On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

Possibly, but it is reinforced right now. Either way, both the PDO and La
Nina are irelevant to continued warming from CO2. All they can do is mask
it for awhile.

http://www.physorg.com/news128094289.html

That's a good link, and it corrects my misunderstanding of the PDO
warm phase.

That article clearly states the PDO was in a warm phase in the early
1990's, which would've forced temperatures UP. But the PDO cool phase
didn't start until 2007.

So let's look at your argument.

If the PDO warming effect eased (after the 1998 el Nino) then there
would've been a climate response to it.

What we saw was a slower rate of temperature increase, a near-
plateauing effect. CO2 didn't push temperatures along with a neutral
PDO.

If the rate of temp. increase was eased, and that lowered rate was
attributable *ONLY* to the PDO cycle in a neutral phase between 1999 -
2007, then

1) The PDO warming effect was influencing temperatures until 1998

and

2) CO2-driven warming eased off between 1999 - 2007 for a different
reason.

I keep mentioning a modest decline in solar-driven heating.

Solar luminance has been shown to have a mild negative influence, by
the IPCC, of a -0.1 degrC since the 1980's, about the same time the
pro-AGW guys said the sun stopped having a dominant role in
temperature (I'm sure we all remember IPCC reps saying that, if
anything, heating from solar intensity has gone down while
temperatures went up). And the 0.01 figure is according to a pro-AGW
scientist I've conversed with. We all can agree the the lowered solar
luminance would've masked the same amount of CO2-driven warming.

So what about the period of 1999-2007?

If the warm phase PDO eased *AND* solar luminance continued to fall at
the same rate, then the rest of the effect is CO2's.

Let's say that before the marked changes in the sun in 2006 the -0.1
degrC solar dimming occurred for the period of 1985 for the past 25
years, which is what, -0.04 per decade or -0.004 per year? The PDO was
in neutral, solar luminance between 1999 - 2007 was -0.035 (trim 2
years worth of solar dimming per decade).

Now temperatures went up by how much during this PDO-neutral period of
1999 - 2007?

Using the warmer MSU data, there was a +0.5 increase in that period.
Hadley CRUT showed a -0.04 decrease. The two averaged is a +0.01 C
increase. So is my Q&D solar luminance decrease of -0.035 masking that
much CO2 warming?

What do we have? +0.045 warming due to CO2 for that 8 year period, or
+0.06 degrees Celsius for a decade.

That'd be a +0.6 additional additional warming due in 2100, which is
completely in line with the base logarithmic function for CO2 where
the rate of increase slows logarithmically to a near-asymptote. That's
a very modest warming trend, all the while we have more water vapor &
soot in the air, with their purported warming effects.

That suggests a shorter time constant, which means that something else
slowed the temperature trend starting in 1999-2001. Something actively
slowing the temperature rise.

I'm afraid not. There's no need to invoke a 'time constant'.

Really? But that's what Hansen is claiming, is a 20-yr time constant
or time lag. That's one of the arguments is that some warming is
getting swept under the oceanic rug. Argo data shows that it's not,
that the time constant is more like 5 years. That is, no heating gets
swept under the rug.

In any case one big change is total solar luminance (not just sun
spots) has fallen in the past decade,

Not by any effective amount, no.

with solar Wolf numbers and SSNe
values decreasing since the early 1990's. One solar minimum doesn't do
it, but a longer trend can.

There is no evidence of a longer trend occurring.

Yes, there is. You're just naysaying. The solar scientists have been
observing MARKEDLY lower solar luminance for at least THREE years, and
decreasing solar luminance for the past 25.

The value is -0.1 degrC for the past 25 years or so. That's what the
pro-AGW *scientist* told *me* at scienceskeptic.com & I've read that
elsewhere.

If you factor in the effects of tropospheric soot, which is now shown
to have 60% of the heating effect of CO2 - about 37% globally in air
temperatures - then we can shave that much off the CO2-driven
temperature line as well, which again is good news for everybody
except for those who hate CO2 in an absolute way and won't accept
anything except a worst-case hypothesis for CO2 forcings.

