When Did Global Warming Begin?

Image Credit: Marathon NationSoft Pixel

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

There have been a number of statements made recently about “Global Warming Deniers”, e.g. “White House: Global Warming Deniers Wrong to Reference Polar Vortex” US News, “Watch The Daily Show mock Trump and other global warming deniers” The Week and “Global warming denier Jim Inhofe: ‘Fewer and fewer’ senators believe in climate change ‘hoax’”. The Raw Story

Given the apparent prevalence of “Global Warming Deniers”, it seems prudent to take a look at the data so that everyone is clear when Global Warming began and what is undeniable. As such, from the following EPICA Dome C Ice Core record from Vostok, Antarctica, over the last 450,000 years Earth has experienced numerous Glacials, commonly referred to as Ice Ages, and Interglacials,  like the Holocene Interglacial we are experiencing today:

EssayWeb.net – Click the pic to view at source

“The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refers to a period in the Earth’s climate history when ice sheets were at their maximum extension, between 26,500 and 19,000–20,000 years ago, marking the peak of the last glacial period.” As such, one could argue that Global Warming began about “19,000–20,000 years ago”.

However, there was “the Late Glacial Maximum (ca. 13,000-10,000 years ago), or Tardiglacial (“Late Glacial”)” which was “defined primarily by climates in the northern hemisphere warming substantially, causing a process of accelerated deglaciation following the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 25,000-13,000 years ago)”. “As such, one could also argue that Global Warming began about “13,000-10,000 years ago”.

Now looking at the GISP2 Ice Core record from Greenland, over the last 10,700 years, you can see the rapid warming that occurred at the end of last Glacial and that the current Holocene Interglacial reached it’s maximum peak between 8000 – 7500 years ago:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Since the peak of the Holocene Intreglacial, Earth has experienced several additional descending peaks, including the Minoan Warm Period between 3500 – 3000 years ago, the Roman Warm Period between 2250 – 1500 years ago and the Medieval Warm Period between 1250 – 750 years ago. The Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age can be seen clearly on the following temperature reconstruction based upon Alexandre, 1987 and Lamb, 1988, found Page 250, Figure 7.1 of IPCC Assessment Report 1:

JoNova – IPCC AR1 – Click the pic to view at source

The Little Ice Age “has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.” As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in “about 1850”.

However, generally when referring to “Global Warming Deniers” there is an implication that the “Global Warming” that’s being denied is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions were de minimis in 1850. In fact, anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels did not become potentially consequential until approximately 1950:

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

This is why the IPCC only claims to be;

“95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950sBBC

As such, one could argue the Global Warming began in “the 1950s”.

However, if you look at the Met Office – Hadley Center  HadCRUT4 Global Surface Temperature record for the last 163 years you can see that temperatures didn’t warm during the 1950s, nor the 60s:

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

In fact it was not until approximately 1975 that temperatures began to rise. As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

However, in 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the BBC, “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?” Phil Jones responded that,”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

The warming during the periods of “1860-1880” and “1910-1940”, before anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions became potentially consequential, is “not statistically significantly different” from the warming during the periods “1975-1998” and “1975 to 2009”. Thus there is no indication that the warming between “1975-1998” and “1975 to 2009” is unnatural, unusual and/or caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Global Warming may have started in 1975, but there is no observable evidence [of] anthropogenic CO2 emission based Global Warming began in 1975. As such, one could argue that anthropogenic CO2 emission based Global Warming began sometime [after] 1975.

However, if you look at following UAH Satellite Lower Atmosphere graph for the last 34 years;

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

and this NASA GISS Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Anomaly graph for the last 17 years;

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

you can see that Global Warming stopped in the late 1990s or early 2000s, which has been referred to as “The Pause” in Earth’s temperature. In fact, looking at the Werner Brozek’s recent article, the Pause in each major temperature data set is as follows:

For GISS, the slope is flat since July 2001 or 12 years, 6 months.

For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since July 1997 or 16 years, 6 months.

For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month.

For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 1 month.

For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 9 years, 3 months. (goes to December using version 5.5)

For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 4 months.”

Shown graphically, that looks like this:

WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source

As such, one could argue that for the last 17 – 9 years Global Warming hasn’t been occurring, and thus Global Warming began in 1975 and ended between 1996 and 2004.

However, this would not  resolve the question of when the “Global Warming” that’s being caused by anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions began. If you look at Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels and;

EPA – Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy – Click the pic to view at source

and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels, you can see that emissions have been growing rapidly in the last few decades:

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

In fact the Economist noted in 2013 that “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.'”

Thus, while anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the highest they’ve ever been, and growing rapidly, Earth’s temperature has been in a 9 – 17 year Pause. And the only period of warming that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could have had a significant influence on, 1975 – 1998, is “similar and not statistically significantly different from” the periods of 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 when there is no evidence of anthropogenic CO2 emission influence. As such one could argue that “Global Warming” due to anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions may not have begun, that Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 may be low, that natural processes may be large enough to outweigh the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and/or that preparing for a period of rapid and catastrophic Global Warming, when there is no observational evidence that it is in fact occurring, may be a historic folly.

Anyway, what do you think, when did Global Warming begin?

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 25, 2014 4:08 pm

This skeptic is finding himself agreeing with the claim of being “95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s” — mainly the humans at NOAA and NASA, with a touch of Mann, Gore & Hansen tossed in. (only 1/2 /sarc)

January 25, 2014 4:11 pm

Global warming, climate change, climate disruption…
…Irritable climate syndrome
They are all just made up words…that describe some fiction

January 25, 2014 4:13 pm

“one could argue that “Global Warming” due to anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions may not have begun, that Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 may be low, that natural processes may be large enough to outweigh the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and/or that preparing for a period of rapid and catastrophic Global Warming, when there is no observational evidence that it is in fact occurring, may be a historic folly.”
I see no reason to disagree with that.
Working out why CO2 seems to have so little effect is more interesting because ascertaining that involves understanding the real mechanisms behind the entire climate system rather than those incorporated into the failing models.
I think an adjustable global air circulation driven by a variable rate of convection provides the necessary negative system response aided by the phase changes of water.

January 25, 2014 4:18 pm

At the ipcc’s inception in 1988, from the start, they claimed, as the foundation of their theory, that there is a proven causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. But in 1999 a peer reviewed paper refuted this. But ipcc fought this tooth and nail, until the ipcc itself in 2003 finally conceded. BUT… Al Gore in his 2005 movie went ahead and knowingly repeated the clearly debunked deception on CO2. Yes, it was willful deception on Al Gore’s part, and, yes, the very foundation of the warmist theory… is gone. See and spread the word about this outstanding video on Al Gore’s CO2 deception:

January 25, 2014 4:25 pm

GW – It’s all a spreader full of poo. that’s my scientific truth.

