What's important is not the number of sunspots, per se, but the total solar irradiance (TSI). If we look at a reconstruction of TSI going back to 1600, the maximum and minimum TSI was 1361.6 watts per square meter to 1360 watts per square meter. If the next solar cycle goes to a similar low, would this be enough to stop global warming, or perhaps even induce global cooling? Let's look at it.
The sun doesn't shine on the night side of the planet, and it doesn't shine directly on most places on the day side. When you take those two effects into account, you need to divide the TSI by a factor of 4. That means that the minimum average solar irradiance over those 400+ years is 340 watts per square meter, while the maximum was 340.4 watts per square meter. However, the albedo of the Earth is about 30%, that means that only about 70% of this averaged solar radiance matters, so then the variation goes from 238.0 watts per square meter to 238.28 watts per square meter. That means that we might expect a total variation of no more than 0.28 watts per square meter from this low solar cycle. The current forcing from CO2 is about 2 watts per square meter, or about 7 times larger. This sort of decrease would be equivalent to the forcing seen from CO2 about 10 years ago. While that's lower than the present, we still had substantial warming then. Of course, CO2 keeps going up, so there is no reason to expect anything but continued warming, albeit perhaps at a somewhat slower rate.
You can see the reconstructed TSI at the link in the comment.
EDIT: The obnoxious troll dedicates 20+ comments to saying that I am not interested in debate, despite all the obvious evidence to the contrary--look at my dialogue with Jeff, catwhisperer07, Solar Wind, graphicconception, etc. I would say that the person that isn't interested in debate is the one that floods this room with duplicated comments and who never debates the issues.
Another EDIT for the obnoxious troll and JimZ: I don't have co-workers in here. If anyone maliciously moves questions, that is wrong. I am against moving questions from you science illiterates--I love to destroy your idiotic arguments. Whoever is moving questions--please leave them here so I can continue to show these people as the fools they are.
As for JimZ's comments, personally I think that the satellite temperatures are inferior for a number of reasons. They use non-localized remote sensing, for one, so that the measurements that go into their algorithms come from a vertically smeared section of the atmosphere. In other words, they don't measure surface temperature. They're also dependent on using inverse theory from a particular model of atmospheric radiance, and they haven't been around that long and there have been BIG changes in the algorithms--much bigger than any of the corrections that deniers worry about regarding measures of surface temperature. All that being said, when I look at the UAH lower troposphere temperature index, the trend is upward over its entire history AND over the past couple of decades. Using the "Woodfortrees" interactive plotting the trend since 2000 appears to be about 0.12 K/decade, but there is so much variation in the UAH measure that I suspect the error bars on that trend would be quite large. Nevertheless, it shows warming, just like all the other temperature data sets and contrary to what JimZ says. I'll provide a link to the Woodfortrees plot in the comments, in case anyone wants to look at it, but I don't think most deniers are really interested in hearing anything that might conflict with their world view.