First you have to show that soot is not accounted for already.

It wasn't!

See the aerosols section. They thought the white sulfates masked the
heating effect of soot:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-forcings.svg

They don't, they work together for a net heating, of 0.9 watts/m-2.

Even just last year the IPCC gave soot a net cooling/dimming effect of
-0.1 watts, with the error bar bringing it between -0.3 and +0.4 watts/
m-2. V Ramanathan (a big name in the pro-AGW camp) announced that it's
actually 0.6 - 1.0 watts/m-2, well OUTSIDE of the error bars for the
IPCC. This was a surprise to Ramanathan, but other studies had
suggested it as far back as 2001.

Ramanathan found last August that up to 40% of heating over the
Pacific alone is caused by soot. That's a 13% effect globally. This
year he co-authored a study that showed a NET 37% warming effect
globally (60% of CO2's warming effect). The Arctic melt-off, up to 90%
attributable to soot, makes up for a quarter of centennial warming.

All the data are there if you want to find them.

I'm done arguing with AGW alarmists.

/leebert

wrote in message
...
On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

Possibly, but it is reinforced right now. Either way, both the PDO and
La
Nina are irelevant to continued warming from CO2. All they can do is
mask
it for awhile.

http://www.physorg.com/news128094289.html

That's a good link, and it corrects my misunderstanding of the PDO
warm phase.

That article clearly states the PDO was in a warm phase in the early
1990's, which would've forced temperatures UP. But the PDO cool phase
didn't start until 2007.

Um, no, I'm afraid not.

"Image at left shows a horseshoe of higher than average (warm) water in
western Pacific Ocean (red and white), and lower than average (cool) blue
and purple water in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This leads us to believe we
have entered the cool phase of the PDO over this past year, 1999."

http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.html



So let's look at your argument.

If the PDO warming effect eased (after the 1998 el Nino) then there
would've been a climate response to it.

Yes, and we have seen a minimal decrease in positive slope since 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...ure_Record.png



What we saw was a slower rate of temperature increase, a near-
plateauing effect. CO2 didn't push temperatures along with a neutral
PDO.

CO2 is always pushing temps, and there was no true neutral PDO.

(snip stuff based on neutral PDO theory)



That suggests a shorter time constant, which means that something else
slowed the temperature trend starting in 1999-2001. Something actively
slowing the temperature rise.

I'm afraid not. There's no need to invoke a 'time constant'.

Really? But that's what Hansen is claiming, is a 20-yr time constant
or time lag. That's one of the arguments is that some warming is
getting swept under the oceanic rug. Argo data shows that it's not,
that the time constant is more like 5 years. That is, no heating gets
swept under the rug.

I'm afraid I have only been able to find one study for that.



In any case one big change is total solar luminance (not just sun
spots) has fallen in the past decade,

Not by any effective amount, no.

with solar Wolf numbers and SSNe
values decreasing since the early 1990's. One solar minimum doesn't do
it, but a longer trend can.

There is no evidence of a longer trend occurring.

Yes, there is. You're just naysaying. The solar scientists have been
observing MARKEDLY lower solar luminance for at least THREE years, and
decreasing solar luminance for the past 25.

3 years = irrelevant, 25 years = need a cite.

"The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will
continue to rise, peaking around 2012. Tung 2007 estimates the solar cycle
contributes around 0.18°C to global temperatures (more on Tung's work...).
In other words, from 2001 until present day, falling solar activity reduced
the global warming trend by 0.18°C. And over the next 5 to 6 years, the
warming sun will add 0.18°C to global temperatures, roughly doubling the
global warming trend. The only positive I can take from this is several
years from now, at least we won't have to listen to the "global warming
stopped in 1998" argument any longer."

http://tinyurl.com/4qbvbt


The value is -0.1 degrC for the past 25 years or so. That's what the
pro-AGW *scientist* told *me* at scienceskeptic.com & I've read that
elsewhere.

