What scientific literature is there that supports anthropogenic global warming?

Favorite Answer

That's a difficult question to answer, because the sheer number of peer-reviewed studies supporting the AGW theory is so massive. For example here are the references cited just in Chapter 2 of WG 1 of the IPCC AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-references.html

There are 759 studies on that list. Keith P went through the entire IPCC report, removing duplicate references, and found 4617 unique references to peer-reviewed studies.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgvdHaqgk.GTcI6LZSFy310jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20100125084032AArijQa

And that's just what's referenced in the latest IPCC report. There are thousands of new peer-reviewed climate science studies published every year, and virtually all of them support the AGW theory.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

If you want examples of specific papers, I discussed some studies which demonstrate 'fingerprints' of AGW here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirically-observed-fingerprints-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html

IMO one of the most convincing is Laštovička et al. (2006), which showed upper atmosphere cooling consistent with AGW.
http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf

Or perhaps studies like Evans et al. (2006) which performed an analysis of high resolution specral data, which allowed them to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

It's really an overwhelming amount of evidence and volume of research supporting AGW. To say there is no scientific literature supporting the theory is sheer denial.

"Edit: Dana's answer is a good example of what I was talking about. He is throwing around adjectives like "massive" and "sheer" and "thousands" and "overwhelming". With words like that, how can it not be true?"

I'm sorry, am I now not allowed to use adjectives? I didn't get that memo.

"Those statements are also very difficult to support"

I didn't find it difficult when I supported them. You see that blue text in the paragraphs above? Those are links to studies and other sources supporting the statements I made.

The Pop Tech list is discussed here:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/

Among its flaws, it considers 'Energy & Environment' peer-reviewed (that's 10% of the listed papers). Both Pielkes (Sr. and Jr.), who are both 'skeptics', asked that their papers (21) be removed from the list. There are a whole bunch of duplicates on the list. A bunch of the listed studies have been refuted. A bunch more have been misrepresented and don't belong on the list. And so on and so forth. It's classic quantity over quality, Oregon Petition style. Note that the studies aren't even purported to contradict AGW, but rather "skepticism of AGW alarm". In other words, if a study accepted AGW as being true but concluded that hurricanes won't intensify, for example, it's included on the list....Show more

I think the CO2 debate stalled years ago. Most people could understand the CO2 warming process. Most understand that the sun is responsible for the changing climate conditions in the past because of the natural interactions of solar radiation and greenhouse gases. This process isn't that hard to understand. The hard bit for most is the understanding of the forcing process and the chemical reaction that take place due to heat and pressure created by the natural forcing process. Now the thing is only when we have a understanding how these natural processes work that we can replicate and control them. The biggest advancement in technology would have to be the microscope and to see these natural processes taking place in the lab. As were moved forward in time it has been the advancement in being able to see things smaller and smaller. I read somewhere that there is no regulations on Nano technology and it is were weather modification has progressed from. If you don't see weather modification as a reality then your not looking close enough. So don't be a mushroom get out of the dark ages and stop eating BS Come out of the dark and become enlightened by seeking the truth to what we are seeing. Propaganda is keeping you in the dark....Show more

You could try the Climate Change Road Map or the US Navy Artic Road Map. One of the problems with 'scientific literature' is all that strange math. If you can't follow the math, then the 'conclusion' that X=Y sounds like an 'opinion'. As various people and organizations plug in small variations on the basic mathematical data the 'conclusions' tend to be in a range where a 'denier' can honestly say..."The data and the conclusion depends on who you're asking." That's true, even if the math is accurate, and peer reviewed and agreed on as accurate. We know that the CO2 level going back to 650,000 years ago is accurate, but it may not be consistent everywhere or consistent over all that time in various places...yet the 'average' for the purpose of plugging it into an equation always give a similar result though admittedly plus or minus. For instance: There are dozens of institutions all over the world that measure atmospheric CO2. The amount varies from place to place and day to day. Is it currently 387pp, or is 390ppm closer? One reporting station in Hawaii report a high reading of 400ppm, later watching the instruments drop down to 395ppm....big relief! All we know for certain is that 'on the average' we're over 100ppm of CO2 more since the beginning of the Industrial Age in the early 1800s, and ALL of that increase has to do with burning fossil fuels....no volcanoes or Al Gore required. Year to year and decade by decade the amount of burned fossil fuels mount. We know how much is burned because it's recorded and taxed at some point along its production to waste highway. We know how much CO2 will be produced by that burning and where the CO2 finally lands up. We know that the 'greenhouse effect' grows more robust every decade..we know because it's measured. There's plenty of 'literature'...what we don't have is any kind of solution on the horizon...and that's the biggest bummer of all!...Show more

Yes, it does appear to be an odd statement to make, on the face of it.

I can only assume that by “SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE” he actually means “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE” and if that’s what he actually meant, then he’s absolutely correct, of course.

