Global warming peer reviewed articles?

A discussion on climate sensitivity, with links to studies:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Boo...

Other climate sensitivity estimates:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025259...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/fu...

Effects / longevity in atmosphere:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer...

Source of CO2 increase:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.abstract

Additional:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

I had a look a while back when working out whether humans are to blame for global warming or not.

I recommend googlescholar, it's easy to use:

http://scholar.google.com/

Here are my results, there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers in here. Anything under 'Accepts AGW' endorses human caused global warming from greenhouse gases. Anything under 'Rejects AGW' rejects it (i couldn't find any):

http://www.geocities.com/nd_wtf/AGWlist.txt

http://www.geocities.com/nd_wtf/Paperpositions.txt

Also, Nature has a nice climate science page. It's possibly the most reputable scientific journal in the world, so is worth keeping an eye on:

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

Look up Svensmark/Friis-Christensen papers for an alternate theory. It's not widely supported though. Data seems to contradict it:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004EO390005...

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463...

Also look up papers by Lindzen, he's a respected skeptic.

You'll have to go to the library most likely. You'll not find much research online, merely summaries of conclusions. Nature magazine at least has an index online so you can search for which issues you will go to when you are at the library. (Unless you want to pay for an online subscription.)

I did a search for global warming and carbon, and came up with a list of potential articles:

http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=ca...

There is a good candidate for you in the April issue:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/fu...

Go to the reference desk at your public library and ask where to find the April 2009 issue of Nature. But be aware that peer-reviewed submissions are not always easy to read. They are written for the writers' peers, not the mass public.

Climate Change due to Cosmic Rays

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Center believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere, which is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

Svensmark claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

Svensmark published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming. "Evidence from ice cores," he said, "show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years."

Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/05/the-c...

The "buzzword" today is "climate sensitivity", or how drastically the changes in CO2 affects temperature. Since the IPCC models vary by over a factor of 10 largely due their difference in sensitivity, the atmosphere's real sensitivity is obviously an open question.

Dr. Roy Spencer has done observations from the NASA Aqua satellite that questions the assumptions of the IPCC models, and his peer reviewed data show that the models make at least one incorrect assumption, and are overly sensitive to the effects of CO2 as regards an increase in temperature.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Peer reviewed in Journal of Climate:

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-0...

There is none since CO2 is not effecting global warming, it is the high humidity (water vapor) that actually traps the heat. You will most definitely get a lot of peer reviewed articles saying otherwise, but it is like running a computer software, garbage in results in garbage out.

There's no such thing as a respectable article pushing global warming, peer reviewed or not.

People put too much faith in peer reviews. All you have to do is have your paper looked at by like minded coworkers and shazam...it's peer reviewed!

Here's a link to the IPCC report "The Physical Science Basis." Look at the references at the ends of each chapter. You'll find plenty of peer reviewed articles.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

As you only seem to have received stupid answers so far this might help, not meaning pegminer

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal_browse.cw...

you should be able to find abstracts of hundreds of papers here it is also sometimes possible, if you google the name of a paper to find the full paper as a PDF

Try www.petitionproject.org

here you will find agw thoughly debunked by 10000 phd,s plus other degree holders. 15 times as many as work for the ipcc