If you factor in the effects of tropospheric soot, which is now shown
to have 60% of the heating effect of CO2 - about 37% globally in air
temperatures - then we can shave that much off the CO2-driven
temperature line as well, which again is good news for everybody
except for those who hate CO2 in an absolute way and won't accept
anything except a worst-case hypothesis for CO2 forcings.

First you have to show that soot is not accounted for already.

It wasn't!

See the aerosols section. They thought the white sulfates masked the
heating effect of soot:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e-forcings.svg

They don't, they work together for a net heating, of 0.9 watts/m-2.

That figure appears to be for soot only.

"Ramanathan's study found that black carbon had a warming effect of about
0.9 watts per meter squared"

http://www.livescience.com/environme...7-gw-soot.html

But in their new analysis of a wide variety of recent data, Veerabhadran
Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego,
California, and Gregory Carmichael of the University of Iowa in Iowa City
suggest that black carbon warms the atmosphere by as much as 0.9 W m-2

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...871/1745?rss=1



Even just last year the IPCC gave soot a net cooling/dimming effect of
-0.1 watts, with the error bar bringing it between -0.3 and +0.4 watts/
m-2.

Looks like that's not quite correct, at least not as of this March.

"The most recent IPCC assessment made a lower estimate of the warming
effect, between 0.2 and 0.4 watts per meter squared. "

http://www.livescience.com/environme...7-gw-soot.html

"IPCC estimated that, at current levels, black carbon warms the atmosphere
by 0.2 to 0.4 watts per square meter (W m-2),"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...871/1745?rss=1



V Ramanathan (a big name in the pro-AGW camp) announced that it's
actually 0.6 - 1.0 watts/m-2, well OUTSIDE of the error bars for the
IPCC. This was a surprise to Ramanathan, but other studies had
suggested it as far back as 2001.

Ramanathan found last August that up to 40% of heating over the
Pacific alone is caused by soot. That's a 13% effect globally. This
year he co-authored a study that showed a NET 37% warming effect
globally (60% of CO2's warming effect). The Arctic melt-off, up to 90%
attributable to soot, makes up for a quarter of centennial warming.

All the data are there if you want to find them.

They certainly are. The actual paper says:

"At the TOA, the ABC (that is, BC + non-BC) forcing of -1.4 W m-2 (sum of
TOA values in Figs 2c,d), which includes a -1 W m-2 indirect forcing, may
have masked as much as 50% (25%) of the global forcing due to GHGs."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...l/ngeo156.html

In other words, BC absorption has not caused greenhouse gases to be
overstimated in regards to warming effect, but underestimated.

On May 1, 10:45 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

Yes, there is. You're just naysaying. The solar scientists have been
observing MARKEDLY lower solar luminance for at least THREE years, and
decreasing solar luminance for the past 25.

3 years = irrelevant, 25 years = need a cite.

Sorry, you'll have to go find it yourself dear.


"The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will
continue to rise, peaking around 2012. Tung 2007 estimates the solar cycle
contributes around 0.18�C to global temperatures (more on Tung's work...).
In other words, from 2001 until present day, falling solar activity reduced
the global warming trend by 0.18�C. And over the next 5 to 6 years, the
warming sun will add 0.18�C to global temperatures, roughly doubling the
global warming trend. The only positive I can take from this is several
years from now, at least we won't have to listen to the "global warming
stopped in 1998" argument any longer."

http://tinyurl.com/4qbvbt

Sorry, but the projections for SC24 are headed toward the ashcan. It
may be a half-amplitude cycle. Any claims to being sure either way
should be hedged. However, the -0.18 C change demonstrates the effect
between solar max & min.

This situation will evolve, but the ability to forecast SC25 is based
on the same methodology as forecasting SC24, and SC25 is looking to be
a half-amplitude dud. Five of those in succession look likely to bring
global temps *down* and produce a lot of La Ninas.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...7-gw-soot.html

But in their new analysis of a wide variety of recent data, Veerabhadran
Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego,
California, and Gregory Carmichael of the University of Iowa in Iowa City
suggest that black carbon warms the atmosphere by as much as 0.9 W m-2

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...871/1745?rss=1

Even just last year the IPCC gave soot a net cooling/dimming effect of
-0.1 watts, with the error bar bringing it between -0.3 and +0.4 watts/
m-2.

