Peer-reviewed literature that supports AGW?

Satellites have measured a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation and ground stations have measured an increase in downgoing longwave radiation, proving there has been an increase in the greenhouse effect. Studies have also shown a direct correlation between anthropogenic greenhouse gasses and the observed increase in the greenhouse effect.

http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/0...

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/p...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BA...

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/index/cms-filesystem-acti...

Because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, less heat is released into the upper atmosphere (starting with the stratosphere). Many studies show the stratosphere is cooling.

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Art...

http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf

The tropopause is the atmospheric boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Because the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled, the tropopause has risen several hundred meters over the past 3 decades.

http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/sa...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci... (Jeff M originally posted this article. However, it appeared to be very good, so I added it to my list.)

Ocean heat content has been increasing because of AGW. A study concluded that "it [increasing ocean content] cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change."

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS...

So you have peer-reviewed literature that supports AGW. But what data are they using?

UK researchers “hiding data,” "adding temps,” and hate for dissenters.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

Russians confirm UK scientists MANIPULATED DATA to exaggerate global warming

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

Moving weather stations in China!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/...

So the researchers admitted they tweaked the data, and we know the data from Russia and China is no good. What else is left? Please tell me how you can prove any data you use is good? Its all corrupted. Peer reviewed AGW papers are like honor amongst thieves.

I would have to agree that you need to be more specific. As has been mentioned, there are thousands upon thousand of peer-reviewed papers. You’ll find that a lot of them are available from the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy, Nature Magazine, Science Magazine etc.

If you can, please add some more details, especially if there’s something in particular you’re looking for. In the meantime, check out the links provided by other answerers and search online for the sources mentioned above.

A comment on BB's post: as so often, what the information means is the very opposite of what the denialist claims that it means.

If as a scientist you publish fraudulent work on any topic of importance, other people will soon find out that your results cannot be duplicated, and you will be discredited.

When this happens, it's news. Important work will be corroborated by other people, implying that we can have the highest degree of confidence in the results, and the work on which the recognition of AGW is based falls into this class.

Edit: Jim, as usual, is peerless and priceless.

There isn't one specific paper that captures everything that proves AGW I don't believe. However, if all the journals are taken together, such as the ones below, you can get a general overview of exactly how the human impact on the environment is truthful.

C. D. Keeling, S. C. Piper, R. B. Bacastow, M. Wahlen, T. P. Whorf, M. Heimann, & H. A. Meijer, "Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 exchange with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000: observations and carbon cycle implications", pages 83-113, in "A History of Atmospheric CO2 and its effects on Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems", editors, Ehleringer, J.R., T. E. Cerling, M. D. Dearing, Springer Verlag, New York, 2005. http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2005/EcolStu...

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges, "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997", Nature 410 (15 March 2001): 355-357. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/ab...

Kaicun Wang, Shunlin Liang, "Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008", J. Geophys. Res., 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800, 2009. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800...

William J. Randel et al., "An update of observed stratospheric temperature trends", J. Geophys. Res., 114, D02107, doi:10.1029/2008JD010421, 2009. http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf

B. D. Santer et al., "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes", Science 301(5632): 479-483, DOI: 10.1126/science.1084123 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci...

Don't bother.

This is an example of the so-called 'peer review' system:

"Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970) is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1] Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, which was later rescinded.

The Schön scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of papers, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud."

I am not suggesting that all peer-reviewed work is as corrupt as this example, but I AM suggesting that you not blindly embrace everything as legitimate simply due to a claim of 'peer-reviewed'.

A comment on Paul B's post:

As usual, you have curled up into your defensive fetal position and totally missed the mark. You are.... apparently.... one of those who sees anyone having a view contrary to yours as automatically being a "denier". Your knee-jerk reaction saddens me but .... unfortunately.... does not surprise me.

My point was/is that "peer-review" is not a guarantee that a subject work is credible. In the case of the discredited example provided in by post, Schön was able to dupe the scientific community..... thankfully, he was eventually exposed, but this serves as a reminder that corruption can be an evil bed-fellow in any profession.

There's a lot of peer-reviewed literature that supports the North Korean dictatorship.

It has about the same degree of objectivity as the peer-reviewed literature that supports AGW.

here are 750.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

You might want to be more specific, because there are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting AGW. I summed some of them up in the links below.

*edit* "There's a lot of peer-reviewed literature that supports that North Korean dictatorship."

WTF does that even mean? I read that and my jaw literally dropped. Deniers are freaking nuts.

Pierre Macherey wrote a book on Literature , The Object Of Literature. I have reviewed it and find it overpriced.

http://shopping.yahoo.com/9780521476782-the-object...