give us time to adjust course, course could mean we stay on course and when the sun heats up again, it hits us hard

 

He ignores the fact that BOTH charts are from NASA.

He also doesn't even try to provide a counterpoint to Heller's post itself, he is dancing all around it.

 

I don't trust data that have been altered retroactively to agree with the theory that CO2 governs global surface temperature.

But if you ask people in their 90s who actually remember the 1930s, they'll tell you it was hotter then.

 

I would not by any means rule out a conspiracy, as the Climategate emails certainly suggest the existence of one. If there is one thing we know about conspiracies, it is that there are more conspiracies than the ones we know about.

 

I think of Climategate as more small scale connivance than a conspiracy, which to me suggests something larger and more complex.
The tipping point comes when career prospects hinge on supporting the connivance.

 

But the emails only revealed what could well be the tip of an iceberg.

A conspiracy is a secret plan involving more than one person to bring about a specific result. The question is, do the Climategate emails indicate the existence of a plan, or merely a confluence of interests? IMO the evidence of the emails prima facie suggests there was a plan.

 

In my opinion, there is no conspiracy, corruption, or group think.

Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records | Carbon Brief

The Carbon Brief article discusses the global surface temperature record and shows graphs of raw data versus adjusted data.
This data proves that there is more global surface temperature warming from the late 19th century to 2016 when raw data is
plotted versus adjusted data. So, adjusting surface temperature data reduces global warming from late 19th century to 2016.

However, when global surface temperatures and raw data versus adjusted data are compared for later time periods there is a modest
increase in global warming when adjusted temperature data is used.

"The rate of warming between 1950 and 2016 in the adjusted data is just under 10% faster than the raw data, and only 4% faster since the start of the modern warming period in 1970."

"The adjustments that have a big impact on the surface temperature record all occur before 1950. Here, past temperatures are adjusted up – significantly reducing the warming over the past century. Over the full 1880-2016 period, the adjusted data actually warms more than 20% slower than the raw data. The large adjustments before 1950 are due almost entirely to changes in the way ships measured temperatures (more on that later)."

"Adjustments to land temperatures do have larger effects in some particular regions – such as in the US and Africa – but these tend to average out when looking at the global land surface record."

"The figure below shows the net effect of all the adjustments to land stations to the global land temperature record. Adjustments increase the overall land temperature warming by 16% between 1880 and 2016. Most of this is concentrated in the earlier part of the temperature record. Since 1970, adjustments only increase warming by 3%."

Temperature records from 5 different groups all produce similar results when adjusting data sets. There is little difference between the raw data and all 5
adjusted data sets after 1940. I can't copy the graphical results which show, "Global mean surface temperatures from NASA, NOAA, Hadley/UEA, Berkeley Earth, and Cowtan and Way. Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1961-1990 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts".

"It’s also worth noting that adjustments to temperature records are not decided by one single group of scientists. Rather, multiple different research teams have independently created their own land and ocean temperature records.

While much of the underlying raw data is the same, each takes a somewhat different approach to adjustments and how to deal with areas of the earth with missing data. The resulting global temperature records from five different groups, along with the raw data, are shown in the figure below."

 

That's their story, and they're sticking to it.

 

If you can't debate the facts, suggest a conspiracy to alter the facts, and if that doesn't work ...

Does anyone really believe that the continental U.S. has been cooling during the past 20 years? Does that make sense?
Most of the Earth's surface has been warming during the past 20 years. Why would the continental U.S. be left out?

Use the global surface temperature time series to see how global temperatures have changed from the year 2000 to 2020.

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)


https://climate.nasa.gov/system/time_series_images/2226_gt_2020_720x360.jpg

 

There is no conspiracy but there is motivated reasoning, noble cause corruption, confirmation bias and groupthink.
"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

Is America Burning?
2021 › 04 › 01 › is-america-burning
contiguous US, not the globe!", yes, I know that. I'm just saying that if you think the US temperature has gone ... hundreds of US surface temperature station sites, and satellites, we'd never know if the US had warmed
both show cooling, and although it is not statistically significant cooling ... it's still cooling.

". . . Then I pulled up the temperature information from Berkeley Earth and from the CERES satellite data and graphed it up … here’s the result:


Figure 1. Temperature trends for what in Alaska is called the “Lower 48”, meaning the US less Alaska and Hawaii.

Cooling … not warming.

Cooling.

Now, before anyone starts yelling “But that’s just the contiguous US, not the globe!”, yes, I know that. I’m just saying that if you think the US temperature has gone up over the 21st century, you’re wrong. The US has cooled over that time.

And this reveals a deep truth, which is that if it were not for accurate thermometers, hundreds and hundreds of US surface temperature station sites, and satellites, we’d never know if the US had warmed or cooled over the last two decades … the changes are far too small and too widespread for our human senses to register. Millions of US citizens have been firmly convinced that the US has been warming in the 21st century, when in fact it has been cooling."

 

Has any here seen Miami going under water yet? Florida is a striking state for how much is barely above sea level.

 

PhD Richard Lindzen has to constantly remind those attending his lectures of that.

 

According to CERES and Berkeley Earth America is COOLING the last 20 years.

Is America Burning?

LINK