Looks like that's not quite correct, at least not as of this March.

Well, they finally fixed it. It took long enough.

"At the TOA, the ABC (that is, BC + non-BC) forcing of -1.4 W m-2 (sum of
TOA values in Figs 2c,d), which includes a -1 W m-2 indirect forcing, may
have masked as much as 50% (25%) of the global forcing due to GHGs."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...l/ngeo156.html

In other words, BC absorption has not caused greenhouse gases to be
overstimated in regards to warming effect, but underestimated.

You're misunderstanding that statement w/in the broader context of the
study. I can see why, but let me explain this...

What Ramanathan's saying is that at the top of the atmosphere (TOA),
where satellites watch brown clouds, the brown clouds are masking the
heating from below. That would explain the misapprahension of the net
heating effect of brown clouds. What Ramanathan did instead was fly
aerial drone aircraft *through* the mid-tropos. brown clouds & was
very very surprised to find a net heating effect. That was in Summer
2007. His first paper came out in 8/2007.

So his statement is consistent with all his other statements about
tropospheric brown clouds, that:

1) The sulfates actually increase soot's heating effect by reflecting
heat into the soot particles

2) The mid-tropospheric net heating effect outweighs the surface
dimming/cooling effect and is 60% of that of CO2's (a 37: 53 mix)

3) The net heating caused by soot over the Pacific is 40 percent
(that's 33% of the surface, for a 13% warming effect globally)

4) Mitigating soot would be an important first step in moderating the
climate response to already extant forcings from CO2

5) The soot directly heats & reduces the albedo of subtropical and
tropical glaciers that exist at exactly the level the soot rises to.

So the NET effect of tropospheric soot however is a net heating at the
surface. This is what has prompted Ramanathan to call for soot
mitigation as an important first step in slowing global warming. He
still thinks CO2 is a bad thing, but the soot needs to be taken care
of first, along with reducing sulfates, together. That brown clouds
would mask emissivity upward makes sense to me. What was surprising to
Ramanathan & others was the additional net heating effect, driving yet
more heat down toward the surface.

In any case, here are some more straight-forward quotes from
Ramanathan:

"The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as
50 percent of the global warming .. through ... global dimming ...
This study reveals that ... soot particles ... are intensifying the
atmospheric warming ... by as much as 50 percent."

An even starker portrait of Ramanathan's study:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6570023.story

"...The report concludes that the atmospheric warming effect of black
carbon pollution is as much as three to four times the consensus
estimate [emphasis mine] released last year in a report by the U.N.-
sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

"...The paper concludes that carbon pollution contributes to global
warming at a level that is about 60% of carbon dioxide's warming
effect.."

"...A mass of black carbon in the atmosphere causes about 300,000
times as much instantaneous warming as the same amount of carbon
dioxide."

/leebert

On May 1, 10:45 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

Possibly, but it is reinforced right now. Either way, both the PDO and
La
Nina are irelevant to continued warming from CO2. All they can do is
mask
it for awhile.

http://www.physorg.com/news128094289.html

That's a good link, and it corrects my misunderstanding of the PDO
warm phase.

That article clearly states the PDO was in a warm phase in the early
1990's, which would've forced temperatures UP. But the PDO cool phase
didn't start until 2007.

Um, no, I'm afraid not.

"Image at left shows a horseshoe of higher than average (warm) water in
western Pacific Ocean (red and white), and lower than average (cool) blue
and purple water in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This leads us to believe we
have entered the cool phase of the PDO over this past year, 1999."

http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.html

GREAT!

SO how much offset?


Yes, and we have seen a minimal decrease in positive slope since 1999.

Whether the PDO was slight negative or neutral, take that offset & put
it back on the CO2/soot column.

Yes, there is. You're just naysaying. The solar scientists have been
observing MARKEDLY lower solar luminance for at least THREE years, and
decreasing solar luminance for the past 25.

3 years = irrelevant, 25 years = need a cite.

I've seen the cites, sorry, running out of time on this.

