OT but I need to rain on the parades of some AGW deniers again. It seems that many are all pumped about a new science article about solar variations.

Following will be the abstract from the paper itself. This is referring to a very technical detail of things that might need to included into present models to predict el nino in one part of the Earth’s system during 11 year cycles.

The warming trend is much larger than 11 years.

Some seem to think that any climate article with the word sun in it, is somehow a magic bullet. This is just false. Suppose for an instant that you were correct beyond your wildest dreams, and that decreased solar activity did indeed have a pronounced effect on the rate of warming…

Unfortunately for the denier side, WE ARE STILL WARMING EVEN THOUGH THE SUN IS GIVING US A BREAK! What would that mean, if the atmosphere is the same when things get back to normal? So, here is the abstract of the paper this article talks about. Please do us the kindness of pointing out the part that contradicts AGW.

One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system response to variations in solar output is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific associated with such solar variability. 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.

So just again, how is this contradicting AGW?