Quote: The increase in sulfur emissions slows the increase in radiative forcing due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations (Fig. 1). Net anthropogenic forcing rises 0.13 W∕m2 between 2002 and 2007, which is smaller than the 0.24 W∕m2 rise between 1997 and 2002. The smaller net increase in anthropogenic forcing is accompanied by a 0.18 W∕m2 decline in solar insolation caused by the declining phase of the eleven year solar cycle, such that the sum of modeled forcings increases little after 1998 and declines after 2002 (Fig. 1). This cooling effect is amplified by a net increase in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) As indicated in Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 Looks like they're now blaming China sulfur emissions for the non-warming after 1998. In they admit that the solar minimum has caused .18 w/m2 decline of solar isolation after 2002. Proving that the sun has a big effect. So they have just admitted that the sun causes nearly as much effect on the climate as there global warming. Plus add in the sulfur. lol So let me get this straight The Anthropogenic forcing=man made. Co2=.24 watts per meter^2-.13 net balance=-.11 watts per meter^2 is the forcing from china's sulfur emissions. So all together the anthropogenic forcing is .13 watts per meter^2 Now we're in the solar minimum from heck, which makes up .18 watts per meter^2 So .13-.18=-.05 watts per meter^2. .13+(-.18)=-.05 or a negative forcing when you consider the sun. So unless the effects of co2 have grown since 1997-2002 period over the period of 2002-2007 then we would have a negative forcing right now. In considering the sun is even deeper in a grand minimum now from 2007-2011 then you would expect that has grown and the sulfur from china is growing. Both is a negative and growing in strength faster then the co2 forcing. Truthfully it is a good thing it is there because we would be much colder now. I'm surprised that we have NOT seen a cooling with 2007-2011 being even deeper solar minimum; even to the point of the biggest in over 100 years. Weak max to boot. maybe the co2 forcing has increased with it to counter that a little? If your co2 emissions are going up your forcing is NOT going to go down. So it is at least .24 watt per meter^2 in likely more. So that is one variable you can count on. Your solar forcing is also likely even more in the negative, most likely within the -.2 watts per meter^2 now. China hasn't stopped adding sulfur into the system so it is more then -.11 watts per meter^2. Lets assume(Lets pull a guess) that the co2 in reality is near .27 now, but solar is -.22 and sulfur is -.14. Just as a case in point. .27+(-.36)=-.09 watts per meter^2 but the funny thing is 2010 couldn't of happened if this is so. 2010 was half super nina and we would of had to warm between 2005-2010 ever so slightly(Slightly as in .03-.05c) to even start to make that likely. Can't have a negative. So co2 forcing is high enough to have a positive effect. You have to consider that the sulfur is even more of a negative in 2011 and the solar, oh hell, is even more so because this is a very weak max. It is all in the compounding effect that causes the cool and warm cycles. When you consider all this you can arrive to the conclusion that co2 forcing is near or over .3 watts per meter^2 right now. These global warmers believe that the 1950s-1970s cooling was caused because of the western world---being Europe and the US sulfur emissions. With the conclusion made above of .3+ watts per meter^2, we can jump to the case that when the developing world cleans up its sulfur emissions that the world will warmed faster then the 1980's and 1990s. .18-.2c per decade was the rate, so I'd guess .25c per decade??? Of course I'm assuming and pulling things out of thin air, but many theories and idea's have been made this way. It is called thinking through things and seeing where they end up.