Your first paragraph is simply wrong. The chart looks identical with 9,10 or 11 year moving averages. Data source is there if you want to plot it up yourself.

You can’t see a 22 year year cycle on a 10 year moving average.

That’s wrong. It’s a 3652 day moving avg, so that takes care of the leap year. Even if it were an issue, and it’s not, it at most could impact it at most a small percent of 1/3652.

I would be interested to see some data showing a correlation between the solar cycle and global warming metics. Last month had a higher monthly total than any month in the previous cycle.

It’s a moving average, so I don’t see your point.

Actually 3652 day moving average to account for leap years. Conclusion will be the same.

Data source: NSIDC Tool: Excel