Green Sand
January 25, 2014 4:28 pm

When Did Global Warming Begin?

Salou 1976!
Shut the shops, put locals in hospital and cost this particular pillock several layers of skin!
It was hot, even the UK in 76 was hot!
1977 was not hot, was that it?
Weather, love it

Steve Case
January 25, 2014 4:31 pm

Obviously it’s June 23, 1988 when Dr. James Hansen testified before the United States Congress:
Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate
The New York Times

January 25, 2014 4:31 pm

2006, with “An Inconvenient Truth”

January 25, 2014 4:41 pm

When Cornelius Vanderbilt began making money as a teenager in the winter ferrying passengers from Staten Island to Manhattan when nobody else’s ferry could get through the ice-covered Hudson River … south of Manhattan.

January 25, 2014 4:41 pm

“Anyway, what do you think, when did Global Warming begin?”
I think it obvious that the warming we are experiencing began around 1850 or so with the end of the Little Ice Age. And thank the gods that cold period did come to an end. It has been said that the industrial revolution began approximately around the time of the end of the LIA and that mankind has experienced and explosion of material wealth and knowledge during the warming. One wonders why so many hate the idea of a warm world.
I also understand that many studies have shown that the world has been far warmer in past times than in the present time. Why would we not want to see several more degrees of warming?

January 25, 2014 4:43 pm

Darn it. I forgot to add to the last post how much I enjoyed this article and all the hard work that must have gone into putting it together. Well done; and thank you for it.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
January 25, 2014 4:52 pm

I used to believe in CAGW but then I got into Dr Who instead.
On a serious note, thank you JTF for a concise argument that I can bookmark for reference when I am next attacked by rabid CAGW believers.

January 25, 2014 4:52 pm

Eric Simpson says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:18 pm
“…proven causal correlation between CO2 & temperature…”
OK, I’ve asked this before. Since CO2 lags temperature rise, what happened ~800 years ago to cause CO2 to go up to 400ppm now? Haven’t seen any attempted scientific answers about that. Jo Nova maybe??

January 25, 2014 5:04 pm

Looking at the graphs and trying to forget indoctrination it looks more like increased CO2 stabilizes air temperature and may lead to a small decrease in temperature as CO2 levels rise

Les Johnson
January 25, 2014 5:05 pm

I can confidently state that global warming started 4.5 billion years ago, when temperature in this corner of space increased rapidly after fusion started in the young sun….

January 25, 2014 5:14 pm

OMG, I have an answer to this!!!
Looking at just the U.S.
That is the U.S. from 1930-1998 (the El Nino year)
That is the U.S. from (post ’98 El Nino) 1999-2013
The only “Warming” the U.S. has seen since 1930 came in 1998, when temperatures spiked (and stayed) during El Nino.
Therefore, the answer must be 1998 …right?
Or is our Country just broken =-/

george h.
January 25, 2014 5:21 pm

Well, around here it started a little after sunrise.

January 25, 2014 5:22 pm

@J. Philip Peterson (at 4:52pm). The video I linked to explains itself. It has nothing to do with the generally agreed upon point that man is causing current CO2 levels to rise. The point of the video is that historically there’s no evidence that CO2 caused temperatures to rise, and so this suggests the CO2 is not going to cause temperatures to rise now. Duh.

January 25, 2014 5:37 pm

@ Eric Simpson – yeah, but if man is only causing 3% of the CO2 rise why is it increasing so steeply? Is there any proof that the 3% is what is causing the CO2 rise?

January 25, 2014 5:39 pm

What a truly excellent article, thank you!
It just goes to show how wide-of-the-mark and intellectually moribund those who deploy the ‘denier’ insult actually are. They are lower than a snake’s belly in a gutter.
And that’s before you even take into account their unwitting invocation of Godwin’s Law, by attempting to smear those who are sceptical of the CAGW conjecture as having Holocaust denial tendencies.
Providing you accept the veracity of the data used to create the above graphs, there is no doubt that the CAGW conjecture is pure bunkum. The jig is up, and the hoax is finally over.

January 25, 2014 5:40 pm

I agree that CO2 is not causing the global temperature to rise, but why is CO2 increasing? Is it all due to Humans?

Tommy E
January 25, 2014 5:44 pm

“Anyway, what do you think, when did Global Warming begin?”
When did Zeus chain Prometheus to the rock to have his liver eaten each day by Zeus’ pet eagle? It was before then. Had Prometheus not given us fire back then, we would not have CO2 emissions today! Who are we to ague with a God?
Ok, how about 1859, when John Tyndall first measures the relative infrared absorptive powers of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc. … Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. … Or at least that’s how the source of all knowledge reports it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall)

January 25, 2014 5:44 pm

Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Hint: It’s a trick question. This is a very good essay on the question of warming and warming peaks over a geologic time scale. Two items to take away from it: first, of the various warming periods since the end of the last glaciation, the one with the highest “peaks” was the first, roughly 7,500 years ago. Where was all that human-generated CO2 then? Second, from that first warming peak, all the subsequent warming periods (Roman Warming, &c.) have had successively lower peaks. In other words, they’re warming, but less and less an less… Well worth reading.

January 25, 2014 5:50 pm

Meanwhile in Thailand globl warming strikes…
“Pattaya has freak snow hit its coldest record in 30 years Thursday morning when the temperature fell to 7.6 Celsius,” said Songkram Aksorn, Deputy Director General of the Thai Meteorological Department.”
Or is Gore in town?

Dan Pangburn
January 25, 2014 5:50 pm

The sunspot number time-integral proxy shows that it warmed fairly steadily 1720-2005 then stopped warming. Although measurements are noisy the average of 5 has been flat since 2001.

January 25, 2014 5:50 pm

Answer: The warming started 11,600 years ago (graph by Ole Humlum above).
And I sincerely hope the warmth continues! How long does an interglacial last again? I enjoyed the article; comparison of the various time scales were interesting.

January 25, 2014 5:57 pm

Answer: Correction: 10,600 years ago.