"The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will
continue to rise, peaking around 2012. Tung 2007 estimates the solar cycle
contributes around 0.18�C to global temperatures (more on Tung's work...).
In other words, from 2001 until present day, falling solar activity reduced
the global warming trend by 0.18�C. And over the next 5 to 6 years, the
warming sun will add 0.18�C to global temperatures, roughly doubling the
global warming trend.

That's the expected cycle. Not the long-term down trend of averaged
-0.1 degrC. Like I said, I directly asked this question at an AGW
site, and the climatologist told me straight-on, if anything the sun's
in a slight average downtrend since the late 1980's, masking CO2's
effect by that much.

The only positive I can take from this is several
years from now, at least we won't have to listen to the "global warming
stopped in 1998" argument any longer."

Just wait til SC25. If SC24 comes out normal, it'll further validate
the projections for SC25. If SC24 comes out half-amplitude as some
astrophysicists are suspecting, then all bets will be off for SC24,
and SC25 could be an even worse dud. The big question is what comes
after SC25? Business as usual? Or more dud cycles?

Such a huge perturbation in the sun's activity has an underpinning
physical cause behind it. And changes like those, like a shift from
polar to toroid magnetism in plasma convection tends to be long term.
It's the nature of the beast.

/leebert

wrote in message
...
On May 1, 10:45 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

Possibly, but it is reinforced right now. Either way, both the PDO
and
La
Nina are irelevant to continued warming from CO2. All they can do is
mask
it for awhile.

http://www.physorg.com/news128094289.html

That's a good link, and it corrects my misunderstanding of the PDO
warm phase.

That article clearly states the PDO was in a warm phase in the early
1990's, which would've forced temperatures UP. But the PDO cool phase
didn't start until 2007.

Um, no, I'm afraid not.

"Image at left shows a horseshoe of higher than average (warm) water in
western Pacific Ocean (red and white), and lower than average (cool) blue
and purple water in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This leads us to believe
we
have entered the cool phase of the PDO over this past year, 1999."

http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.html

GREAT!

SO how much offset?


Yes, and we have seen a minimal decrease in positive slope since 1999.

Whether the PDO was slight negative or neutral, take that offset & put
it back on the CO2/soot column.

Yes, there is. You're just naysaying. The solar scientists have been
observing MARKEDLY lower solar luminance for at least THREE years, and
decreasing solar luminance for the past 25.

3 years = irrelevant, 25 years = need a cite.

I've seen the cites, sorry, running out of time on this.

"The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will
continue to rise, peaking around 2012. Tung 2007 estimates the solar cycle
contributes around 0.18�C to global temperatures (more on Tung's
work...).
In other words, from 2001 until present day, falling solar activity
reduced
the global warming trend by 0.18�C. And over the next 5 to 6 years, the
warming sun will add 0.18�C to global temperatures, roughly doubling the
global warming trend.

That's the expected cycle. Not the long-term down trend of averaged
-0.1 degrC. Like I said, I directly asked this question at an AGW
site, and the climatologist told me straight-on, if anything the sun's
in a slight average downtrend since the late 1980's, masking CO2's
effect by that much.

The only positive I can take from this is several
years from now, at least we won't have to listen to the "global warming
stopped in 1998" argument any longer."

Just wait til SC25. If SC24 comes out normal, it'll further validate
the projections for SC25. If SC24 comes out half-amplitude as some
astrophysicists are suspecting, then all bets will be off for SC24,
and SC25 could be an even worse dud. The big question is what comes
after SC25? Business as usual? Or more dud cycles?

Such a huge perturbation in the sun's activity has an underpinning
physical cause behind it. And changes like those, like a shift from
polar to toroid magnetism in plasma convection tends to be long term.
It's the nature of the beast.

/leebert

http://www.physorg.com/preview11434.html

"The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin
as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a
computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles
accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of
solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and
bring down power systems. "

Other links:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._longrange.htm

Note that neither article predicts anyting about earth temps. Here's why,
from the guy predicting a weak SC25 himself. You can skip to the end if you
like.

