Eli,

No matter what (some) solar scientists think now, there is an excellent correlation between reconstructed solar variations and reconstructed temperatures since about 1600 and 1950 (and further). The real variations do matter: if there was less amplitude in solar variability in the past, that implies a larger sensitivity for solar, to explain the temperature variations. See the discussion between Rasmus Benestad and Scafetta on that topic at RC: “How not to attribute climate change”, from comment #4, 21 (mine) and #24 (Scafetta) on.

On the other side, if there was less amplitude in temperature variability in the past, then the sensitivity for solar is smaller.
Greenhouse gases show only small variations in the pre-industrial past: about 10 ppmv for the MWP-LIA period, this has negligible effect on temperature. Thus the past variation in temperature is mainly from solar variations and volcanic eruptions. The influence of volcanic eruptions in average is less than 0.1°C over the full 400 years period. If one has small variations like Mann ea. then solar variations cause a small variation (about 0.1°C) in temperature. If one has less/no influence from HS shaped tree-ring series (which suppress variability in the pre-1850 period), like in Moberg and Huang (bore holes), then the variability of temperature caused by solar influences was about 0.7°C.

Does that influence the sensitivity for 2xCO2? According to current climate models, no. Climate models assume that 1 W/m2 change in solar forcing has the same effect as 1 W/m2 more greenhouse gas forcing (within +/- 10%). This is far from sure, as the effect of e.g. solar UV changes is mainly in the stratosphere, which causes changes in jetstream position and rain patterns. And solar penetrates deeper in the oceans (and cloud drops) than IR waves, which are absorbed/reflected in the upper fraction of a mm of the water surface… The HadCM3 model probably underestimates solar changes with a factor 2, see Stott ea. (within the constraints of the model, like a fixed influence of aerosols).

Raypierre at RC: Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity is convinced of the equality of effects of forcings:

The current picture of Holocene climate variations is based not just on tree ring data, but on glacial mass balance and a wide variety of other proxy data. If this state of knowledge were to be revised in such a way as to indicate that the amplitude of the climate variations were larger than previously thought, that could very well call for for an upward revision of climate sensitivity

In fact, Raypierre and many other climate scientists assume that a higher sensitivity for solar in the pre-industrial past also means a higher sensitivity for all types of forcing. Others (J. Esper, RJS Wilson, DC Frank,A Moberg, H Wanner and J Luterbacher) disagree:

So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.”

You see, the science on the sensitivity of different forcings is far from settled…

You don’t have a real good sarcasm detector Steve. But more seriously if you have been following tamino and the AR4, you would realize that the solar types now think that the change in insolation was much smaller than they thought even in the TAR. This casts claims of EWPs and LIAs in an entirely different light and makes it much more likely that changes in temperature globally were fairly small as most of the proxy reconstructions show.

And this coming from someone who asked in one of their latest posts “Where is the MWP (which YOU are now re-naming the EWP)

Steve might not have a “real good sarcasm detector,” but he sure has a good bullcrap detector.

the solar types now think that the change in insolation was much smaller than they thought even in the TAR.

Oh well.

OTOH, Eli would appreciate it if you attribute Tony Watt’s words to Tony Watt.

Mark

Does anyone have access to the Salzer and Hughes paper?

Check thread by same name at CA. It’s there.

Steve, I think you need to publish more than just a “technical note.” You are doing important and creative work, which needs to find its way into the scientific literature. We all need to be reminded from time to time that “publish or perish” is not about gaining academic tenure, rather it means, “Publish, or your ideas will perish with you.”

I suggest you consider preparing an article for the Annals of the Association of American Geographers http://aag.org/Publications/annalsweb1.html

Your works fit the objective of the journal (see below) and could be considered for more than one section depending on the focus. The format of this journal also accommodates maps, graphs, photographs, and color reproduction.

“The Annals of the Association of American Geographers publishes original, timely, and innovative peer-reviewed articles that advance knowledge in all facets of the discipline. These articles address significant research problems and issues, and are attuned to the sensibilities of a diverse scholarly audience. In addition to articles in four major areas—Environmental Sciences; Methods, Models, and Geographic Information Science; Nature and Society; and People, Place, and Region—the Annals publishes integrative and cross-cutting papers, commentaries, review articles, forums, book reviews, and occasional map supplements.”

Also, this recent article might provide some interesting reading: Steven M. Quiring, “Trends in Publication Outlets of Geographer-Climatologists,” The Professional Geographer, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Aug), 2007, pp. 357-64.