What scientific literature is there that supports anthropogenic global warming?

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/e...

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=AgvdH...

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.fu...

If you want examples of specific papers, I discussed some studies which demonstrate 'fingerprints' of AGW here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirically-observ...

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_...

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/p...

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...

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more...

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Yes, I'll agree that is a fairly extreme statement that is pretty difficult to support although it is also ambiguous. Perhaps he means there is no definitive proof, only theory, supposition, conjecture, hypothesis and likelyhoods.

However, on the other side of the coin there are also statement like:

"By "clever marketing campaign", Ritchie refers to every single published Research in every single climate journal by every single climate researcher in the world."

....and....

"97% of all climate scientists..."

....and....

"every single scientific institution..."............. etc.

Those statements are also very difficult to support when there is this: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

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?

Edit2: Baccheus is another good example (his was the first quote in my answer btw). He has asked me to provide evidence that something (AGW) is not real. If he had a scientific bone in his body he would know that proving something is not real is impossible. If he has a scientific bone, then he is being dishonest and deceitful.

It's funny that a 'doctor' would consider NASA and the IPCC to be 'liberal sources'. Funny as in you're a joke. I used to be in denial just like you. It's time to admit that we were wrong and accept AGW.

I would feel a lot better if you had solicited data both in support and in opposition to the Global Warming premise. Please consider, e.g.:

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

Take care!!

The most direct measure that I am aware of is Harries (2001, Nature)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/ab...

He directly measured the increase in the greenhouse effect.

Ottowa Mike is unable to pull a single study out of his list to show that it counters AGW. There is not one. I would like him to explain how any one of those papers provides any evidence that AGW is not real. There is no such research. Go ahead, Mike; try to find one.

******

Mike, rather than vacantly arguing, why did you not go to your list and find a published study that counters the thousands of studies behind AGW. You are claiming that there is one that scientifically concludes that it is not warming, that the warming in the last 30 years can be fully explained by something other than an enhanced greenhouse effect, or that the enhanced greenhouse effect is natural. My claims can be easily disproved if not true; I am aware that it is an absolute statement. I tossed you a softball challenge, readers should take you non-answer as a clear indication of how few attempts there are any longer to even attempt to offer alternative theories.

Your list has rants from 11 years ago (and yes, there was debate 11 years ago). You've got the non-tree-ring proxies which relates only to paleoclimate rather than current climate, you got essays which lacked the rigor required to be published.

All published studies can be falsified if they are not correct. It happens often as scientific theories become more robust. Certainly if the basic principles of the AGW theory are questioned at all any longer by climate researchers you should be able to cite one or two studies that support some alternate theory.

A lot of words in response... not much hard data as requested. So you provided AGW-supporting evidence. Have there been any examples of papers published refuting climate change, or man's influence?

The links to the list by Popular Technology are weak, as it includes the following major disclaimer:

"The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW."

What? "...or the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW"?

That leaves us to dig through a list of papers published in journals such as Society (and the fossil fuel industry's journal Energy and Environment) to figure out if there is even a single paper casting doubt on the warming, or on man's influence. In other words, it still leaves unaddressed the observation that there is not a single published paper directly contradicting climate change or man's role. Did anyone find one? I looked through the annoyingly-irrelevant list and couldn't find one. It looks like a weak attempt at propaganda; it even admits that many authors may object to the characterization that their papers refute global warming! (How much more of an admission of B.S. does one need?)

I also don't buy the bizarre argument that climate models should be excluded (simply because they involve computers, or some such nonsense). We have to analyze thousands of records of data and understand and describe the complicated climate system somehow don't we? That's all that models attempt to do. What would be inherently better than a computer model matching observations with properties of physics... thousands of people each wielding an abacus? Surely the calculation tool is irrelevant to the validity of the results (unless the purpose is propaganda, since everyone who has seen 2001: A Space Oddyssey knows that computers are evil).

In simple terms, global temperatures are affected by the sum of the effects of solar radiation fluctuations, El Nino Southern Oscillation, sulfate smog, and anthropogenic contributions (varying concentrations of greenhouse gases and black soot).

It should be noted that one of those influences, sulfate smog, is an anthropogenic one which depresses temperature (such as from airline pollution), but its effect is short term (vs. the 1000+ year influence of incremental CO2 released), and it results in collateral environmental damage, so its no reason for celebration.

Here's a detailed summary of the models which have resulted in that view of global temperature influences, with good correlation to observed temperatures:

Summary of the history of climate change science

http://aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Some of the other comments in responses on this topic are rather bizarre...

"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."

Science draws conclusions from experiments and measurements, and whether or not they support a given theory. In any given study, the conclusion could support or refute various aspects of AGW theory. So far thousands of studies dealing with many complex aspects of the climate system seem to come to conclusions that support AGW... which ones came to some opposing conclusion? Sure, it may not be anyone's "job" to present such studies, but it's no one's "job" to support AGW either... that's simply the logical conclusion that the evidence pointed to! Over and over again. If contrary papers don't exist, then wouldn't the logical conclusion be that coming at the problem from lots of directions and coming to consistent conclusions that AGW is occuring mean that it's "very likely" (or whatever the IPCC used to indicate over 95% probability) that we're getting a useful picture of what's happening? If AGW were not happening, surely one peer-reviewed paper would come to that conclusion (and that paper would be the poster child of the denial movement). The lack of such a paper is a critical point in the discussion, whatever comfort some people may derive from some baloney about "null hypothesis".

The IPCC report contained an entire chapter on attributing global warming to mankind, and its reference section credited a long list of peer-reviewed scientific papers published in leading journals:

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...

The actual peer-reviewed research published in leading journals is listed here in the References section for that chapter:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...

Apparently that's the main body of valid scientific evidence we have to go on (aside from what's been published since of course)?

You use a word like support which I assume is carefully chosen by you. Why didn't you ask if there was any scientific (let alone "what") literature that proves it. What you get are a thousand pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle. With each piece of the puzzle it seems, you have eager scientists exaggerating the importance of his piece. What we have in the end is a bunch of disjointed pieces that don't tell us much. We are not even sure if CO2 has caused the warming in the last 100 years. I know you are sure but scientists aren't. We don't know if it caused 1 per cent, 10 percent or a 100 percent. In the end, you have a bunch of sources who manipulate models with uncertain variables and assumptions and sometimes make grand unsupported claims. So yes, there is scientific literature but there is scientific literature on lots of theories, some of which are going to end up in the scientific graveyard one day.