January 25, 2014 5:59 pm

@J. Philip Peterson. The video I linked to doesn’t mention anything about man responsible for 3% of yearly CO2 output. I think that’s a red herring, because I and most skeptics (with exceptions) are satisfied with the evidence that, despite man’s yearly contribution of CO2 being much smaller than the natural sources of CO2, this additional, though relatively small, contribution is nevertheless causing the cumulative level of CO2 to rise.
You agree that CO2 is not causing temperatures to rise. Great, though that’s not exactly what I’m saying. Conceivably CO2 has an effect, but mostly at the sub-100ppm levels. One thing that is clear is that CO2 does not have the effect that the warmists’ theoretical model of the greenhouse effect posits, because if it did then their climate models would have worked as their theoretical model suggested. But no, we have instead “epic climate model fail”: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

January 25, 2014 6:02 pm

JTF…thank you for another excellent article
I particularly glad you posted that second chart….everyone should notice two things
The overall trend is down, with a few uptics…
..and….how small the difference is between what we are calling the modern warm period..and the little ice age
The ‘Hysterics” are all about a 1 degree swing in temps….if our climate didn’t bounce around 1 degree.. it wouldn’t be normal…..but the overall trend is still down

January 25, 2014 6:07 pm

Eric said: “this additional, though relatively small, contribution is nevertheless causing the cumulative level of CO2 to rise.”
Count me among the exceptions….
If the planet can jiggle 1000’s of ppm CO2….which it can….what man contributes can not cause a rise

January 25, 2014 6:11 pm

great thread.
wonder what the Professor of Science Education and Dean of Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of Science and Engineeringy at Australia’s Curtin University, Dr Vaille Dawson, who receives funding from the Australian Research Council, would make of it!
having an “alternative conception” of “climate change” worries her? of course, once “climate change” is deceptively used instead of AGW, there’s not a hope of any understanding:
4 Nov: The Conversation: Vaille Dawson/Katherine Carson: What do young people really know about climate change?
(Disclosure Statement: Vaille Dawson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.)
Our new study, published in the latest edition of Teaching Science, has investigated the scientific understanding of 438 Western Australian Year 10 students in relation to the greenhouse effect and climate change.
The results are startling.
When asked for a written response to the question “what is climate change?” only half of the students gave an answer which showed some understanding of the science behind climate change. Furthermore, one-third of the students included some type of alternative conception in their answer…
What can be done?…
If we want to improve this situation, it needs to begin in school with a curriculum which promotes understanding of climate science as well as pro-environmental behaviour. Teachers need to be aware of common alternative conceptions (often held by teachers themselves) and be given the resources and skills to overcome them…

Gail Combs
January 25, 2014 6:13 pm

J. Philip Peterson says: @ January 25, 2014 at 4:52 pm
OK, I’ve asked this before. Since CO2 lags temperature rise, what happened ~800 years ago to cause CO2 to go up to 400ppm now? …
Look at Dr Lamb’s graph, 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm period.
Of more interest is the warm periods are getting weaker and the cold periods colder as the Holocene draws to a close.

John F. Hultquist
January 25, 2014 6:15 pm

I think if you fix the typo in the line below you will have created an outstanding resource for us deniers. Thanks.
In fact, anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels did not became potentially consequential until approximately 1950:
[Done. Thank you. Mod]

January 25, 2014 6:33 pm

@Les Johnson at 5:05 pm
My answer is, “No later than the End of the Archean (about 2.2 billion years ago) after the Earth’s bout of it’s oldest known global glaciation.”
But I like your answer better: 4.5 Billion Years ago when the Sun’s fusion began.

January 25, 2014 6:44 pm

@Latitude at 6:02PM.
I may have had questions about man’s role in the current trend of rising CO2, but I found what I thought was a definitive enough analysis by frequent wuwt commenter: Ferdinand Engelbeen. I think his analyses are very trustworthy, and though he clearly is not taking the “side” of skeptics, he nevertheless is a skeptic. Here’s one of several of his comments in a thread, where he gets down into the nitty gritty of it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/#comment-1168182

January 25, 2014 6:57 pm

@Gail Combs
“Look at Dr Lamb’s graph, 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm period.”
Thanks, no one ever offered that. Looks like the peak of the Medieval Warm period was almost exactly 800 years ago. Was probably more pronounced than has been reported. That’s why the increase in CO2, among other things.

January 25, 2014 6:59 pm

whenever it began, Al Gore says extreme weather events are now a HUNDRED TIMES MORE COMMON THAN 30 YEARS AGO, so there:
25 Jan: Guardian: Adam Vaughan: Al Gore: ‘extreme weather has made people wake up to climate change’
Haiyan and Sandy-like storms are ‘gamechanger’ for public awareness of global warming, says former US vice-president
Extreme weather events including typhoon Haiyan and superstorm Sandy are proving a “gamechanger” for public awareness of the threat posed by climate change, Al Gore said on Friday.
The former US vice-president, speaking to delegates at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said: “I think that these extreme weather events which are now a hundred times more common than 30 years ago are really waking people’s awareness all over the world [on climate change], and I think that is a gamechanger. It comes about, of course, because we continue to put 90 million tonnes of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every day, as if it’s an open sewer.”…
Speaking alongside Gore, Bill Gates said that climate change was a very important challenge but still had “an awareness problem.” …
Gore: “Even with business leadership, we will need governmental actions, we need to put a price on carbon, we need to put a price on [climate change] denial in politics,” he said at the WEF panel on climate change…
24 Jan: Deutsche Welle: Manuela Kasper-Claridge: Cost of climate change high on Davos agenda
From within the Davos Congress Center, you can see skiers racing down the slopes outside of the World Economic Forum. Looking at the snow outside, some participants might wonder why there’s so much talk about global warming.
Not so Christiana Figueres. Standing in the snow, the UN climate chief said she is pleased the topic is so high on the agenda at Davos.
“The risk of increased natural events is there, the risk of a water crisis and the risk for a food crisis,” she told DW, adding that there was economic fallout associated with failing to deal with climate change and its effects.
“If we don’t address it, it’s a major risk to the global economy, but if we do, it’s a real promoter of global economy because it can bring new jobs,” she said. “It can bring new sectors, energy security and it will help health and so many other factors.”…
Climate change and Coca Cola
Many companies have become aware of such issues, among them Coca Cola.
“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years – we see those events as threats,” Coca Cola’s Jeff Seabright told “The New York Times.” The beverage-maker needs a lot of water in the production cycle, but water is getting scarcer as climate change progresses…
Renat Heuberger of the Swiss company South Pole Carbon traveled to Davos to take part in climate debates. His company gives advice to firms on dealing with the impact of climate change.
“Everybody in the world suffers from the consequences of climate change,” he said. “Here in Switzerland, we loose our glaciers, in Bangladesh they have droughts. Everywhere we feel the consequences as we’re all affected and need a global solution ultimately.”…
The ‘climate year’?
Some folks have already termed 2014 the “climate year,” and events at the WEF related to climate issues attract considerable attention. Former US Vice President Al Gore came here specifically to head a debate called “Changing the Climate for Growth and Development,” which was also attended by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates.
The United Nations has said it would debate climate change at the General Assembly in September and send out a clear signal on the need to keep it at bay….
The UN climate chief (Figueres) estimated that about $1.3 billion (950,000 million euros) will have to be spent annually to combat climate change effectively.
$1.3 billion annually would probably just cover the cost of UN climate Summits.

