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

If America had the heat waves of the mid 1900-1920 era, they would really rush to buy more AC units.
Death Valley still holds the record which was set in 1913.
Then later we had the famous Dust Bowl.

We do not see a Dust Bowl today.

 

Normal trends would be the hotter outside, the higher the sales of AC units.

So let's take a look at sales of AC units since 2001.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/220357/manufactured-shipments-of-unitary-air-conditioners/

As population rises, naturally so will sales.

 

Because the raw data trend is completely dominated by land use changes, human night-time heat emissions, etc., not a trend in actual global surface temperature.

And the way liars make it look like the actual temperature is following CO2 is to over-correct for the non-CO2 human effect on the oldest instrument readings and under-correct for its effect on the newest ones.

Because the correction for non-CO2 human influences is easily manipulated to yield the desired results.

But they all calibrate them using the falsified data from NASA/NOAA.

 

I don't trust "What's up with that". I don't know exactly what has been plotted.
USGCRP Indicator Details | GlobalChange.gov


The bars on the graph show the number of degrees by which the average U.S. temperature for each year differs from the average U.S. temperature during the last century


NOAA National Centers For Environmental Information. This graph shows a positive temperature trend over the contiguous U.S. from 1980 to 2020
Left vertical axis is in units of degrees F. and the right side is in units of degrees C.

 

The data used was from CERES and Berkeley Earth, too bad you are upset by it.

Since you didn't address it, you have as usual dodged the data presented to you, which covers the last 20 years.

Your big chart starts in 1895 using a different baseline doesn't help you at all and both are ANAMOLY based charts.

The chart that you can't address, is yearly databased:



Epic fail on your part.

 

I don't understand the graph on WUWT. Why does the CERES graph have the sinusoidal shape. How accurate is it? I want to see Berkeley Earth's graph done by them, not WUWT.

I don't have to accept WUWT when it conflicts with other graphs plus common sense. All regions of the Earth's surface have warmed quite a bit since
the year 2000 so it is reasonable to expect the continental U.S. to have warmed and that is what NASA's websites tell us.

I get the feeling that you and Jack Hayes don't trust U.S. and foreign government sources of information for surface temperature data,
but accept sources from blogs by people who aren't climate scientists and who aren't known for accuracy.

 

Seems the Author - David Whitehouse has a PHD in Astrophysics however

https://www.desmog.com/david-whitehouse/

And reading his blog entry on the website I can see why he has so few published articles and it really really really make me wonder how on earth he got a PHD if that is his idea of academic writing. Let us start with the referencing. Rule one of even a first year at a college or University is that you should back every claim with a citation. His reference list is under the heading “notes” and appears to be more a bibliography than a reference list

The media release from NASA is better referenced than that blog entry https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-nasa-noaa-scientists-explain-what-that-means

So please do not insult scientific literature by referring to this as a “journal article” because there is no way it meets even the lowest meanest standard for that. Call it what it is the musings of someone writing a blog entry

 

Actually, I didn't call it anything except a paper. I did not want to distract from the substance, which does not seem to be your interest in any case.

 

Lesson one - how to reinterpret data

Hiw on earth do these people think they can fool anyone with any degree of tertiary education?

Let us look at what that blog entry on “whattsupmybutt” actually says

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/01/is-america-burning/

Firstly - who peer reviewed this claim?
Second - what form of statistical analysis was used - that is basic to any data analysis and should be included in the article so everyone else can see if they can replicate the results
Third the data has been cherry picked to a fare there well and with no methodology and a known bias against the concept of global warming I would suspect this is less than accurate

Now let us look at the qualifications of the author

https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/

THEY HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING!!!

It simply gobsmacks me that denialists can happily quote a massage therapist and ignore scientists with multiple PHDs and years of experience and solid academic standing

 

The term “paper” has a specific meaning in academia and this is not a paper

It is a blog entry

 

1. This forum is not academia, and does not claim to be.
2. The paper was published, so it's not a blog entry (although that would be no less valid).
3. Please try to engage the substance.

 

Oh Wow! How scientific! Let’s rely on “what grandpa remembers” to determine if climate change is happening roll

 

But if we are talking science we should use academic standards in critiquing sources of information.and where was that “paper” published? Surely not a peer reviewed journal

 

It records the seasonal variation.

It doesn't conflict with common sense; the graphs showing huge temperature increases since the 1930s do.

Claim lacking credible factual support.

What a coincidence!

Anyone who claims there is a global climate "crisis" or "emergency" is self-evidently lying. That tells me something about who is accurate.

 

It's better than relying on facepalm images -- and at least grandpa doesn't retroactively alter instrument readings to make them agree with a proved-false hypothesis.

 

Ha ha ha, another comment where YOU avoid debate.

You didn't address the comment I posted which means your useless education fallacy was dead on arrival.

Willis is a POLYMATH, which is why he is unusually knowledgeable in science. .

Go look up Milton Humason, Clyde Tombaugh, Alfred Wegener as examples of people who discovered something significant that well educated professionals failed to find despite a head start and advantages.

This is why you remain ignorant.

 

The data sources is right there in the bottom of the chart YOU can go check it out for yourself, but you won't because you are too lazy, you make excuses instead without evidence that they are wrong.

Meanwhile you failed to understand why your post was dishonest since it doesn't use the same baseline, different starting point and are anomaly charts.

 

Does this mean you will ignore the following BLOGS from now on?

Climate Science
Skeptical Science
Hotwhopper
Daily Kos

Snicker............

 

No, we should use the standards of fact and logic, which are far more relevant than using the right format for citations of scholarly publications.

Peer reviewed journals have a specific role in science, yet have been found to be problematic even in that role. See "replicability crisis." They are certainly not the only possible source of credible scientific information because common sense, long-known facts, and obvious implications thereof are not eligible for publication in peer reviewed journals. The fact that you can't get a paper demonstrating F=ma published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean F=ma is wrong or not credible. Duh.

 

If you could have roused yourself to look you would have seen where it was published. Once again you want to comment without taking in the material.

 

You are talking to an ideologist, a "BELIVER", there will never be a debate with this one.

 

Anything to dodge the substance, I guess.

 

She refuses to criticize any of her own sources.

Take PhD Richard Lindzen who was the former head at MIT of their weather/climate department. Richard is globally accepted to speak on the topic of Climate. Richard has authored or co authored over 230 peer reviewed scientific papers and was once part of the IPCC. She criticizes this esteemed expert.

 

Does it even bother you one bit that the hottest ever place on Earth, Death Valley, CA has not got as hot again as it was in 1913?

Your theory would have to propose that Death Valley, still the hottest of all sites on Earth has got hotter and hotter. But it has not.
next Sunday it is supposed to be 120 at Death Valley. Far below the record heat of 134 degrees in 1913. Today it will be 116 degrees F.

 

WUWT is an accurate aggregator. Take it or leave it. If you think their presentation is inaccurate, you always have the option to provide evidence.