I've had a quick look at the Svensmark and F-C link and it's far from convincing. This is a description of one of their plots:
FIG. 2: The solar cycle and the negative correlation of global
mean tropospheric temperatures with galactic cosmic rays are
apparent in this ESA-ISAC analysis (ref. [2]). The upper
panel shows observations of temperatures (blue) and cosmic
rays (red). The lower panel shows the match achieved by
removing El Nin~o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic
aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 § 0.4 K/Decade).
Right - so they've removed ENSO, NAO and volcanic effects (fair enough) but they've also removed the secular trend (0.14 deg per decade). In other words there is no fit if the trend remains. They are effectively saying that once we get rid of all known effects such as El Nino, volcanos AND the hypothesised ghg effect there is some residual noise which can be explained by GCR fluctuations. Even then it's not too convincing as the correlation coeff is -0.47 - hardly compelling.
I may be wrong here but isn't it THE TREND that we are trying to explain. I'm quite sure that if we remove the trend from temperature data there are all sorts of things which can explain the residual fluctuations.
GCRs cannot explain the long term 30 year increase in tropospheric temperatures. In fact no solar parameter can explain it. This is the problem in a nutshell. The 30 year increase is due to ocean oscillations.
Since the trend removed was .14/decade and the plot covers 50 years and the rise over those 50 years was .7degC. . . . the same as the rise from 1911 to 1944 (.7degC) that is primarily the ocean oscillation at work, he could have said he removed the PDO (he did remove the NAO which is more weakly correlated to global temperatures than the PDO)
This matches well the observation that in the best measured region on the face of the earth that there hasn't been any warming in the continental US between 1940 and the present.
All we have to do is figure out how regional variation works in Europe (perhaps it is some kind of centennial ocean variation in the thermohaline circulation pattern in the Atlantic?) and stick the rest of the global temperature reconstruction up UEA's arse.
Seriously though, I find it quite unusual that we have a .7C increase in both 1911 to 1944 and 1976 to the present (.69C) and all the recent warming (1944 to present equal to .32C or .49C/century) is ostensibly generated by an interruption to the ocean cooling cycle from 1957 to 1976 (coincident with the record solar cycle)
Since it appears something centennial is now happening perhaps Europe won't be so warm for a while.
The Svensmark paper implies a quick (but very small) response to GCR fluctuations. Whenever I've suggested that we haven't seen a temperature response to the recent (~5 years) weak solar activity, I'm constantly told that there is long lag time of several decades. It's all garbage. I accept an equilibrium temperature (e.g. anomalies of -0.5 deg) might not be observed for several years but a temperature decline should be evident fairly quickly.
Time lag of several decades? I think you need to properly characterize that. There is no several decades lag what it is is a several decade long process in which an average cooling of perhaps .4 to .7 cooling takes place. That would be a rate of .13 to .23 per decade, or .013 to .023 per year.
That is not easy to see over a period of just a few years when you have fluctuations from several potential causes, including ENSO being one well identified one that causes up to a degree or more change within a year.
And of course the TEAM is composed of such neutral sharp eyed observers it couldn't even see the 30 year ocean oscillations.
Instead they incorporated it as CO2 generated into their theory. You can get 3.0deg rise in a century by taking the average of 1998 and 1999, subtract 1976, divide by the number of years, and multiply by 100)
If the oscillations in the temperature record are spurious and not real then the entire temperature record is useless for this purpose and we know the oscillations are not generated by CO2.
If you accept the oscillations, overall warming from CO2, GCRs, and TSI combined can't amount to more than .5C per century.
If you don't accept the ocean oscillations then you have no basis to assume any global warming at all because you are accepting an error rate post 1940 that is greater than the global warming post 1940. 1944-1956 (-.469C) than the net warming from 1944 to the present.(+.32C)
To summarise the Svensmark response: It's clear that the author(s) don't believe GCRs are responsible for the late 20th century warming. That is an astoundingly ignorant summarization. First it is obviously not the case you are simply misinterpreting the analysis.
As we go back in time GCRs are not well measured, we can only proxy them to solar sunspot counts which are rather uncertain. Thus the Svensmark analysis focuses on recent data where GCRs are directly measured.
You assume not to brightly that all warming since the 1960's has to be generated by a single source. You have to don blinders to believe that.
Svensmark shows a correlation to the temperature record. The correlation improves when he removes ENSO, volcanic aerosols, NAO, and the trend from 1960. You are incorrect in saying he has no fit without removing those items (to confirm that you have to simply read the correlation numbers printed on the two panels of before and after he removes those items).
The Svensmark analysis establishes that annual (and longer) changes in warming comes from multiple sources.
GCRs are only in part responsible. You have TSI also. And over that you have to overlay both multi-decadal and perhaps centennial oscillations in ocean current changes, volcanic aerosols, and ENSO.
CO2 is not ruled out as a player by Svensmark analysis but it is at best a player in what appears to be a symphony.
It also is not clear how reliable our temperature records are prior to 1979 especially with the shenanigans of Phil Jones and the culture in the climate unit at UEA. But even with shenanigans Svensmark is not ruled out, the only thing at risk from shenanigans is whether the .5C per century is real. If AGW is exaggerated this is the first place it would be deducted from. Maybe its smaller and smaller opens the door more for TSI and GCRs to make up the difference leaving less for CO2.
All you want to do is focus on one cause and match it perfectly to what is essentially one source that produces most of the global warming (since it is not coming from the US and Europe might be riding the thermohaline currents perhaps a good portion of it is the rest of the globe where data is sparse and unstable enough to be susceptible to both intentional and unintentional bias).
Extrapolations by GISS to the arctic seems to be mostly responsible for temperature variations between the satellites, perhaps poor data is responsible for some the gap in extrapolations of that data in poorly monitored areas of the world also.
So to convince yourself you want to compare your grand climate unification theory singularly one at a time against the various known forcings on climate while taking maximum advantage of any data gap extrapolation at the same time.
The rest of the world likely isn't so simple minded.(confirmed by polls so far)
Our temperature record almost undoubtedly is composed of a mixture of multiple forcings both real and imagined.It might take another 30 years to convince you but if you open your mind it might not take so long.