Are there other solar effects on the global climate?
I’m writing the Skeptical Science advanced rebuttal to "it’s the Sun". So far I’ve covered the Sun’s impact on the Earth’s climate via solar irradiance (TSI) and galactic cosmic rays. Are there any other plausible and credible mechanisms by which the Sun could be impacting the global climate that the rebuttal should cover?
UV Irradiance is not well understood but can easily flucuate by 6-8% over a solar cycle.
"Though solar irradiance varies slightly over the 11 year cycle, radiation at longer UV wavelengths are known to increase by several (6-8% or more) percent with still larger changes (factor of two or more) at extremely short UV and X-ray wavelengths (Baldwin and Dunkerton, JAS 2004).
Energetic flares increase the UV radiation by 16%. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs this excess energy and this heat has been shown to propagate downward and affect the general circulation in the troposphere. Shindell (1999) used a climate model that included ozone chemistry to reproduce this warming during high flux (high UV) years. Labitzke and Van Loon (1988) and later Labitzke in numerous papers has shown that high flux (which correlates very well with UV) produces a warming in low and middle latitudes in winter in the stratosphere with subsequent dynamical and radiative coupling to the troposphere. The winter of 2001/02, when cycle 23 had a very strong high flux second maxima provided a perfect verification of Shindell and Labitzke and Van Loon’s work."
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
You’ll want to rebut the effect of the solar wind on the GCR flux and the influence that the GCR flux may have on low cloud cover.
Be sure to refute Svensmark’s SKY experiment and explain why CERN still has his CLOUD experiment on the schedule.
Then refute the solar-driven Bond/Dansgaard-Oeschger (1500-yr +/-500) cycles.
In anticipation of your belief in your own omniscience, based on your previous attempts, I would suggest you first state that you haven’t got a clue what impact the sun had, is having, or will have. You should then state that any of the solar factors may have unknown consequences that are also beyond your limited understanding and limited science background. Anything less than this would amount to the psuedo-science we have come to expect from you.
Hate to say this, but I agree with Jim Z, you are so far into the believe of AGW that it has become more of a religion then a science to you. Also, since we have only been collecting good data from the Sun and parts of the Earth for about 40 years it is hard to use this data as accurately as we should since we are looking at a very small time frame in the life of the Earth.