It seems logical it is going to stay warm for sometime considering the huge warming cycle we have gone through. It also makes sense that the atmosphere is being affected by a cooling cycle while the overall globe remains warm from OHC. At any rate we will probably know the answer in a few years.
What do you mean by "stay warm". Why is it logical that it "stays warm". Whenever the amount of insolation is reduced we note that it cools, e.g. day-> night, summer->winter. I'm not saying the drop should be dramatic but we should not being seeing record highs. SC23, not a particularly active cycle, peaked nearly 10 years ago, so why aren't temperatures back to, say, 1990 or even 1995 levels.
The answer of course to your multitude of climate effects is:
1) cooling is abated by heat storage and clouds providing better insulation. Clouds being the most likely suspect for the variation in cooling and warming.
2) heat storage of course being very substantial. One reason why you might see zero cooling through SC23 is it was an above average cycle and if the solar grand maximum only being about 60 years it wasn't done warming if it continues. (LIA recovery overriding?)
3) Looking at the LIA recovery theory of .5c per century we could still be on the treadmill and more LIA recovery ala Don Easterbrook. The expectation of actual cooling could be premature. Elimination of that underlying .5c per century tells us something pretty dramatic happened but I don't think you can go beyond that to predict actual cooling. Solar influenced cooling may happen yet but I think that might actually depend upon the completion of an entire below average cycle or two.
4) Keep in mind that the underlying warming is only about .5C per century or .05 per decade, granted that it might have hit .07 per decade with the solar grand maximum after factoring out the decadal ocean oscillation signal. (e.g. some acceleration is noted in the land temp records but at least some of that is a result of "value added" changes to the historical temperature record bring some degree of doubt to those changes especially in face of the resistance to providing the raw data and methods used into the public domain; not to speak of the expressed biases and associations (overegged tree rings and upside down proxies) of the caretakers and manipulators of the data.)
Solar scientists have long sought an explanation of sun cycles. What you find yourself doing, like all "natural" scientists eventually find. . . .is spirally down into some kind of a chaos theory out of frustration of being able to predict anything with any really significant degree of reliability.
So as I see it you have AGW/IPCC predictions. From that you need to subtract ocean oscillations as AGW is not going to hinge turn from historical warming to fit the actual underlying non-ocean oscillation history to the prediction paths in my view fraudulently offered by the IPCC. Keenleyside/Latif seems an overly-tortured explanation (though plausible when you factor in how uncertain we are able to actually measure anything with the kind of reliability needed but that tears at everybody's theory uniformly)
In addition to that it is good you have accepted some solar influence.
I think clearly there is some. Does it add up to the entire historical .5degC per century warming noted underlying the ocean oscillations? I have no idea.
A boost from the .05C per decade long term slope to a slightly higher one post 1956 could well be explained by visual solar observation over the past century.
Namely a weak signal difficult to pick out of the decadal ocean signal and annual variations brought to us by El Nino. . . .which by the way is mysteriously now missing from your argument GLC.
You regaled us with explanations of why the La Nina explained why it was cooler for almost 2 years and now that it is slightly warmer and we have an El Nino. . . .ENSO no longer seems to be an explanation suitable for you. Why is that?
I think its pretty clear in the temperature record that annual climate swings of .1 to .2 degreesC are quite common.
You spend a great deal of time whining about how a decadal diversion from CO2 forced warming isn't remarkable and then quickly jump into arguments about annual temperature variations with gusto as if such diversions were as rare as hen's teeth.
Fact is annual diversions aren't unusual at all they are the norm. I don't think I need to get into explaining why to a true AGW believer who has to of necessity base his entire argument on being able to jump from short term weather with his handy dandy boy scout theory of greenhouse forcing to centennial climate predictions. . . .you already thoroughly understand how that works. LOL!