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?I...tegory=Science

"THAT WILL BE CALLED SOLAR CYCLE 25 AND THERE HAS BEEN A PRESS RELEASE THAT
HAS BEEN CIRCULATING ON THE WEB FOR THE LAST WEEK OR SO IN 2008 FROM AN
ORGANIZATION CALLED "SPACE AND SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER (SSRC) " IN ORLANDO,
FLORIDA. THE DIRECTOR IS JOHN CASEY. THEY HAVE RELEASED INFORMATION SAYING
THEY EXPECT SOLAR CYCLE 25 TO BE SO LOW IN SUNSPOTS THAT IT WILL PLUNGE THE
EARTH INTO A COOLING PERIOD THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE FOOD CROPS GLOBALLY. COULD
YOU COMMENT ON HIS HYPOTHESIS?

I find it highly doubtful. First of all, he bases his prediction for a
small Cycle 25 on my own work. I'm well familiar with my own work! This was
work where we had looked at the drift rate of sunspots on the sun and from
that inferred flows that contribute to how the sun makes sunspot cycles.
That flow was particularly slow during this last Cycle 23 - in fact, slower
than any of the previous 12 cycles.

We also found a correlation with the strength of that flow and the strength
of the upcoming solar cycle two cycles in the future. This fits in with the
same model that is predicting that this next Cycle 24 ought to be a large
cycle.

Given that data, we (NASA) went out on a limb and suggested that solar Cycle
25 (appx. 2018 to 2029) ought to be a much smaller than average cycle
because that flow during Cycle 23 was a lot smaller than average. But there
is a lot of scattering in the measurements. It's not a perfect relationship
and our uncertainty about just that one relationship and how big Cycle 25 is
going to be is give or take 30%.

His claim (John Casey, SSRC) is that he has evidence that corroborates our
own NASA research in suggesting that Cycle 25 ought to be a small cycle. But
there are other steps involved in getting from that to global cooling. Part
of that is to what extent does solar variability in the sunspot cycle
contribute to global warming? Our best estimates - this is an active area of
research and there are other solar researchers that would claim the sun is
far more important than I think - but if I look at the sunspot record and I
look at the temperature record, it suggests that the sun influences the
Earth's global temperature at about the 20 to 30% level.

When we look at the correlation between the sunspot cycle and Earth
temperature, it's not a really tight fit. There are other things that are
far more important such as El Nino, volcanic eruptions and things like
greenhouse gases that also influence - altogether much greater than solar
activity.

So, making the conclusion that a small Cycle 25 means we are going to go
into a cool period on Earth is really pushing it. It's taking the extremes
of two or three measurements and adding them together to say this is going
to be the effect. I'm highly suspicious of that result."

Looks pretty grim for the ol' global cooling scenario. =)

wrote in message
...
On May 1, 10:45 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:

Yes, there is. You're just naysaying. The solar scientists have been
observing MARKEDLY lower solar luminance for at least THREE years, and
decreasing solar luminance for the past 25.

3 years = irrelevant, 25 years = need a cite.

Sorry, you'll have to go find it yourself dear.


"The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will
continue to rise, peaking around 2012. Tung 2007 estimates the solar cycle
contributes around 0.18�C to global temperatures (more on Tung's
work...).
In other words, from 2001 until present day, falling solar activity
reduced
the global warming trend by 0.18�C. And over the next 5 to 6 years, the
warming sun will add 0.18�C to global temperatures, roughly doubling the
global warming trend. The only positive I can take from this is several
years from now, at least we won't have to listen to the "global warming
stopped in 1998" argument any longer."

http://tinyurl.com/4qbvbt

Sorry, but the projections for SC24 are headed toward the ashcan.

I'm afraid you'll need a cite for that.

It
may be a half-amplitude cycle. Any claims to being sure either way
should be hedged. However, the -0.18 C change demonstrates the effect
between solar max & min.

This situation will evolve, but the ability to forecast SC25 is based
on the same methodology as forecasting SC24, and SC25 is looking to be
a half-amplitude dud.

Again, you have omitted your cite.