People are saying that this paper is irrelevant in the current climate debate because in its conclusion it states that solar forcing is not responsible for the late 20th century warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ScienceSunspotsandclimate.pdf
In its thesis statement they state:
"Two mechanisms, the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean-atmosphere surface response, are included in versions of three global climate models, with either mechanism acting alone or both acting together. We show that the two mechanisms act together to enhance the climatological off-equatorial tropical precipitation maxima in the Pacific, lower the eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures during peaks in the 11-year solar cycle, and reduce
low-latitude clouds to amplify the solar forcing at the surface."
Lets make two assumptions: First of all, the forcing given to co2 by the GCM models are correct. Secondly, the premise of this paper is also correct. Wouldn’t this paper prove that the current low solar forcing would offset any greenhouse gas forcing at least partly? So why are people saying that this paper is irrelevant in the current climate debate?
Blob and Dana: So in others words are you saying that when the sun is at its low end of its cycle (with minimum sun spots) it will have an effect, but when the sun enters a period of a low solar cycle (with also less sun spots) it will not?
Basically what I mean that if low sun spots affect climate during an eleven year cycle why wouldn’t low sun spots effect climate during a period of low solar activity like the maunder minimum where there were no sun spots, or the present period if sun activity does not pick up.
Posted in 
Tags: 
"Wouldn’t this paper prove that the current low solar forcing would offset any greenhouse gas forcing at least partly?"
Yes, in the short-term, it has. Did you forget how much you’ve been going on about ‘global cooling’ recently?
However, this paper is talking about the short-term effects of the 11-year solar cycle. As soon as the next cycle begins, the effects will be reversed. That’s why when talking about global warming, it’s rather pointless to talk about the solar cycle or ENSO.
If you want to talk about masking or amplifying the long-term anthropogenic signal in the short-term, then it’s worthwhile to discuss these cycles. But they’re irrelevant to long-term global warming. As the study points out, there is still no long-term trend in solar activity over the past 30 years (in fact much longer).
That’s the answer to your question – the paper is irrelevant to the long-term warming, so it doesn’t impact the ‘debate’ except that it helps explain the supposed ‘global cooling’ deniers are always going on about.
*edit* Ottawa, "this response" clearly refers to the response of short-term global temperatures to the 11-year solar cycle effects. Notice that even with the secondary effects discussed in this paper, it’s still only half the impact of ENSO on short-term global temps.
buy@generic.LEVITRA” rel=”nofollow”>……
Need cheap generic LEVITRA?…