Ok, wth is this article?? I went to the Met Office and the CRU at East Anglia websites, and they report nothing of the sort there. Both sites confirm rising temperatures, with maximums in the past ten years. I didn't have to cherry pick, the stuff is front and center when you follow the world climate links.
I have to agree that few people think the solar minimum will actually cause another ice age. We don't even know if this is another maunder minimum yet, we'll have to wait about 15 more years to know for sure.
As far as I can see, by going to the sources, the article's claim about the Met Office and the CRU is a lie. Then it attempts to explain the lie with some other causation, solar output. But this morning's news has: Fox News (volcanoes): http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/31/volcanoes-may-have-sparked-little-ice-age/ Live Science (on solar output): http://www.livescience.com/14453-sunspots-solar-dimming-ice-age.html
Here's an interesting chart that may add some clarity. From it one can see that the inter-glacial periods are highly correlated to orbit eccentricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Milankovitch_Variations.png Here's one that shows sunspots, CO2 and temps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
From a guy who knows something about the sun.. Sami Solanki, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany said: The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures... the brighter sun and higher levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature, but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.[71] Nevertheless, Solanki agrees with the scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is attributable to human activity. "Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earthâs temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."[72]
Your first chart shows little if any correlation. Your second chart is too short and does not include long enough cycles to provide correlation. The chart below is more telling. <img src="http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/sunspots-from-wermenhcom.jpg">
And despite the disinformation out there, this is still valid and recently proven even more so. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/paleo-temps.jpg
LOL I have no desire to continue an AGW discussion with you since you cannot accept factual evidence. You can only see selected data and selected time frames to promote your incorrect assumptions. I'm sorrry but you are just too ignorant to continue to talk with on this subject.