How can there be more than 30 peer-reviewed papers on AGW that contradict each other.?

Because AGW is still an "open" theory with way to many variables that have no fixed values.

It's called debate, once the arrant nonsense is weeded out vibrant discussion of details is still possible. You denialists are so anti-science that you refuse to accept that a difference of opinion on small details does not alter the fact that AGW is occurring

Looks like scientists doing what scientists do. They are making observations, forming hyphotheses, and gathering evidence to support their particular hypothesis. And they are learning a whole lot more about climate dynamics along the way.

About the only things you can say for certainty is: 1) The science is NOT settled and 2) The scientific community does NOT have a good grasp of how climate dynamics.

The could be easily explained by the fact that we don't know as much about climate change as we think we do.

As an analogy, in the world of physics and thermodynamics, we know that warm water can freeze faster than cold water is certain conditions. This is called the Mpemba Effect and can be shown in repeatable laboratory conditions. However, nobody has proven the mechanism for this effect.

So like the fact that we know warm water can freeze faster than cold water, we also know that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can generate a greenhouse warming effect. We don't know the mechanism for either effect.

The science is not settled on either effect yet some people go around with the impression that we know more about the mechanisms in the earth-ocean-atmosphere system than we do about the thermodynamic interactions in our ice cube trays. That's fairly startling in my opinion.

It's kind of like steady state vs punctuated equilibrium in evolution.

Some people argue, and some research supports, the idea that evolutionary change tends to accumulate gradually, with few or no particularly notable "leaps". Others argue, and some research supports, the idea that evolution tends to occur as periods of relative stability, interspersed with periods of significant evolutionary change. On any topic related to this, you're likely to find contradictory papers.

But the writers of both sets of papers still agree that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, occurring.

Or, to put it another way, there's plenty of scientific debate about evolution, but essentially none of it is about whether or not it is occurring. Same with AGW.

Science often works that way. First, the Big Idea is figured out--evolution, gravity, the greenhouse effect and AGW, whatever. Then, the Big Idea is proven or argued, until the scientific community as a whole accepts it as a given. Then, little sub-components of the Big Idea, or exact causal mechanisms, or detailed applications, or what have you are worked out or argued ad nauseum.

The "Columbia Frogs increase" paper seems to be for amphibians (generally) in YellowStone national park.

The "contradicting" paper is for Montana.

If might be written that 15 papers may appear to contradict 15 other papers, on general and sloppy review; or biased searching.

the science is settled, we need to just understand global warming causes everything

Hey... as long as it sounds scary it can pass peer review.

Nothing sells a paper like a good scary story, and if you can scare the grant readers, they'll pay you to make the fear go away.

If I'm not mistaken, it isn't rare for researchers to have different conclusions, is this an attempt on your part to sensationalize what is already known? Or is this exactly what you're trying to have people understand?

Let's start with the papers 1

"Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025583...

"Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042154...

The findings appear to be contradictory, however it must be pointed out that the people who participated in the studies are not the same people, therefore the people themselves aren't contradicting themselves, just the findings.

Now onto papers 2

"Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps"

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368...

"..... these changes impact on land-surface stability, and lead to increased frequency and magnitude of natural mountain hazards, including rock falls, debris flows, landslides, avalanches and floods." "This paper presents two case studies (2003 heatwave, 2005 floods) that demonstrate some of the interlinkages between physical processes and human activity in climatically sensitive alpine regions..."

"Impact of a climate change on avalanche hazard"

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/20...

"A 15 year climatology then allows a comparison of avalanche hazard in the different French massifs. Finally, a simple climate scenario (with a general increase of precipitation and temperature) shows that avalanche hazard may decrease slightly in winter (mainly February) and more significantly in May/June. The relative proportion of wet-snow avalanches increases. "

Now, I may be mistaken, but the Alpine regions are not located in France, if I'm wrong them I'm wrong, but I was looking at maps, and it seemed to me like the Alps aren't located in France, but in Austria and some other country, maybe those mountains in France are part of the Alps, but I don't know, even if they are, there is not a significant presence (from what I can see). So what we have in these two papers is different locations, one concentrates in the entire region while one focuses on a particular part. I think that alone should negate any "contradiction". Even if we're ignoring the regions, I don't see the contradictions in the abstracts, the second paper only refers to a decrease in avalanches during the months of February, May, and June, so what about the other months? I don't know exactly what "wet-snow" is, but maybe it has something to do with floods? Who knows, I think reading the entire papers is necessary before jumping to conclusions. By the way, there is a time difference in publications. Also, one paper is a case study, and the other doesn't appear to be, I think by now we should all know the problems in comparing studies that are different.

Papers 3

"Potential impacts of climatic change on the breeding and non-breeding ranges and migration distance of European Sylvia warblers"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-...

"Climate change leads to decreasing bird migration distances"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-...

Once again, the papers are looking at different things, one paper looks at a particular species, while another looks at 24 species. One paper focuses on the Netherlands, and what looks at Africa and Europe.

"..Future potential range extent relative to simulated recent range extent VARIED considerably among species, although on AVERAGE range extent INCREASED..."

"....we show that winter recovery distances have decreased over the past seven decades, for birds ringed during the breeding season in the Netherlands between 1932 and 2004. Of the 24 species included in the analysis, we found in 12 a significant decrease of the distance to the wintering site...."

I'm not even going to bother with the other papers, it seems to me like scientists are looking at different things, and don't see how they contradict each other when they are looking at different things and not the same, not only that, research is confined to different areas, and different subjects. The only contradiction that I acknowledge so far is found in the first papers, not the 2 and 3 papers, I don't know about the others.

So depending on how you want to look at things and interpret them the answers to this questions will vary, I don't see contradictions in the 30 papers.

People are stupid. Even graduates of colleges with science degrees do not know what science is.