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

The discussion (and the WUWT claim) was about cooling in the contiguous US. That cooling is easily seen here.
Data Overview - Berkeley Earth
http://berkeleyearth.org › data

Source data consists of the raw temperature reports that form the foundation of our ... Contiguous United States Average Temperature (TAVG; 1850 – Recent).

 

No, you do not have permission. All it shows is that you could not stay on topic.

 

Annnnd that is our lead contrarian Judith Curry meanwhile the sales are so bad Amazon has dropped the price to about a third - lols!

 

Ah! But if it were such a brilliant piece of wit putting there should not worry you. Are you ready to concede that the USA is actually part of the globe?

 

And

And since the USA is part of planet Earth……….

 

This is old - 2009 but it is still noteworthy for its debunking of WUWT

 

Of course it is, but that specific discussion was about the contiguous US during the period 2000-2020. Please try to stay on topic.

 

Again, please try to stay on topic. The specific discussion was about cooling temperatures in the contiguous US 2000-2020.

 

Just an unfounded collection of smears.

And here's an interesting follow-up.
Thanks, American Thinker, for Exposing the Lack of Science Behind ‘Climate Science’ Claims
CONSENSUS JUNE 23, 2021

". . . “In 2013, Peter Sinclair, reputed to be ‘the sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube,’ reprinted a section of [the MJS] article under the headline ‘Lower Great Lakes Levels – Another New Normal?’ To dissent was to risk ridicule, to be named Sinclair’s ‘Climate Denial Crock of the Week.’”

The “settled science,” publicized by MJS, National Geographic, Youtube and others was false at the time they were writing about it. . . . "

 

Yeah they can't make up their minds on what "settled science" (only ignorant science illiterates propagandists say things like that) really is.

From the link is this reality warmist/alarmists will ignore because they have a climate cult ideology to defend:

I remember that Great Lakes nonsense from a few years ago, it was more evidence that warmist/alarmists don't know what science research consist of, therefore they are like children crowding the ice cream truck loudly demanding their flavor, even when told they don't have it......

 

And the surface area of the USA is about 2% of the planet. If the planet warms it all warms but I admit not at the same rate

However that does not negate the fact your source tried to hide the pee in his manipulations

 

Oh! Dear that hoary old falsehood? Let’s see so far you have trotted out the hockey stick controversy and the Himalayan Glaciers both of which were settled over a decade ago and now you are trying to drag up a so called controversy from the 1970’s and it too was debunked decades ago. Haven’t you got anything current?

 

No less accurate than your assertion that WUWT is either reliable or accurate

And your debunk is from “American Stinker”

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/american-thinker-bias-and-reliability/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/

Another conspiracy theory site

 

No less accurate than your assertion that WUWT is either reliable or accurate

And your debunk is from “American Stinker”

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/american-thinker-bias-and-reliability/

and as part of the globe it is affected by global temperature

 

Nope. The source was always about cooling temperature in the contiguous US. Your desperate attempt to change the subject exposes your lack of evidence to the contrary.

 

And yet the account is accurate, an embarrassing fact you are doing your best to avoid.

 

Just more dodging.

 

The Berkeley graph shows that WUWT is wrong about the contiguous U.S. surface cooling during the past 20 years.
The baseline used doesn't matter. All you have to do is look at the graph.

The CERES satellite data might show cooling, I don't know, but that data isn't as accurate as the ground temperature data.
The rate of warming slowed considerably during the 2000 - 2020 period versus the previous 30 years.

Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth’s surface temperature from the ground or from space? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it’s safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.

Here’s why:

1. Satellites measure the brightness of Earth’s atmosphere and then scientists work hard to convert that information to temperatures using computer models, which are simulations that help us better understand our planet’s complexities, like a laboratory in a computer.
2. Scientists take brightness data from 16 different satellites. Imagine getting a box of puzzle pieces but with no reference picture to show you what the completed puzzle will look like. Experts deal with a similar challenge by taking information from all of those satellites that were launched in different decades since 1978 and figuring out how the pieces best fit together.
3. Satellites measure the brightness of Earth’s atmosphere at different altitudes. For example, the layer of air measured closest to where people live is at the altitude where birds and airplanes fly. Scientists take and blend various measurements up to a height of nearly 23,000 feet (about 7,000 meters).