January 25, 2014 6:59 pm

Latitude, I was just googling a little more, and lo and behold I found not just comments, but four long wuwt articles written by Engelbeeen on why he thinks man is responsible for the current rise in CO2. Here’s part 1 (with 603 comments): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/
Links to all the parts are here in part 4: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/
I found Engelbeen’s comments to be good enough in summing up the situation. But it looks he certainly “goes deep” in the linked articles above.

January 25, 2014 7:02 pm

more interesting is this lengthy investigative report by Richard Moore at Lakeland Times, Wisconsin, read all:
24 Jan: Lakeland Times, Wisconsin: Richard Moore: As consensus falls apart, state toes the global-warming line
DNR (Dept of Natural Resources) refuses to answer questions about using outdated climate-change models to make policy
Among the questions: Why is the agency actively pursuing policy goals in 2013 based on outdated and inaccurate 2007 climate-change assessments? Why is the DNR continuing to promote in classrooms, on its website and in public presentations the U.N. 2007 climate-change assessment, without equally offering alternative points of view? Why did the agency tell this newspaper in 2011 it had stopped issuing a teachers’ guide based on the 2007 U.N. assessments, when it continues to do so? Is there any concern about the use of taxpayer facilities and dollars for an unproven and increasingly disputed political agenda, which the DNR continues to do?
Instead of answering those specific questions, the DNR defaulted to a generic answer for all of them, issued by agency spokesman Bill Cosh this past weekend:
“It is not DNR’s role to confirm nor deny climate change or its potential causes,” Cosh said. “However, it is the agency’s responsibility to adjust management strategies and decisions in response to changing environmental conditions, no matter the source. Therefore, DNR has several adaptation strategies in place to help guide management practices when there is evidence of changing environmental conditions.”
All of which begs the question – which was asked but not answered – is the DNR “adjusting management strategies and decisions” based on the most extreme and increasingly debunked global-warming predictions, and, if so, are they reconsidering and why or why not?…

George McFly......I'm your density
January 25, 2014 7:28 pm

Anthony, this should be published in every major newspaper in the world as a paid full page advertisement (possibly excluding the first paragraph). I would be happy to make a contribution to this.

john robertson
January 25, 2014 7:37 pm

An insidious question indeed.
“The warming” seems to duplicate “The science”.
An illusion ?
The ghost of what it is held up to be.
The anthropogenic component seems to be just that, manufactured in the data massaging, never manifest in the real world.
But it was unprecedented,alarming and worse than we predicted.
Yet now the predictions are projections.
Alarm? a mental health issue.
Unprecedented? well that turned out to be never happened since last Tuesday.
Actually I believe The Chiefio pinpointed the days of the spread of global warming.
In very interesting post of April 1st,I forget the year,using the temperature data, he describes the march of the warming as it swarms out of Africa, across the Mediterranean into Europe.On into North America.
Just like a plague or a contagious madness.
But what is the beginning?
The plotting at the UN?
Or the day the propaganda worked on enough citizens to become a dominant meme?
Which is the real moment?
The meetings of the weasels?
Or the day the madness hit the herd?

Steve Case
January 25, 2014 8:11 pm

Yes, the Medieval warm period was 800 years ago, and is the other reason they want to send it down the memory hole.

Bob Weber
January 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Why won’t the media fact check Al Gore? His recent statement of “extreme events are a hundred times more common than 30 years ago” is such a whopper. What do they call that, oh yea, the “BIG LIE”. Any intelligent and informed reporter should know that the facts say otherwise, that there hasn’t even been an increase in number or severity of extreme weather events. People ought to know Gore’s exaggerated claim of 100 times is beyond wildly ludicrous – it’s a BIG LIE.
That’s as believable as his recent “convenient” posturing on geoengineering, something he was probably “for” before being against it. He was, after all, responsible for the internet and re-inventing government, so why should anyone be surprised if he himself invented geoengineering back when he was vice-president, on account of his fervent global warming belief system.
Will journalists and scientists ever challenge Gore’s idiotic statements? What evidence does he offer that Typhoon Haiyan and Hurricane Sandy were caused by global warming and/or caused by carbon dioxide from smokestacks and tailpipes? None. Gore popped off for years against sunspots too, and did anyone bother to investigate the truth about sunspot activity? Nope.
It’s insane to keep saying there’s CAGW when NOAA and NASA just said there’s been no warming for 17 years. Even Al Gore should see that there is something wrong with this picture. It’d be very insane for the rest of the world to beleive Al Gore’s insane climate rants, theories, and “solutions”.

January 25, 2014 8:34 pm

And when did global cooling begin, when they thought there might be another little ice age coming in the 50-70s?

January 25, 2014 8:49 pm

A couple more typos, imho:
“Anthropogenic CO2 emissions where de minimis in 1850.”
“Global Warming may have started in 1975, but there is no observable evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emission based Global Warming starting in 1975.”

January 25, 2014 8:57 pm

Well I’ll be danged!
The MEI, PDO, AMOC, NAO-AO, Indian Ocean Dipole and Antarctic Stream (Tri-Ocean Circulation Belt) are so well understood, calculated and measured that we don’t need to consider their phase changes 😉
After all, 70% of the planets surface and major determining climate/weather factor shouldn’t be part of the model inputs, now should it?
What other filtering factor does the region that has a humidity level 10,000 times drier than the Sahara, which sits within the thermosphere and separates the stratosphere and Ionosphere have?
What are the levels of atmospheric constituents at 8000′, 12,000′ 37,000′ 41,600′, 59,731′ etc…?
What particle, electromagnetic and physical chemical interactions occur within the tides throughout all spheres held within the magnetosphere?
What filtering and interaction occurs within the top 11′ of our biosphere?
What interaction and processes occur with the top 9″ of the troposphere?
What occurrences happen in the inner 3″ and out 3″ of the daytime D Layer?
When and why does our planets core change like all the others in behaving like the dead core of Mars (it collapsed without reversal and stayed dead, leaving the planet without naturally occurring spheres), yet comes back? What is that temperature delta and what is the temperature that needs to be maintained on the densest planet in our solar system (Earth) to continue the periodic manifestation? These periods (700,000-915,000 years) occur, but for how long. When the magnetic field reduces our protective and live-giving spheres do disappear for a long enough period to raise hell and those sub-surface and deep ocean dwelling creatures are the only ones that become the next life cycle…
710 PPM of C02 is an ideal level, considering all the influences our planet undergoes, in short geological time scales…

January 25, 2014 9:09 pm

@ markstoval
“It has been said that the industrial revolution began approximately around the time of the end of the LIA”
I don’t know who said that, but the Industrial Revolution was well under way by 1850. The standard as-taught-in-schools* version is that it started with textile machines and steam engines of the mid-18th Century.
(*In the days when they did teach things in schools.)

