It would seem like the effect of no sunspots would be instantaneous and marked. Is it a situation that the lack of sunspots is a marker of lower solar output in general and not a primary causation in itself?
It would seem like the effect of no sunspots would be instantaneous and marked. Is it a situation that the lack of sunspots is a marker of lower solar output in general and not a primary causation in itself?
The idea presented and it seems to have some good scientific backing -- is that there are a string of events that end up causing global warming or cooling from the sun. It's not an actual warming or cooling of the sun itself -- as in directly causing that on the earth -- but a longer sequence of events.
The sunspots have an effect on the solar winds. The solar winds have an effect on cosmic rays reaching the earth. And the cosmic rays have an effect on cloud formation. And then, the clouds have an effect on how much of the sun's rays actually reach the earth's surface and warm it up.
That's the sequence of events...