Ther rejection of any science based processes as being the work of God because they are n't specifically cited in clear English in Scripture pretty much answers that question.
The rising and setting of the sun is both a literal observational phenomenon and a illustrative figure of speech."
The sun neither rises nor sets; the earth rotates on its axis resulting in any given point on its surface moving toward or away from it. That we have a grammatical construct that states otherwise in biblical verbiage undermines the concept of biblical literalism.
"Is God in control of the climate?"
Of course He is. The argument isn't "if" he is in control. It is "how" he controls.
“That we have a grammatical construct that states otherwise in biblical verbiage undermines the concept of biblical literalism.”
Most people I know who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible don’t ascribe the type of “literalism” that you are implying. That would mean that when the Bible said Jesus was the Lamb of God, one would have to believe he was not a man, but an actual lamb. If no reasonable people carry “literalism” to that extent, why would you assume they would take the usage of common idioms such as “sunrise” or “sunset” as literal statements of scientific doctrine?
Are you as bad of a scientist as you are a biblical hermeneuticist?