January 25, 2014 9:15 pm

J. Philip Peterson says:
January 25, 2014 at 5:40 pm
I agree that CO2 is not causing the global temperature to rise, but why is CO2 increasing? Is it all due to Humans?
Go and have listen to the entire lecture by Prof Salby – it gets more interesting after about the first half. He maintains that CO2 follows temperature at all time scales and if you integrate (sum the warming temps) you can derive the observed current CO2 increase. As I understand his hypothesis the reason you don’t see the changes in the ice cores is because they don’t “record” the smaller fluctuations at small time periods and concentrations are also subject to diffusion.

January 25, 2014 9:16 pm

Eric Simpson says:
January 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm
“…I and most skeptics (with exceptions) are satisfied with the evidence that, despite man’s yearly contribution of CO2 being much smaller than the natural sources of CO2, this additional, though relatively small, contribution is nevertheless causing the cumulative level of CO2 to rise.”
Until you have a poll to back this up, I recommend you speak for yourself. It reads like one of the desperate attempts by alarmists to reassure themselves that “everyone” agrees with them.
It is very obvious that humans are not responsible for the rise in CO2 observed, at the very least, since reliable measurements began to be collected in 1958.

January 25, 2014 9:17 pm

@ Tommy E.
There are quite a few fire Gods around the place. If we piss them all off we’ll be in big trouble.

January 25, 2014 9:50 pm

Global Warming began Dec 13, 2000, the day Al Gore realized that not only didn’t his own home state of Tennessee not support him for president, but he wasn’t going to be able steal Florida either.

January 25, 2014 9:54 pm

January 25, 2014 at 5:59 pm | Eric Simpson says:

[ … ] satisfied with the evidence that, despite man’s yearly contribution of CO2 being much smaller than the natural sources of CO2, this additional, though relatively small, contribution is nevertheless causing the cumulative level of CO2 to rise.

Is this statement made on the basis of the dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere ? In which case, I’d suggest that you have an uphill struggle ahead of you. Salby, for one, would not agree with you as, I am sure, would a lot of sceptics. The entire premise of the global warmista theory hinges on +CO2 => +warming +water vapour => runaway +warming due to +water vapour. (Natural) Warming clearly precedes +CO2 and the +water vapour aka ‘the human finger print’, has not been observed in the upper atmosphere. Conclusion must follow that the global warmista theory cannot be upheld and therefore dismissed.

January 25, 2014 10:23 pm

They often call us the “D” word. What would our detractors call the following people?

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
Met Office – July 2013
The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?”
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..

January 25, 2014 10:25 pm

My very first reaction on seeing the headline to this post” When did global warming begin?” was that it all began in the boreal late autumn in Madrid in 1995 when Ben Santer changed the entire meaning of the science section of the IPCC’s AR2 with a short sentence change in the final draft, a change which was never approved by the assembled climate scientists at Madrid.
From Berniels account of Madrid 1995
[ other posts on Madrid 1995 in the RH column ;ie;
Madrid 1995: The Last Day of Climate Science (Part II)
Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?
Alas, by the early autumn of 1995 the signs were not good. Although a draft leaked in September managed to say that the warming is unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes, this was hardly in dispute, and this was not exactly announcing imminent catastrophe. Moreover, there remained extraordinary strong caveats, especially in Chapter 8, to every positive conclusion. The draft that was circulated to the participants at the Madrid conference, and the only one available when the Report was finally ‘accepted’ by the meeting (see explanation in a following post), also stated in its introduction that results of recent studies point towards a human influence. This was the strongest statement yet, but the body of the document and the concluding summary were not so confident. Some of the boldest retractions were as follows:
Of Studies of Changes in Global Mean Variables (8.4.1): ‘While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.’
Of the greenhouse signal in studies of modelled and observed spatial and temporal patterns of change ( ‘none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.’
Of pattern studies ‘fingerprinting’ the global warming (see discussion in later post): While some of the pattern-base studies discussed have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [anthropogenic ] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data—an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.
Of the overall level of uncertainty: Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.
Of the question: When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? (8.6): It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.’
[A copy of the 9Oct95 draft of Ch 8 has not been obtained. UPDATE 29June12: 9Oct draft obtained and changes have been verified]
As the Global Climate Coalition pointed out when they broke the scandal, these statements were removed from the final draft of the Working Group 1 Assessment that appear in May 1996 (and that, despite their protests, was subsequently published in June). Moreover, these inconclusive conclusions were not inserted elsewhere, while more positive statements were substituted, strengthened or added. Nature’s first editorial response to the scandal was all about not disrupting the political message before the US election. Yet it conceded that the complaints about the changes to Chapter 8 ‘are not entirely groundless.’
IPCC officials claim that the sole reason for the revisions was to tidy up the text, and in particular to ensure that it conformed to a ‘policymakers’ summary’ of the full report that was tortuously agreed by government delegates at the Madrid meeting. But there is some evidence that the revision process did result in a subtle shift in the relative weight given to different types of arguments, and that – not surprisingly – this shift tended to favour arguments that aligned with the report’s broad conclusions. Conversely, some phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as undermining these conclusions, particularly if, as IPCC officials feared, they were taken out of context, have disappeared. [13Jun96]
Nature’s editorial response to the Chapter 8 Controversy appeared in the 13 June 1996 edition, the day after Seitz’s Wall Street Journal op-ed launched news of the changes beyond the scientific community. Nature; vol 381, # 6583, p.539

January 25, 2014 10:42 pm

As one can easily see from my above quotes global climateers have been aware of the temperature hiatus from 2005 up to this January. They know what the surface temperature standstill is. They know the Mona Loa co2 graph looks like. They know they may have been badly mistaken but will never admit to it because they were shoe horned into their positions by certain entities and kept there by an endless stream of Climastrology funding.

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961
…..Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. …..

The reality today is that both have held each other captive.

January 25, 2014 11:04 pm

Anyway, what do you think, when did Global Warming begin?

Maybe a better question would be:

Anyway, what do you think, when did man made greenhouse gas induced Global Warming begin?

In answer to the first question: global warming began when you want it to begin. Take your choice from the end of the last glaciation, end of the Little Ice Age, 1910, 1975, 1988.
The answer to the my second question is more difficult. See 1910 to 1940 warming and co2 and the current temperature standstill and co2 for ideas. Refer to Santer’s 17 year minimum and you should be able to see the problems the climateers are facing now.

January 25, 2014 11:05 pm

Strictly speaking, global warming on earth started 4.54 billion yeas ago, that is when it was formed, you know, because space is freaking cold.

Brian H
January 25, 2014 11:27 pm

AGW never began. There is no Start Date.

January 26, 2014 12:31 am

I rarely comment on climate blogs anymore as I’m patiently waiting for the next big scare story, but I enjoyed this article enough to applaud it. Informative and incisive.

