Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

If I'm reading my opponent's argument correctly, he seems to be arguing that solar activity is the cause of the evaporation increase, saying that the reduction in solar activity causes the Earth's magnetic field to weaken, causing more radiation to reach Earth. However, if this is indeed his case, it has two problems. One, it posits that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is determined by solar activity, and that there is a correlation between magnetic field strength and water cycle strength. Earth's magnetic field originates from moving charged particles at its core. "Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of electrical charges. For example, the magnetic field of a bar magnet results from the motion of negatively charged electrons in the magnet. The origin of the Earth's magnetic field is not completely understood, but is thought to be associated with electrical currents produced by the coupling of convective effects and rotation in the spinning liquid metallic outer core of iron and nickel. This mechanism is termed the dynamo effect. " Thus, it seems that solar activity has nothing to do with the strength of the Earth's magnetic field. A decline in solar activity then would not cause the water cycle to accelerate. But there's still the problem of whether magnetic field strength has any effect on the temperature. Below are three graphs - one of the Earth's magnetic dipole moment (a measure of how strong the Earth's magnetic field is), one of solar irradiance (a measure of solar activity), and one of a measure of precipitation levels. s://www. ipcc. ch. .. ; alt="Figure TS.10" />[2][3][4]As you can see, it doesn't appear that Eaerth's magnetic field strength correlates with solar activity. In fact, just purely looking at the data, it appears that the opposite is true - increased solar irradiance decreases Earth's magnetic field strength, not decreased solar irradiance. As for the magnetic field strength/precipitation correlation, the question is a bit more complicated. Unfortunately, we don't have (or at least I can't find) global precipitation anomalies for more than 100 years. However, there's two things I'd like to note. One, if precipitation was really affected by magnetic field strength due to the amount of solar radiation Earth absorbs, then, since the decrease in magnetic field strength is linearly downwards, we'd expect precipitation levels to follow solar irradiance, because that also determines how much radiation the Earth receives. However, precipitation trends do not seem to follow solar irradiance (if they did, you'd expect 11-year cycles in precipitation levels). And two, you'd think that, since solar activity has been decreasing a lot lately, that precipitation levels would trend down. If the amount of radiation reaching Earth is the key here, then you'd need to consider solar irradiance and magnetic field strength together. The most you have is a 5-year trend. In the grand scheme of the 115 years this debate considers, that's a statistically insignificant trend, especially since the magnetic field strength has been declining for at least 400 years, and there don't seem to be any other precipitation/solar irradiance links for any of the other solar cycles. ConclusionI apologize if this was a bit choppy - I've had a lot do the past few days. However, I feel like I've covered the gist of it. The solar irradiance/magnetic field strength and magnetic field strength/water cycle rate correlations do not seem to exist, save for the past five years, which is statistically insignificant on climatological time scales. Sources[1]: . http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...[2]: . http://deeptow.whoi.edu...[3]: . http://aphnew.aph.gov.au...[4]: . https://www.ipcc.ch...