[Robert A Cook PE]

The jury is still out on this issue. I did see an article recently (last two weeks) stating that the Sun had been ruled out as a forcing factor in global warming. I’m not sure that a) I believe that and b) that it addressed the exact mechanisms mentioned in this article.

Not true: There WAS an article trying to prove that solar influences were false (that the sun did NOT control temperature here on earth) but that article did NOT offer any contradicting facts or theories - it just said that that the sun did not affect temperatures here and that there were no changes in the sun’s illumination: cleverly misstating both the cosmic ray influence on clouds AND falsely claiming that there were no changes in the sun’s magnetic fields AND the earth’s magnetic fields (also declining as we approach and magnetic pole reversal) AND baldly stating that illumination did not change over the past 25 years AND implying that illumination is the only factor in the sun’s radiation.

The athor DID NOT prove this solar influence/cosmic ray theory was wrong - he merely claimed it was wrong. A big difference.

[AaronInCarolina]

Not true: There WAS an article trying to prove that solar influences were false (that the sun did NOT control temperature here on earth) but that article did NOT offer any contradicting facts or theories - it just said that that the sun did not affect temperatures here and that there were no changes in the sun’s illumination: cleverly misstating both the cosmic ray influence on clouds AND falsely claiming that there were no changes in the sun’s magnetic fields AND the earth’s magnetic fields (also declining as we approach and magnetic pole reversal) AND baldly stating that illumination did not change over the past 25 years AND implying that illumination is the only factor in the sun’s radiation.

Good summation. I would add that the Lockwood paper also assumed that any impact from solar insolation is immediate. It then concluded that if variations in our climate cannot be explained by immediate (or very very recent) solar changes, that the sun could then be ruled out as affecting our current climate. This ignores the huge heat sinks that are our oceans, which comprise 75% of the earth's surface area. These heat sinks do not turn on a dime. The Lockwood paper ignores the fact that for the past century the sun has been applying it's shortwave insolation into the oceans at a level not seen in thousands of years. It then ignores how this long-term heating can be stored and released as part of the major ocean oscillations (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO). These oscillations are naturally occurring (not anthropogenic) and each have positive (warm) phases and negative (cool) phases. What we experienced in the latter part of the 20th century (the time period that the Lockwood paper claimed as disproving a solar influence) was a superposition of the warm phases of both the PDO and the AMO. The paper ignored how long term increased solar trends could magnify these ocean oscillation effects. It only looked at immediate affects from the sun. In that regard, the paper failed.