Village Idiot
January 26, 2014 12:35 am

Very faith strengthening, thank you Prof. Facts.
Could you do an article on what arguments we can use to prove ‘rapid and statistically significant cooling’ when the temperatures start going up again?

January 26, 2014 12:57 am

“Village Idiot says:
January 26, 2014 at 12:35 am”
Yes, it’s called daytime which follows night with “significant cooling”.

G. E. Pease
January 26, 2014 3:13 am

So – when did Global Warming begin?
Also, when did atmospheric CO2 begin increasing?
Apparently they both started increasing about 6,500 years ago. But global warming peaked about 1.2 deg C higher than present ~3,300 years ago, peaked again a little less than one deg C higher than present ~2,000 years ago, peaked next ~1,000 years ago about half a degree C higher than present, and appears to have risen from a low plateau about 200-250 years ago to a slightly higher plateau in the new millenium, whereas atmospheric CO2 has risen from ~260 ppm 6,500 years ago to ~280 ppm ~200 years ago and to ~350 ppm currently:
My take from all this is that the overall correlation between total atmospheric CO2 and global warming is negative from 3,300 years ago to present, because the global temperature trend from 3,300 years ago to present is decidedly negative, while the atmospheric CO2 trend for the same period is decidedly positive:

Frans Franken
January 26, 2014 3:46 am

Stephen Wilde on January 25, 2014 at 4:13 pm says:
“I think an adjustable global air circulation driven by a variable rate of convection provides the necessary negative system response aided by the phase changes of water.”
What drives the rate of convection and how, in relation to increased atmospheric CO2?
Just curious about your ideas on this as i’m trying to find the same connection. See:

January 26, 2014 3:55 am

Okay, so it seems this thread says Global warming started in 1975, and lasted to about…2000.
But it was enough to create the unit 1 Mong(stad).
1 Mong equals about 1 billion dollars, which was the approximate cost of the Mongstad project.

January 26, 2014 3:55 am

RoHa says:
January 25, 2014 at 9:09 pm
“I don’t know who said that, but the Industrial Revolution was well under way by 1850.”
Yes it was underway by then.
Economic historian Gregory Clark: ” … there is no sign of any improvement in material conditions for settled agrarian societies as we approach 1800. There was no gain between 1800 BC and AD 1800 – a period of 3,600 years. Indeed the wages for east and south Asia and southern Europe for 1800 stand out by their low level compared to those for ancient Babylonia, ancient Greece, or Roman Egypt. … ”
The growth is said to have started around 1800 and reached the commoner around 1850. I doubt there is one date you can pick for the “start” that can’t be argued with.
Economist Dr. Gary North: ” … By 1889, these post-1800 inventions had arrived: gas lighting, electric lighting (arc light), the steam powered ship, the tin can, the macadamized road, photography, the railroad, portland cement, the reaper, anesthesia, the typewriter, the sewing machine, the Colt revolver, the telegraph, the wrench, the safety pin, mass-produced newspapers, pasteurization, vulcanized rubber, barbed wire, petroleum-based industry, dynamite, the telephone, Carnegie’s steel mills, the skyscraper, the internal combustion engine, the automobile, and commercial electricity. … ”
I think 1850 is a good date to pick to say the industrial revolution had began in earnest, but one can argue for 1800 just as well. 1750? I don’t think so, as the one invention did not change society all that much.
Regards, Mark

January 26, 2014 4:07 am

Nice essay JTF, thanks.
J. Philip Peterson – Have a look at the short video explaining the case for CO2 rises lagging behind temperature rise (not the other way round) – now look back ~800 years in thee charts above and there it is – the Medieval Warm Period.

January 26, 2014 4:15 am

Patrick wrote –
““Village Idiot says:
January 26, 2014 at 12:35 am”
Yes, it’s called daytime which follows night with “significant cooling”.”
First things first .Hydrocarbon assets are extremely valuable so a rise in prices would send more money into the coffers of what many Western countries already consider banana republics so all these stealth ‘carbon’ taxes really circumvent a direct rise in oil prices and prevent money going to nations that are either unstable or have aggressive interests against Western consumerist society. Were the Western Governments to call for a 7 year hiatus into funding the present mode of research and simultaneously stall any hikes in ‘carbon taxes’ under the assumption that there is enough voluntary interest in climate research by passionate people to return to a clear perspective in 7 years or so, how far do you think that proposal would gain traction from either the political side or the pseudo-scientific side ?. The word ‘voluntarily’ is what would terrify researchers but as they are secure within the education system with their salaries and pensions they barely register websites like this regardless of how readers here may believe how important they are.
What is today called ‘climate research’ is really assertion warfare hence it isn’t a real view of global climate and what has made this planet habitable for many millions of years. I would consider it a miracle were I to find an individual who could dwell on the significant daily cooling long enough to ascertain its cause as their location swings into and out of solar radiation each day but unfortunately observers today are still addicted to late 17th century assertions which tried to model the daily and orbital motions of the Earth using timekeeping averages.
The story of how we arrived in this juncture in history where there is no stable narrative whatsoever,not even the cause of the daily temperature rising and falling, is a thrilling story for those willing to give up their hero worship of historical celebrities who were every bit as vindictive and small-minded as present day practitioners in modeling. It is the mob that drives the celebrity culture and not the other way around insofar as figureheads have always served a purpose within the vicious strain of empiricism.

January 26, 2014 4:39 am

January 26, 2014 4:41 am

I think you are asking the wrong question. The correct question is has it already or when will the next period of global cooling going to begin. The Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern warm periods all correspond with the growth in civilization and human happiness. The intervening cold periods all correspond with the retreat of civilization and a rise in human misery.
For and extreme example what do you think will happen at the start of the next glacial period. You know when Russia, Scandinavia, Canada become tundra and glaciers. Do you think that they are going to just peacefully die or ar they going to do what the Vandals and Huns did in the Migration period (the period between the Roman and Medieval warm periods.

Ulric Lyons
January 26, 2014 5:03 am

Where I live, warming sustained warming started from 1988, driven by more positive NAO/AO conditions:

Ulric Lyons
January 26, 2014 5:11 am

Johnron says:
“The Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern warm periods all correspond with the growth in civilization and human happiness.”
What they note as the Minoan warm period on the GISP graph at 3300-3200 BP was a horribly cold period in the mid latitudes that caused the fall of many civilisations including the Minoans. The Minoans expanded from about 4700 BP, at the same time as all the other classic cultures of the epoch did, where the GISP data shows it cold in Greenland, and which is fairly equivalent to the modern epoch.

January 26, 2014 5:23 am

Just The Facts:
Thankyou for a very fine article.
Your article considers temperature data sets to address the question of when global warming began. And – as your article clearly shows – the answer to the question depends on the considered time scale. But that is a consideration of global warming as a physical effect.
Global warming is also a political issue which from its start was independent of physical reality. And the start of the political issue of global warming was in early 1980 when Margaret Thatcher began her campaign to create the political issue. I explain this here .
Please note that the political global warming issue is induced to grow if all reference to science is removed from the influence diagrams in that article.

