Andrew – the difference between PMOD and ACRIM TSI reconstructions makes no difference at all to this debate. Use either and there is still no correlation between recent solar activity and global temperatures. Nor is it the case that one is from ‘guys working with satellites’ and the other is from ‘solar theorists’. Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about, and again it seems you have some kind of ideological inability to actually understand some incredibly simple things.

http://acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Secular%20total%20solar%20irradiance%20trend%20during%20solar%20cycles%2021%E2%80%9323_GRL_v30,%20(2003).pdf

The guys actually working with the satellites disagree with the solar theorists. These guys say solar irradiance rose since the seventies. Theorists, like Frolich and Lean, disagree. I side with the data guys over the theory guys, personally, but either way, flat or declining solar activity is not universally accepted. See also a recent publication:

Scafetta, N., and R. C. Willson (2009), ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307

however, that does not make the fact that 4 out of 5 (to be generous) studies show a warmer MWP than present climate.

even mann’s data sets show it. only through statistical manipulation and heavy relaince on some questionable proxies could he make it disappear.

imputing global temperature from a small number of datapoints is difficult. the terrestrial temperature networks have this issue (as well as many others).

but if the widely geographically distributed samples taken register a MWP as warm or warmer than the current period by a ratio of easily 5:1 vs those that show it as cooler, we need to take that seriously. it is a fair bit of evidence that a MWP existed in many parts of the globe. obviously, there will be exceptions. areas of earth have cooled over the last 100 years in contradiction of the broader trend. this does not invalidate the trend. neither do a few “cool” records invalidate a MWP. while any reconstruction can be critiqued, the simple fact is that what data we have is very slanted toward a warmer MWP.

though i have not researched it thoroughly, a quick perusal of the info seems to show that most of the attacks on B+S come from mann and his teams. given that they have been utterly and totally discredited over and over by folks like mcintyre, i’d be careful in relying too much upon their conclusions. they have shown themselves to be highly dogmatic and very poor statisticians.

Re TSI etc. You would have to explain how you get a strong warming from a weak or non-existent TSI signal (high climate sensitivity if you manage it!!) as well as no warming from a huge increase in C02 emissions. I think that Occam’s Razor needs to be invoked here.

what did they mis-characterize? i’d be interested to see that. they are very transparent in their methodology and provide copies of the abstracts of all the papers they cite which are from scores of different researchers.

go look at the site i linked in my earlier post. indexes the peer reviewed and published MWP studies. they are from all over the globe, and easily 80-90% conclude that the MWP was as warm or warmer, perhaps quite significantly today. this is backed up by a fair bit of historical data as well.

assuming you accept proxy data at all (and if you don’t, how can you argue anything at all about the MWP?) why would these results (of which there are maybe 200) not be valid?