Svensmark's 1998 work suggesting the suns increased magnetic strength decreases the amount of galactic cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere which means less clouds (that GCR's seed clouds is a key part of the hypotheses) and therefore a warmer planet. It is a tiny minority view from a well qualified climate scientist, and therefore commonly quoted at length by deniers.
Svensmark's papers are cited 100s of times. The GCR/climate hypothesis predates Svensmark, going back to Edward P. Ney in 1959.
Solar magnetic properties haven't changed over the last 3 decades and therefore can't explain climate change over that period
You need to go back and see my previous post with a link to a paper covering the last 3 decades and the AMO.
Galactic cosmic rays have shown no trend in the last 50 years, in fact they have increased since 1990 and if Svensmark is correct that should mean global cooling.
Over such a short period, there may be less correlation because there are other stronger drivers that can swamp the signal. I just mentioned the AMO. Over longer periods, there are greater correlations.
However, GCRs declined during the first half of the 20th century, and essentially remainedat the depressed level during the second half.
Now why has there been no warming trend since about 2000?
Cosmic rays aren't very good at seeding clouds - this is a 3 step process and whilst step 1 isn't controversial, step 2 has been shown improbable by at least 1 study is and step 3 not likely by numerous studies
Svensmark's hypothesis linking GCRs to cloud formation has been supported both observationally, and experimentally, and that the aerosol particles produced grow large enough to form condensation nuclei.
Svensmark is proof that the scientific method including peer review is alive and well in climate science. Minority views are accorded respect and are subject to disproval - in thsi case categoric rebuttal.
Do you mean to say you've rebutted that cosmic rays do not affect climate?
I do not doubt that the atmosphere, which includes its carbon dioxide fraction, helps to keep the planet warm. What I am not convinced of is that the atmospheric levels, which have been rising for many many years, have been the predominant driver of the late 20th century warming.
What I believe is FALSE is the AGW camp assertion that the increased CO2 levels will push us past a point of no return where a runaway positive feedback loop ruins planetary habatibility. It is a complex, adaptive system that is poorly understood. The planet has billions of years of history, including far warmer climates where tropical plants grew in arctic areas and the planet supported a larger biomass than today. As for the "98%" figure you keep repeating, it's a credentialist argumentum ad populum. Dismissed.