than any point during the last 300-400yrs (cal issue to me) Maybe it's nothing, or an artifact of smoothing, but it looks to me like he had a hell of a time with the crappy PMOD/ACRIM constructions we have to date, and what parts to cal to, and he picked whatever he wanted in the end, which ended being his "best guess" (with some floor clipping) Question for you though...what was the justification for creating a TSI floor for sunspot count equals zero? Couldn't find it in his "essay". Is there any data which shows that TSI always drops to the same value for a sunspot equals zero count? I believe the cosmic ray count (oulu) doesn't support that when comparing solar mins, with the most recent one at an elevated level compared to previous mins. Seems like he snuck that one in there, along with all of the other adjustments. Rog, I think its clear that TSI is a significant driver directly so Svalgaard's "it can't be the sun" argument based on this is clearly a deliberate distraction. That means he is quite likely to add the same biased attitude to any adjustments he tries to push through and we don't need another dataset getting screwed up. Apart from that I think getting rid of the carrier will enhance the clarity of cyclic effects and should help detect the cause. SSB-z is interesting but fails badly in the earliest peak. That is a big problem, it's going to need