Good peer-reviewed articles on global warming?

I would avoid anything referenced in the IPCC reports. Until the academic fraud and corruption allegations are fully investigated, the IPCC and anything associated, remains suspect.

You may want to check out research conducted by the Pielke's (Roger... Jr. & Sr.). Their association with the IPCC has been minimal compared to the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann, who are currently under investigation .... their livlihoods do not depend on spreading alarmism regarding global warming or cooling or in-betweening.... etc.

Biology? Why would you be challenging climatologists in Biology class? Are you certain the assignment is not to find biology-specific papers? This would all be about the effects of climate change and accept it's cetainty. Be sure you understand your assignment.

Here is one on the effect on Phytoplankton

http://www.springerlink.com/content/jw2x18745uv6hq...

There is a relatively new publication, Global Change Biology which should have a number of article that relate to your assignment.

http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1354-1013

If if is a broader assigment that involves Paleoclimatology, Astronomy, Climatology and other non-biological sciences that are behind the conclusion that man is warming the environment, go to

http://skepticalscience.com/

and peruse the subjects. Every point is supported by published papers with links to the paper and abstracts.

If this is a high school class, then you have another problem. The peer-reviewed papers are not available for free. You'll need an explanation from your teacher how to get them; I doubt that your local library has the science journals but maybe you'll find that they have a major journal such as Nature. For most of these science journals, where you will find peer-reviewed research, you would have to go to a good college library or pay for a subscription online. And of course the papers are written for the educated scientists' peers, and are basically impossible to comprehend by non-peers -- other than hopefully the conclusion.

You will not find any peer-reviewed research in an accepted science journal with evidence that man is not causing the environment to warm. You'll have a small number that conclude that man's portion of cause is less, or that we are warming more slowly than is believed by the consensus of climate scientists but there are no published researchers who believe we are not part of the undisputed warming that is happening.

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 is an excellent summary of the situation in December 18 SCIENCE, one of the world's top two science journals, with a very large number of references to the primary peer-reviewed studies, free download

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/596...

That’s … sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1646

Presidential Address:

Reflections On: Our Planet and Its Life, Origins, and Futures

James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University

An outstanding, well-referenced, review of the situation. It’s all there; history of the global warming concept, role of solar fluctuations, the actual temperature record with ranking of years, the extent to which predictions since 1995 have been justified and indeed amplified by events.

And where that's taking us.

You will have some difficulty in finding any peer-reviewed studies that deny the basic fact of man-made global warming. Meadow here does his best to help with such endeavours, but the best he could come up with is a paper on how slow (by some standards) species are moving under the impact of climate change.

Danille. It is good thing to know that there is the political component and what that is because then you can sort out science versus emotion and politics.

Some here like to diminish meteorologists because a minority of us do not buy into it. That is not to say that we disrespect the differences they have but we let it go at that.

Recently, you heard the talk by some that the cold snaps and big snows were a direct consequence of climate change. I reject that notion on mostly empirical grounds. Being a forecaster for almost 31 years, I would buy into the notion that it had more to do with oscillation patterns and migration of semi-permanent high and low pressure areas.

The season's snow were more a negative oscillation pattern and a series of lows that formed along the frontal boundaries in the south and northeast.

There are some people here who can be helpful but always question everything and on both sides of this debate.

.

Hi,

A good, recent paper for biology on global warming would be "The Velocity of Climate Change" which discusses how far and how fast different species will need to move due to changes in environment caused by climate change

See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/ab...

~ The reason there is a lot of political stuff about global warming is that the overwhelming majority of studies are either not focused directly on proving man-made climate change (for example, the study i refer to asks "what would the likely velocity be IF climate changes by X amount", it doesn't say that it has) or relies on simulating the climate system using computer models. This is essentially unfalsifiable - you either believe it or you don't.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT -

Sadly, people like Paul B (below) who obviously do not read Nature or any other scientific journal, see fit to criticise those of us who do.

The paper i refer to is supportive of the theory of man-made global warming, but i offered it as a suggestion as i thought it would be most helpful to the asker of the question. I wasn't trying to push my own point of view, like Paul B does, just help someone.

For a review of global warming theory that is sceptical, peer-reviewed and written by a climate scientist, see http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/d...

I guess it depends on how much you think computer models can model reality. After the credit crisis and housing market crash caused by computer models, i cetainly don't!

.

Hope this helped.

.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Gathers together peer reviewed articles for reports.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Blog that makes arguments and nearly always refers back to the peer reviewed literature.

http://scholar.google.com/

Most accessible academic search engine out there - will let you search for papers easily.

A couple of the big ones are

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1232011...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html