Steve said: I haven’t personally studied the solar-climate correlations although it’s something that I’d like to do. Some scientists believe that the statistical work in such studies is inadequate and criticize me for not applying equal to the deconstruction of such data. All this data needs to be scrutinized just as carefully as bristlecones before making any triumphal announcements.

The reason for this inadequacy is, I believe, that most of such work is on the fringes of both solar and atmospheric science. The intersection of two fringes holds little significance and interest from either community, so nobody cares to really examine the claims. There are a few shining counterexamples. The best one I know of is by another Canadian, Colin Hines, analyzing the significance of a paper of which I was a coauthor. His analysis is here

It could have been written by you! One problem with this kind of work is that most people’s eyes glaze over on about the second page.

The fate of that original sun-weather effect discussed by Hines can be seen here. Still considered fringe-science by most people.

P.S. Another coauthor was Walter Orr Roberts (1915-1990) who was the founding president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and the first director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). I had the pleasure of sharing office with Walter at NCAR [in the little 'annex' off the parking lot to the left] in about 1974 for several months while grinding my way through the hundreds of magnetic tapes with atmospheric data using NCAR’s newest supercomputer [a CDC 7600; about a tenth as fast as my PC...].

Before the witchdoctors started running various NASA departments, NASA did some good science. We know it is good because they speak of a very high solar-temperature correlation. I refer to “Newly Found Evidence of Sun-Climate Relationships” by Kim and Huang

The tone is not good here, neither is the science. Here is Figure 3 from said paper:

The TSI-reconstruction is totally at variance with what we know today. The first many cycles do not follow the sunspot number [1957 was the biggest cycle max ever, and 1906 one of the smallest]. The last two cycles are simply calibrated wrongly. The RGO data stopped in 1975, so no wonder that the cycles after that look different. Compare this TSI reconstruction with almost any out there, even the Hoyt & Schatten one that you like and you’ll see how way off the mark this paper is.

And the beautiful thing is TSI is already under the lows of previous minima

You seem to ignore comment #721. Let me refresh your memory:

His conclusions were:
. 4 independent TSI time series are available during cycle 23.
. All time series agree if standard ageing corrections are used.
. Best composite = average of 4 series.
. Good agreement with models assuming no solar minimum TSI variation.

Experts have examined the Be10

Un-named experts don’t do much for me.

Dr Loehle’s, agrees with the Be10 data for great chunks of time, especially in the critical Little Ice Age to Modern Warm Period transition

Here is your unclouded graph:

According to your own [I presume] annotation at the bottom, the correlation is poor half of the time. During the ‘critical’ transition where correlation was supposed to be good, the rounded rectangles highlight some clear mismatches. Looks poor to me. Following your own advice: “What need is there for a convoluted story that tells us that we see with our own eyes is wrong?” I refrain from a statistical analysis of just how poor it is.

Concerning the long-term trend of the 10Be, consider:

The 10Be curve within the red rectangle shows that there is not much systematic trend. Most of the curve falls within the rectangle. A few spikes above show higher activity [lower count] and a few spikes below show lower activity. Most of them [as you point out: "poor correlation"] unrelated to temperature. And some of them occurring at the same time as major volcanic eruptions, e.g. Hekla near 1700, Tambora and Mayon near 1815 [when, BTW, the temperature doesn't seem to have a dent - in spite of the year without a summer], and Krakatoa in 1883.

What have volcanoes to do with 10Be? They spew out sulfuric aerosols that helps wash 10Be out of the atmosphere. There is some debate about the time scale [a few years vs. a decade], but that is normal in science.

The abstract says in part:

“Surprisingly the annual SAT responds to the solar total irradiance variations with a
correlation coefficient as high as O.78. As yearly solar irradiance variations from 1978 to
1990 were overlain on the “SAT box grid” ( Hansen, et aL, 1987), geographic patterns of
Sun-climate correlation emerge which display a meridional component apparently driven
by “the conditions of cloud coverage” and “the effectiveness of heat transport processes of
the oceans”.
The last one hundred years history of global SAT also match a solar irradiance
model based on solar proxy data. A correlation coefficient of 0.82 was derived with
appropriate parameterization of temperature response in long-term trends. Also, it has
been observed that the derived correlation coefficient can typically peak when a built-in
phase lag of 32-40 months is instituted in temperature response.”

The paper speaks of a three year lag in response to solar activity, which means temperatures will keep going down to 2012 from my projected July 2009 solar minimum. That is plenty of time to sort the AGW believers out. And the beautiful thing is TSI is already under the lows of previous minima and we are likely to be still a year of minimum.

Steve: David, please stop using terms like “believers” at this blog. I’m getting tired of your language. I haven’t personally studied the solar-climate correlations although it’s something that I’d like to do. Some scientists believe that the statistical work in such studies is inadequate and criticize me for not applying equal to the deconstruction of such data. All this data needs to be scrutinized just as carefully as bristlecones before making any triumphal announcements.

The Be10 data is hard data that can’t be tweaked and stroked to bend it to your will. It is hard data best consumed raw. No amount of volcanic wishing and hoping and dreaming will change the shape of that curve. It is the hard rock on which inaccurate TSI reconstructions will founder. The best temperature reconstruction going, Dr Loehle’s, agrees with the Be10 data for great chunks of time, especially in the critical Little Ice Age to Modern Warm Period transition. Two high quality data series agree with each other. What need is there for a convoluted story that tells us that we see with our own eyes is wrong?