just discovered this site. really like reading the essays.

another good video on global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACo2OCSJnBI

It's a debate between Dr. Christie and a rep from the IPCC. At about 5:30 there is a discussion of fit of the current temps to the models. The whole thing is good if you can spare the time.

Mark,

You can watch about a minute or so of the scare monger and then John Christie begins at 4 minutes in.

Here's a site containing some fairly mature negative reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1OPKAO340GQ30/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1OPKAO340GQ30

And here are two quotes worth considering:

"Many empirical associations have been reported between globally averaged low-level cloud cover and cosmic ray fluxes (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b). Hypothesised to result from changing ionization of the atmosphere from solar-modulated cosmic ray fluxes, an empirical association of cloud cover variations during 1984 to 1990 and the solar cycle remains controversial because of uncertainties about the reality of the decadal signal itself, the phasing or anti-phasing with solar activity, and its separate dependence for low, middle and high clouds. In particular, the cosmic ray time series does not correspond to global total cloud cover after 1991 or to global low-level cloud cover after 1994 (Kristjánsson and Kristiansen, 2000; Sun and Bradley, 2002) without unproven de-trending (Usoskin et al., 2004). Furthermore, the correlation is significant with low-level cloud cover based only on infrared (not visible) detection. Nor do multi-decadal (1952 to 1997) time series of cloud cover from ship synoptic reports exhibit a relationship to cosmic ray flux. However, there appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001). Because the mechanisms are uncertain, the apparent relationship between solar variability and cloud cover has been interpreted to result not only from changing cosmic ray fluxes modulated by solar activity in the heliosphere (Usoskin et al., 2004) and solar-induced changes in ozone (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001), but also from sea surface temperatures altered directly by changing total solar irradiance (Kristjánsson et al., 2002) and by internal variability due to the El Nińo-Southern Oscillation (Kernthaler et al., 1999). In reality, different direct and indirect physical processes (such as those described in Section 9.2) may operate simultaneously."

And...

I agree. The theory presented in this book is interesting, and there may be something to it. Even if nothing else, it's interesting to read about the solar system's travels through the galaxy. However, it makes me a little nervous when a book like this spends a good deal of time complaining about how its theory is being persecuted and marginalized. I also felt like the information being presented on past climate made it seem like it was talking about a different planet than the one being described in some other books I've read.

And...

...While this is an intriguing hypothesis, it is also, regrettably, a rather simplistic one, which ignores the complex interaction of energy exchange between the world's oceans and Earth's atmosphere; an interaction that's been recognized by meteorologists, other climatologists, oceanographers, and geologists. Nor does it take into account the strong possibility that increased carbon dioxide - and aerosol - emissions from artificial, man-made sources have had an important impact on this complex interaction between the oceans and atmosphere, and have contributed deleteriously to global warming...

And...

Fails to establish why manmade increases in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not causing current planetary warming. Also fails to account for why solar activity is responsible for the earth's current warming when solar activity has been declining since the late 1980's. The amateurish nature Svensmark's theories cannot be saved by rambling pretencious dialogue masquerading as real scientific inquiry.

The "perecution" complaints, if they're present as alleged, are telling. When creationists make such complaints, it's almost always done to excuse their total lack of actual science to support any of their claims. And if this author is peppering a supposedly scientific work with similar complaints, it's probably because he has a similar lack of good results to explain away.

Besides, the advocates of AGW have proposed an actual mechanism to describe HOW CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric temperatures; and to my knowledge, none of these works cited here actually refute the proposed mechanism. They do offer plausible (or at least plausible-sounding) explanations of how other factors can affect temperatures; but the basic hypotheses of AGW are not actually refuted.

The last date in the Svensmark criticism is 2002. Things have moved on since then. He completed his experiment in Copehagen and it is being cross checked at CERN.

As to the reviews - in science it doesn't matter. It only takes one. If the data corresponds to model predictions - well I've eaten crow before. If it doesn't - that might be interesting.

Besides, the advocates of AGW have proposed an actual mechanism to describe HOW CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric temperatures; and to my knowledge, none of these works cited here actually refute the proposed mechanism.

As far as I know no reputable scientists have disputed heating from a CO2 doubling.

The null value (no amplification - no negative feedback) of 1 deg C is accepted.

The question is: is water vapor/clouds a positive/negative/zero feedback. The modelers admit they don't do clouds well and the data seems to show strong negative feedback (giving about .5C rise for CO2 doubling). So what am I going to go with? Models which are known to be sketchy on the subject? Or data?

Tough question.

The last date in the Svensmark criticism is 2002. Things have moved on since then.

Really? So how come there isn't a later document supporting his thesis?

Rage,

As I understand it the CERN work is not complete. Patience my man.