Can you find me ANYTHING that supports AGW that was released after 2005?

Question

Good Luck. When you actually look you kool-aid drinkers will find out that ONE study in 2005 from the Scripps Oceanographic Institute is the so-called "proof" of man-made global warming.

I can link you to scores of peer reviewed studies in 2007 that refute man-made global warming:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Let's see you come up with a single study after 2005 that supports MAN-MADE global warming.

Even if Inhofe was MADE of oil, it still doesn't take away from the peer reviewed studies of reputable climate scientists. Inhofe didn't write the studies, he just links to them. read them for yourself and decide.

The lack of any credible response to this question is game, set, and match in putting down the AGW alarmists. Where is your "concensus" now?

Gee Bob, not one of those has anything to do with proving global warming is MAN MADE.

Just the back and forth in this forum PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that no "concensus" exists in the public. Reviews of scientific works PROVES that no "concensus" exists in the scientific community.

Nice job of giving a half quote to deceive, Bob.

Here is the full quote that you cut up for your own deception:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Answer 1

Yeah right! And this comes from the same guy (Inhofe) that does not believe in evolution........

slight credibility problem here

Answer 2

It appears that you're not a scientist given your lack of understanding as to how science works. Once something has been conclusively proven there is no need to go over the same ground and prove it again.

Can you find any post 2005 studies that support the theory of relativity, that the Earth isn't flat, that gravity exists, that flight is possible, that cancer is real, that trees are made of wood. If you can't then I assume you accept there is no such thing as relativity, that the Earth is flat, there's no such thing as gravity, aeroplanes don't fly, cancer isn't real and trees are made of something other than wood.

The fact that the skeptics have to keep coming up with new reports is proof in itself that they've been unable to refute AGW. If they'd managed to come up with something credible why would thay dismiss it and go in search of some other explanation.

Global warming has been proven consequentially or incidentally in the course of many thousands of studies and reports conducted since 2005. There have been numerous reports commissioned by non-scientists in which scientists are charged with, amongst other things, proving or disproving global warming. Just about every government in thw world has comissioned just such a report, so too has just about every major organisation in the world. They don't want GW proving - they want the facts so they can implement policies and decisions accordingly. In being presented with the facts every single major government and every single major corporation in the world now accepts the reality of global warming.

Go to the IPCC website, the reports there are the culmination of hundreds of reports conducted by thousands of scientists. The most recent report was published just last month, in itself it contains dozens of post 2005 reports proving that AGW is real.

Answer 3

From recent testimony to Congress by Dr. James Hansen of NASA.

The first one appears to be along the lines of what you're looking for:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/canweavert.pdf
My testimony is derived primarily from the six publications listed below. It is based on a much broader body of knowledge of the scientific community, which is not practical to document in the brief hours available to prepare this testimony.

The first four publications below are published or ‘in press’ in regular peer-reviewed scientific journals, each having been reviewed by either two or three scientific peers.

A. Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study
Hansen and 46 co-authors (2007), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2287-2312. PDF available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_1.html

B. Climate change and trace gases
Hansen and 5 co-authors (2007), Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052. PDF available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html

C. Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE
Hansen and 46 co-authors, in press at Climate Dynamics, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0255-8. PDF available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/inpress/Hansen_etal_1.html

D. Scientific reticence and sea level rise
Hansen (2007), Environ. Res. Lett., 2, 024002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002. PDF available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen.html

There are a lot of recent papers referenced at the end of the congressional tesimony, including this one:

Archer, D. 2007 Methane hydrates and anthropogenic climate change. Biosci. Discuss. 4, 993-1057.

Your question is a great trap though, since the link to anthropogenic influence was well established before then and in the scientific community it doesn't make much sense to do "research" on answered questions except to check actuals vs. predictions and tune models.

However, in the professional opposing camp there should be scores of things coming all the time, since there's a lot of money to be claimed ($10,000 per paper bounty) for papers published calling global warming into question. I'm surprised that ExxonMobil hasn't published a 500 paper list yet. Aren't they getting any takers?