January 26, 2014 5:24 am

J. Philip Peterson:
At January 25, 2014 at 4:52 pm you ask

Eric Simpson says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:18 pm

“…proven causal correlation between CO2 & temperature…”

OK, I’ve asked this before. Since CO2 lags temperature rise, what happened ~800 years ago to cause CO2 to go up to 400ppm now?

I answer:
It is called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
The MWP was previously called the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) so you may want to check that in your research of the matter. Climate alarmists changed the name from MCO to MWP because ‘warmer being better’ was an implication they did not like.
The Roman Warm Period (RWP) was warm. The Dark Age Cool Period (DACP) was cool. The MWP was warm. The Little Ice Age (LIA) was cool. And the Present Warm Period (PWP) is warm. It is possible to see a pattern in this.

January 26, 2014 5:25 am

J. Philip Peterson:
At January 25, 2014 at 5:40 pm you ask

I agree that CO2 is not causing the global temperature to rise, but why is CO2 increasing? Is it all due to Humans?

Nobody knows although some people like to think they know.
The atmospheric CO2 increase may be entirely natural, entirely anthropogenic, or a result of some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes. Determination of which of these possibilities is true cannot be achieved because sufficient data does not exist.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

John W. Garrett
January 26, 2014 5:39 am

Then, of course, there is this:
(Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset, a/k/a Mean Central England Temperature Anomalies, 1772-2013)
What global warming?

January 26, 2014 5:42 am

Frans Franken asked:
“What drives the rate of convection and how, in relation to increased atmospheric CO2?”
The basic rate of convection is determined by the response of atmospheric density at the surface to an unevenly irradiated surface.
Because of the unevenness of surface energy distribution one inevitably (via conduction) gets parcels of air at different temperatures and densities alongside one another at the same height.
That situation is inherently unstable because lighter parcels must rise above denser parcels and that starts the process of convective overturning. That inherent instability can never be removed for a rotating rough surfaced sphere illuminated by a point source of energy. All references to containers stabilising at an even temperature distribution (isothermal) are invalid.
The decline in density with height inevitably gives rise to a lapse rate even in the absence of radiative gases and the convective overturning is self sustaining because the heat used in uplift (KE becomes PE) is returned on the descent (PE becomes KE).
The convective overturning is effectively a closed adiabatic loop.
If one then introduces radiative gases then any radiation from them back to the surface seeks to increase the temperature and density differentials in the horizontal plane at the surface.
But as we have seen it is the size of those differentials in the horizontal plane that determines the rate of vertical motion in the form of convection so increase the differentials and one must increase the convection for a complete or near complete negative system response.
So, radiative gases have a zero or near zero effect on surface temperatures but do have an effect on the global air circulation.
If GHGs try to slow down the flow of energy through the system then the speed of convection increases to negate the thermal effect at the surface by increasing the flow of energy through the system again by an equal and opposite amount.
There is some debate as to the net effect of GHGs due to their ability to radiate to space from the atmosphere but that need not concern us here.
The whole process is the result of temperature and density differentials in the horizontal plane at the surface being mechanically converted into vertical convective motion via conduction from surface to air.
Meanwhile for Earth the variations in global air circulation caused by solar and oceanic changes makes any effect from our CO2 emissions completely imperceptible.
Convection is the process whereby the combination of conduction and radiation is constantly adjusted so as to maintain radiative balance for the system as a whole.
If the balance of conduction and radiation goes out of equilibrium then the rate of convection changes so as to deliver the right amount of kinetic energy to the effective radiating height to match radiative energy in with radiative energy out once more.

John Tillman
January 26, 2014 6:02 am

Jimbo says:
January 25, 2014 at 10:42 pm
I´ve tried to come up with a phrase comparable to Ike’s Military Industrial Complex to tag today’s government-funded Climastrology. I’ve seen Climate Industrial Complex (unfortunately not pronounced SIC) , which works only partly, to describe Green Energy boondoggles. Climate Academic Complex (CAC) is similarly not inclusive enough for the whole range of crony scientivism with which the world is presently afflicted.
Maybe younger, more agile brains here than mine can coin the needed term.

January 26, 2014 6:05 am

AGW- the idea that humans are causing a climate catastrophe- is 100% man made. It is yet another manifestation of what happens to many people when they stare into the abyss too long. The abyss starts to stare back.
FWIW, everytime some government hack uses the term “denier” to dismiss skeptics and hide the failure of AGW predictions, it is clear at that our government ill serves us.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 6:26 am

J. Philip Peterson says:
January 25, 2014 at 5:37 pm
…t if man is only causing 3% of the CO2 rise why is it increasing so steeply? Is there any proof that the 3% is what is causing the CO2 rise?
800 years ago was the Medieval Warm period. CO2 lags temperature by 800 years.
Of course that all depends on whether or not you agree that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere (I don’t) and that the measurements of CO2 are reliable.

John B
January 26, 2014 6:30 am

When did Global Warming begin?
When scientists/researchers, politicians, big corporations, the media, Green organisations, NGOs, bureaucrats, realised there was money and/or power, prestige, privilege in it for them.

January 26, 2014 6:44 am

The only long term trend I can glean from the above graphs is that of declining temperature against Co2 rise on the Greenland ice-field history. It is a conductor of heat even if reluctantly so.

January 26, 2014 6:44 am

Eric, the seasonal swings of CO2 are greater than what man contributes in that same time period…
…what man contributes can not be cumulative
Since the planet is capable of reducing CO2 levels to limiting for plant growth….etc

January 26, 2014 6:53 am

John Tillman says:
January 26, 2014 at 6:02 am
Doesn´t spell anything, but makes kind of a gagging sound: Government-Academic-Industrial Climate Scam (GAICS).

January 26, 2014 6:57 am

“Anyway, what do you think, when did Global Warming begin?”
In 1972 I heard during a UNEP meeting in Nairobi a discussion on CO2 as a pollutant. I found it remarkable that several of the discussing team were bankers. Therefore 1972 is the date for me.

William Yarbet
January 26, 2014 6:57 am

Stephen Wilde
I believe there is a very straight forward and simple answer to your question of why changes in CO2 concentrations have so little impact.
1) compare the absorption spectrum of CO2 and H2O. Not the relatively minor portion where there is no overlap and CO2 could have an impact
2) compare the abundance of water vapor (H2O) and CO2 in the atmosphere (approx 3% to 0.4%)
Conclusion: due to the minimal absorption bandwidth allotted CO2, and its minuscule concentration in our atmosphere, there is no logical reason to believe changes in the CO2 concentration will have any measureable impact on Earth’s heat retention or mean temperature!
But accepting this by the AGW crowd would end their “research” funding gravy train. Not going to happen until skeptics or Mother Nature jams it down their throats.