Solar activity peaked in ~1991 (apart from the 1958 peak, that is). I can accept 5 or maybe 10 years of continued warming but we're now getting on for 20 years - and with a negative PDO (since 1999 according to Easterbrook).
I think in that 20 years you should note that all the warming occurred in the first 10 which you acknowledge is OK. Now we have no warming for the last 10.
I would suggest at this point in time what we have is a cancellation of the LIA recovery (in addition to cancellation of any portion of the warming attributable to CO2). Thats a cooling influence that so far we have only got a small peek of (2008), likely caused by La Nina combined with solar minima.
Today we have slight warming brought by a decadal (?) El Nino (seems a particularly strong El Nino occurs about every 10 to 15 years 57-58, 72-73, 82-83, 97-98, 09-10?) combined with a ramping sun.
I think there is a ramping signal in sun activity as well.
Possibly two influences one being xrays the other being magnetic.
If the magnetic influences are stronger on the ramps (gas flows on the sun hitting peaks on the ramps and slowing to reverse at max and minima like the tides) along with the peak and minima in xray emissions affecting GCRs you can have a system that loosely mimmicks the general correlation with solar activity without hitting precisely on the observed max and minima but shows signs at those points often offset one way or the other based upon the intensity of a new cycle (polarity changes at minimums but the direction of the force changes at the maxes)
So I think what is going to happen is uncertain but could well correlate to how active the sun gets with perhaps a continuing cold ocean cycle.
I would predict an overall cooling over the next 4 years, contingent upon the sun maxing at concensus predition or less. Thats betting on a continued negative PDO and low solar max; otherwise the underlying LIA recovery could continue on its .5C/decade slope (whether fully LIA recovery or in part CO2 forcing).
So I think I am out there somewhere with the astrometeorologists and banking on their success as exemplified by the two Farmer's Almanacs' successful 200 year plus runs.
Namely I think there is an observable phenomena that affects our climate and since CO2 is invisible. . . .it could be part of it but after you thin slice the roast it seems to get quite abit smaller than what even Roy Spencer allows for.
I would like to see some alternative calcs in the form I presented earlier in this thread. Its difficult to see logically looking at our historical record how the warming slope is much greater than the .5c per century laid out by Akasofu. Its also not clear to me within the laws of the logarithmatic diminishing effect of increased CO2 concentration, together with a fairly straight looking Keeling curve how you get so much acceleration in warming over the next century.
From Don Easterbrook's perspective it seems the only way you can get anywhere close to those numbers is if you use all the warming of the 80's and 90's as the starting platform.
And from an audit experience standpoint if they started from there, their entire theory is in mortal danger. If the proponents can allow that much error in one direction, there is equal likelihood the error can be doubled. In other words if their prediction of 3 degs per century was based on ocean oscillations and after removal of that you have 1 degree per century their underlying theory isn't tight enough to have any degree of certainty there isn't another error of equal magnitude. . . .namely .3 degrees per century or less. And all that shows us is show us the minimal amount of how loose their theory is. . . .it could be looser if any part of the underlying .5c per century is due to the fact we actually had a LIA and their theory that doesn't exist seems even worse.
So I can accept your 1degC per century belief. . . .but I think you aren't arguing for it fairly. I would like to see your model (as I asked Steve for a few months ago) for history matching it to instrumental warming, observed ocean oscillations (ala Akasofu).
Then I would like to see the current CO2 forcing calcs on a more reasonable sensitiivity scale that matches this then projected to the future based upon some clear assumptions about emissions to see just how much acceleration one can reasonably expect.Then work in short term stuff like ENSO and solar max and minima, keeping in mind there is probably some kind of solar tidal effect as well whatever the cause might be that masks the solar max and minima effects but might go to a related supercycle MWP to LIA that we see in all the proxy records and discarded as noise by the AWG crowd.
And then when you are done with that explain why the Arctic was ice free for perhaps a thousand years of so around 6 millenia ago sufficient to form huge wave formed beaches on the northshore of Greenland.