Let us be clear about it; there is no empirical, scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that mankind’s GHG emissions are having a significant effect on the climate of planet Earth. None at all.

I have pointed this out several times in the past and the usual response I get (from Dana, for example) is something along the lines of: ‘I’ve shown you the evidence many times.’ – without actually linking to the evidence, of course. Naturally, I never have been shown the evidence – how can I be shown something that doesn’t exist?

Dana in this question enthusiastically informs us that there are 759 studies referenced in Chapter 2 of WG 1 of the IPCC AR4 and that the entire IPCC report has 4617 unique references to peer-reviewed studies!

Big numbers to be sure, but can you imagine, for a moment, how many books have been written about God in the last few thousand years? And have all those books done anything whatsoever to increase the likelihood that God exists? Of course not. Why? Because they provide no empirical scientific evidence, that’s why.

So, let’s stop trying to suggest that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is proved because of *the number* of scientists/studies/peer-reviewed papers/etc. that believe it. A hypothesis is not proved by a popularity vote. Show me the *EVIDENCE*.

And just so we’re clear; computer models are *not* empirical evidence.

Also, I had to laugh at Baccheus’ answer where he says: “Ottowa Mike is unable to pull a single study out of his list to show that it counters AGW.”

Excuse me? Since when did the whole scientific process get turned on its head? Unless I missed the memo, the Null Hypothesis is still that the climate is behaving naturally unless it does something out of the ordinary, or someone can demonstrate (using good old empirical evidence) that what it is doing is *not* natural. So far, neither of those things has happened; the climate is behaving within normal bounds, and there’s no empirical evidence to show that mankind is influencing it.

So, what Baccheus is doing here is changing the rules such that his pet theory is now the Null Hypothesis and it is up to anyone who disagrees to prove it wrong!

Brilliant! Well that’s one way to win the argument, I suppose! LOL


::EDIT:: In response to AMP…

Removed due to lack of space.



::EDIT 2:: Again in response to AMP...

Blimey! I ask for one simple link and I get 18!

You say “Arguing that an enhanced greenhouse effect will not cause warming because it is being masked by cooling effects is a stance that requires evidence.”

Well, how about the complete lack of the tropospheric ‘hotspot’ - which is the predicted ‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse gas warming? If the ‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse gas warming is absent, then couldn’t the warming also be absent?

But that is beside the point. We’re back to the Null Hypothesis again – it is not my (or anybody else’s) job to provide evidence that the enhanced greenhouse effect will not cause warming. Rather, it is your (and/or your fellow believers’) job to prove that it will and that it’s something we should worry about. I remind you that, so far, the planet has not done anything out of the ordinary. Without the bleating of the GWAs no one would have any reason to believe anything unnatural was happening.

Thus, your first 7 links are completely irrelevant. I never asked for them and I am at a loss to explain why you felt the need provide them. They do nothing whatsoever to supply the evidence I am requesting. Their effects are reproduced by computer models and those effects are largely disproved by the missing ‘hotspot’ that they are supposed to produce.

Next: “the warming due to a doubling of CO2 is about 3˚C”

Yes, but this figure is derived from same computer models mentioned above, of course, and are, therefore, not empirical evidence. It’s also a perfect example of the ‘tuneable’ (and therefore unreliable) nature of computer models, in that the range of possible climate sensitivity runs from <0.5°C to 10°C depending on who you talk to! Talk about uncertainty.

Your “Evidence for greenhouse effect causing warming:” is actually only evidence for the greenhouse effect itself, with the exception of “- More warming during the nights than days” which, as pointed out in the very first paragraph, relies on computer models as well.

AMP, do you have any evidence AT ALL that isn’t based on computer models? You know, like good, old-fashioned, empirical evidence.

I’m still waiting....Show more

There are probably hundreds of journals publishing articles related to an aspect of climate science. The Journal of Climate is dedicated to climate research. It is a publication of the American Meteorological Society.

Articles on climate change are scattered through a wide variety of journal publications. For example, an article on species migration due to global warming may be published in a biological journal. An article on changing ocean currents due to global warming may be found in the Journal of Physical Oceanography.


Science Magazine is the premier science news and journal in the U.S. It covers all fields, biology, chemistry, etc., selecting articles of particular importance. I checked to the table of contents to see what they published this week. It contains the following articles related to global warming:

Lessons from Earth's Past
Jeffrey Kiehl
Science 14 January 2011: 158-159.
What can be learned from Earth's past to guide our understanding of life in a warming world?

Northern Meltwater Pulses, CO2, and Changes in Atlantic Convection
Michael Sarnthein
Science 14 January 2011: 156-158.
Detailed evidence of how the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation behaved after the last ice age.

Computing the Climate and More
Richard C. J. Somerville
Science 14 January 2011: 149-150.
Edwards explores the use of computer simulations and models in climate research, and Winsberg offers a philosophical perspective on the roles of computer simulation in contemporary science....Show more