Answer 4

Sure. Here's one. It's a thousand pages long, and has hundreds of references to verified data.

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

A few more:

Models Underestimate Warming, Sea Level Rise
Rahmstorf, S., et al. Science. May 4, 2007
Rahmstorf, S. Science. Jan. 19, 2007

Ice Sheet Melt Concerns and Confounds Scientists
Cazenave, A. Science. Nov. 24, 2006

Sea Ice Is Reaching a Breaking Point
Holland, Marika, et al. Geophysical Research Letters. Dec. 12, 2006
Winton, M. Geophysical Research Letters. Dec. 13, 2006

Polar Bears and Other Species Stressed from Global Warming
Stirling, I., and C.L. Parkinson. Arctic. September 2006

Global Warming Affects Weather Extremes
Hoyos, C.D., et al. Science, Vol. 312: 94-97. 2006

Warming Will Lead to Frequent and More Intense Wildfires in the Western United States
Westerling, A., et al. Science, Vol. 313: 940-943.

A Future without Summer Sea Ice in the Arctic?
National Snow and Ice Data Center, NASA and University of Washington Sea Ice Decline Intensifies, joint press release (September 28th, 2005)
National Snow and Ice Data Center (April 5, 2006)
J.T. Overpeck, et al., EOS, 86, 309
J.C. Stroeve, et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L04501 (February 25, 2005)

Let me point out something from your own cite that you might have missed:

"only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright"

This is still true:

"You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

I trust you'll now change your position?

Or do you prefer to put your future well being and economic safety in the hands of a few skeptics, most of who are not climatologists?

The world's leaders have made their decision.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Answer 5

How did you miss these?

Tett, S.B. et. al. (2007) The impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate and hydrology since 1550. Cli. Dyn. 28:1,3-34.
Tsutsui, J. et. al. (2007) Long-term climate response to stabilized and overshoot anthropogenic forcings beyond the twenty-first century. Cli. Dyn 28:2-3,199-214.
Boulanger, J. et. al. (2007) Projection of future climate change conditions using IPCC simulations, neural networks and Bayesian statistics. Part 2: Precipitation mean state and seasonal cycle in South America. Cli. Dyn. 28:2-3,255-271.
Hayhoe, K. et. al. (2007) Past and future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the US Northeast. Cli. Dyn. 28:4,381-407.
Mikolajewicz, U. et. al. (2007) Long-term effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions simulated with a complex earth system model. Cli. Dyn. 28:6,599-633.
Teng, Q. et. al. (2007) Northern Hemisphere circulation regimes: observed, simulated and predicted. Cli. Dyn. 28:7-8,876-879.
Cai, M., and Lu, J. (2007) Dynamical greenhouse-plus feedback and polar warming amplification. Part II: meridional and vertical asymmetries of the global warming. Cli. Dyn. 29:4,375-391.
Swingedouw, D. et. al. (2007) Quantifying the AMOC feedbacks during a 2×CO2 stabilization experiment with land-ice melting. Cli. Dyn. 29:5,521-534.
Raddatz, T.J. et. al. (2007) Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? Cli. Dyn. 29:6,565-574.
Hansen, J. et. al. (2007) Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE. Cli. Dyn. 29:7-8,661-696.
Min, S. and Hense, A. (2007) Hierarchical evaluation of IPCC AR4 coupled climate models with systematic consideration of model uncertainties. Cli. Dyn. 29:7-8, 853-868.

By the way, your page contains only ONE link to a peer-reviewed paper (Schwartz), the rest being blog entries and news reports. The list above is just a gleaning from a year's worth of ONE climate journal (out of a dozen or more out there.) So if you want more than this -- a whole lot more -- it's easy to find.

So easy to find, in fact, that anyone who reads real science (instead of political blogs) would have no trouble finding them. I'm assuming that you're not in that group.

Answer 6

considering how long studies take to complete, and research throughly , 2 years is hardly a long gap. Sadly, since people like you exist, people will be taking even longer, making sure that their research is 100% clear and perfect.

10 years and I might worry abit, but 2 ? thats nothing.

don't worry your self , AGW is happening