Hi Daffy,
For solar issues, this new post on WUWT is useful
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-a-boost-from-outdated-solar-forcings/Also, add to that Nir Shaviv's paper. Concluding summary here:
[73] In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that
the total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar
cycle is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally
averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size
of the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag between the
flux and the driving force further implies that it cannot be
part of an atmospheric feedback and very unlikely to be part
of a coupled atmosphere-ocean oscillation mode. It must
therefore be the manifestation of real variations in the global
radiative forcing.
[74] It should be stressed that the observed correlation
between the oceanic heat flux and solar activity does not
provide proof for any particular amplification mechanism,
including that of the CRF/climate link. It does however
provide very strong support for the notion that an amplification
mechanism exists. Given that the CRF/climate links
predicts the correct radiation imbalance observed in the
cloud cover variations, it is a favorable candidate.
[75] With respect to simulating climate dynamics, the
results have two very interesting ramifications. First, they
imply that any attempt to explain historic temperature
variations should consider that the solar forcing variations
are almost an order of magnitude larger that just the TSI
variations now used almost exclusively. It would imply that
the climate sensitivity required to explain historic temperature
variations is smaller than often concluded.
[76] Second, an additional constraint can be used to
narrow the range of GCMs’ model parameters. Under solar
cycle like periodic forcing, a GCM should predict that the
ratio between the oceanic heat flux and sea-surface temperature
variations is that which is observed, namely, a net
oceanic flux of 1.05 ± 0.25 W/m2 for every 0.09 ± 0.01C
change in the sea-surface temperature (or somewhat larger
land surface temperature variations). This should prove
useful in constraining GCM based predictions, such as that
of climate sensitivity.
I recently posted this on WUWT. It seems relevant here.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/22/the-impact-of-the-north-atlantic-and-volcanic-aerosols-on-short-term-global-sst-trends/#commentsI revisited a paper by Hathaway et al which compares solar activity, geomagnetic activity and the Armagh temperature record, which runs from 1840 in a non-uhi-contaminated location 65m above sea level near the coast of Ireland.
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/papers/wilsorm/WilsonHathaway2006c.pdfAt the top of page 8, there is a graph which shows the residual left after taking the sunspot numbers smoothed over the hale cycle from the temperature data smoothed over the hale cycle.
Hathaway et al conclude with the usual “it could be AGW” statement at the end, but something caught my eye. If you were to subtract the AMO from the residual, you would end up with something pretty close to an anti-correlation.
images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/129_0.pngI realise the AMO will also have been affected by solar input, but given the AMO varies by 2C or so in the longer term, and the residual calculated by Hathaway et al is only 0.5C or so from peak to trough, it would seem that after allowing for the solar effect on the AMO and scaling it appropriatey before subtracting it from Hathaways residual there wouldn’t be much room for any accelerated co2 warming effect in the Armagh temperature record after the calcs were done.
Thanks!!! 
