Now that solar cycle 24 has started, what are the implications for global temps in 2010?

Depends mostly on what ENSO does. ENSO can affect temperatures by ~0.4C or so in the space of a year.

I've read other papers suggesting a slight lag & the Sun is still very quiescent. So I'd guess minimal changes of note from the Sun, it's difficult enough to extract the ~0.1C peak-to-trough temperature change. Assuming the cycle really gets going, we'll see its biggest effect around 2015 IMO - next time we have an El Nino near a solar maximum.

Without a volcanic eruption, meteor strike or similar I'm very confident about getting the warmest year ever recorded around then.

Basically none.

"Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

So solar cycle 24 won't begin to impact global temperatures until sometime next year.

That being said, 2010 still has a better than 50% chance of breaking the 2005 global temperature record, in my estimation. Mostly because on top of the AGW signal, we're still in the midst of a moderate El Nino cycle, which is expected to last at least until the summer, and though it may have already peaked, may provide a positive anomaly for the rest of the year.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_mon...

The satellite data will be particularly interesting, since there's roughly a 6 month lag before ENSO is reflected in satellite temperatures. That means the current El Nino peak will be reflected right in the middle of the year, and the entire year will reflect El Nino conditions. It's not nearly as strong as the El Nino of 1997/98, so it may not break the 1998 satellite temperature record (satellites reflect ENSO changes more strongly than surface stations), but it should at least be close.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg

*edit* hmm I have a hard time believing there's no lag between changes in solar irradiance and global temperatures. But if the lag is nil to small, obviously that increases the chances of a record-breaking year.

Regardless of what sunspots are TSI is currently at a level similar to 1996 levels, and considering 1996 saw the world still attempting to warm from the Mt Pinatubo volcanic forcing event, I would say that when the El-Nino dissipates in early spring global temperatures should be somewhere slightly warmer than 1996.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite....

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH...

However, if you look at the 14 day forecast of the AO, you will see that it is predicted to go negative Mid Feb. by a similar amount that it did in Dec/Jan, so there is a good probability that this winter could be extended a little longer than normal. This will certainly strengthen most people's perception that a lower than average sunspot number causes cooler weather/climate. What drives the AO? Who knows, perhaps sunspots...

http://www.newx-forecasts.com/ao_2.html

.

.

I don't see why there should be a year delay. Assuming we have been warming as a result of a constant radiative forcing, than an immediate increase in this RF should immediately increase that rate of warming.

The warming of the entire Earth system should be immediate with any radiative imbalance, and a temperature change should be immediately apparent on any coupled land-ocean anomaly. Maybe it will take a couple years for this warming to be OBVIOUS on a global temperature set, but if the radiative forcing is already there, then it should already be contributing to the rate of warming.

What Dana said is correct. The pick up of solar sunspot activity won't affect global mean temperature for a year or two, but el Nino warming, combined with long-term warming from manmade greenhouse gases, should keep 2010 at or beyond record levels.

News Doubter has a selective memory, or maybe cold weather just follows deniers everywhere.

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009/08/austins...

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases...

Man your such a snitch. Reporting people like a cracker

2007, 2008, and 2009 were the continuation of a trend toward colder temperatures. Record low temperatures and snowfalls throughout the world.

Argentina saw snow in 2007 for the first time since 1918. Snow cover in the 2007-2008 winter for North America and Asia was the greatest since 1966. China had its coldest winter in 100 years. Toronto had the highest snowfall since 1950.

South Africa had its coldest night in history in September 2008. London was hit with its first October snowfall since 1922. China reported Tibet had the worst snowfall ever. Hong Kong had the second coldest spell since 1885. (yes, 1885, not 1985). The UNWMO, NASA's GISS, and USNCDC all reported that the 2008 year was the 9th or 10th coldest since record keeping began. Dutch canals froze for the first time in 16 years.

London's February 2009 reported the most snowfall in 20 years. Boston's June 2009 was the 6th coldest on record. New York's Central Park tied its June record going back to 1897.

None of this includes the multiple record-breaking low temperatures throughout the U.S. over the past 3 winters. Your claim of hot years in 2007, 2008 and 2009 is not credible.

(Interesting how us climate warming deniers are getting the thumbs down. Cold water hasn't doused the flames of the climate warming alarmists.)

We cannot expect normal temperatures until the sunspot average exceeds 110 daily. As long as the daily average remains under 80 the world will continue to cool into a new ice age, just not as fast as it was up until now. It will be quite a while for the solar system to recover from the current cool down. If the sun went back to 110 plus spots a day this year it could take close to 60 years for the earth to recover what it has lost in the last 3 years. But I really did not expect any liberal to be able to comprehend how closely climate is tied to solar activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-para...

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Tempera...

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_p...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlM...

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-show...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capac...

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/globa...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491_(book)

Site your source.....and how do you know its credible in this climate of political correctness where scientists have seemingly lost thier integrity.

I read where temps went down 1/2 a degree in 2007 world wide, mostly attributed due to the lacking solar activity.

I also read where 1989 was the highest temp, before then was 1934...not 2007,8 and 9.

With all the liar's out there trying to get everyone to pay higher taxes and fee's, how can you trust the data anymore. Even a supposedly prestigeous weather center in UK (east Anglia) has been trying to manipulate temp data to fit thier own Global Warming theory