January 26, 2014 7:40 am

I agree.
The so call greenhouse effect is a result of atmospheric mass held within a gravitational field and irradiated from outside resulting in conduction and convection with the radiative characteristics of CO2 coming pretty much nowhere in the scheme of things.
Your point about the absorption spectrum supports that diagnosis by pointing out that even if radiative characteristics of CO2 did have a significant effect they would be marginalised by the water cycle in any event.
The water cycle most certainly accelerates radiative loss to space by lifting vapour to height and condensing it out where radiation to space from the condensate can occur more easily so a faster or larger water cycle will make it easier for the system to shed energy when necessary for the maintenance of radiative equilibrium.
More convection is obviously involved in a faster water cycle so we come full circle and your point meshes with mine perfectly.
Negative system responses rule and Willis E. has always been right about that and about the role of convection but he (along with many others) has a mental block about conduction and convection involving non-radiative gases being the cause of the mass induced greenhouse effect. It is that mechanical process together with its freely variable nature which provides the only possible mechanism for any thermostat hypothesis.
Radiative physics cannot achieve system equilibrium in the face of internal system forcing elements such as CO2 without insisting on a higher surface temperature.
That higher surface temperature then offends the purely radiative S-B law and potentially causes the atmosphere to be lost.
One has to supplement the radiative physics with a negatively varying mechanical process to allow changes in internal system forcing and yet maintain radiative equilibrium without a rise in surface temperature.
In that way one can have a surface temperature higher than the S-B law would predict without upsetting radiative equilibrium for the system as a whole.
The reason being that one can then transfer radiative or mechanical energy excesses or deficits to and fro between the radiative and mechanical processes in order to maintain overall radiative equilibrium with space.
Convection achieves the necessary effect by ‘mediating’ between the processes of conduction (between surface and atmosphere) and radiation (between surface and atmosphere on the one hand and space on the other).

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 7:44 am

hn robertson says: @ January 25, 2014 at 7:37 pm
…But what is the beginning?
The plotting at the UN?…
Dr. Ball talks of that HERE – The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming

January 26, 2014 7:48 am

One has to supplement the radiative physics with a negatively varying mechanical process to allow changes in internal system forcing and yet maintain radiative equilibrium DESPITE a rise in surface temperature.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 7:51 am

Bob Weber says: @ January 25, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Why won’t the media fact check Al Gore?
The reason is in this article and my comment. (It’s the first one)
Don’t forget Walter Duranty, the New York Times, Stalin Apologist. “Walter Duranty played a key role in perpetrating some of the greatest lies history has ever known.”

Richard M
January 26, 2014 7:53 am

The most recent warming clearly began in the mid 1600s at the depth of the LIA. We are likely at or near the top of this latest cycle in global temperature and will start heading back down some time relatively soon (within a couple of centuries).
I like to think of it like a spinning top. As the top spins down it starts to wobble but regains its balance a few times until the final wobble when it falls to the floor. This is what I see happening in the climate. The “force” that warms the planet is slowly dropping. We are currently back into the spin state but the next wobble may be the last one before we drop into the next glaciation event.
What is causing the loss of “force”? Well, that force is probably solar energy and the loss could a combination of Earth’s tilt and Antarctic sea ice. Since a higher percentage of solar energy is now directed at the SH, the amount of sea ice reflecting away that energy reduces the planetary total. When we see more upwelling cold water, the ice increases and the Earth cools. At some point this initial cooling allows the NH to maintain land snow year round and this feedback sends the GAT plummeting.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 8:16 am

RoHa says: @ January 25, 2014 at 9:09 pm
…I don’t know who said that, but the Industrial Revolution was well under way by 1850….
It was a bit gradual but the end of the 1700’s and beginning of the 1800’s is where I would put it. If you wanted to you could push it further back and pin point Gutenberg and his use movable type printing around 1439 giving us the Renaissance and the scientific revolution as the precursor of the Industrial Revolution.

…However, commercial coal mines did not start operation until the 1740s in Virginia.
The Industrial Revolution played a major role in expanding the use of coal. During the first half of the 1800s, the Industrial Revolution spread to the United States. Steamships and steam-powered railroads were becoming the chief forms of transportation, and they used coal to fuel their boilers…

On the farming front – you have to free people from farm work to have a scientific and industrial revolution.

1790’s – Cradle and scythe introduced
1793 – Invention of cotton gin
1794 – Thomas Jefferson’s moldboard of least resistance tested
1797 – Charles Newbold patented first cast-iron plow

Without coal/oil/natural gas you do not have modern farming and you are back to 90% of the labor force trying to feed themselves and a select few elite.
I wish the anti-CO2 types would get that through their thick skulls. No CO2 generating fuels AND no CO2 generating livestock (like oxen) means YOU get hitched to the plow! IMAGE
(Might make a good t-shirt) with
Tractors? – Too much CO2
Oxen? – Too much CO2
We already ate the horses

Old Forge
January 26, 2014 8:26 am

At the risk of being naïve here – presumably none of the GCM’s can replicate the historical temperature record if they can’t model natural variation sufficiently well to account for the current pause? Isn’t that an easier means to invalidate them with politicos?

more soylent green!
January 26, 2014 8:35 am

First, over a period of billions of years multiple stars lived and died, Some were big enough to supernova. That material formed into our sun and the planets in our solar system. It took billions of years for the earth’s surface to become cool enough to form a solid crust.
And before all that, it all started with a big bang! I say global warming never started, we’ve been cooling for billions of years.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 8:36 am

Village Idiot says: @ January 26, 2014 at 12:35 am
Could you do an article on what arguments we can use to prove ‘rapid and statistically significant cooling’ when the temperatures start going up again?
It is not the short term up and down squiggles that matter:

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started…. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic (2010)
…. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? (2012)
….We propose that the interval between the “terminal” oscillation of the bipolar seesaw, preceding an interglacial, and its first major reactivation represents a period of minimum extension of ice sheets away from coastlines…. thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place. The reactivation of the bipolar seesaw provides a minimum age or a “terminus ante quem” for glacial inception…
we propose to apply the same response phasing of 3 kyr to infer the onset of glacial inception… We thus estimate interglacial duration as the interval between the terminal occurrence of bipolar-seesaw variability and 3 kyr before its first major reactivation….…
Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012)…..” http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/COURSES/QCLIM/reprints/LisieckiRaymo_preprint.pdf

The melting of Arctic ice and increase in Antarctic ice is the bipolar seesaw.
Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
January 26, 2014 8:46 am

Reposted, and linked back to this here original. Excellent presentation and I believe those who read it (and can Think for themselves) shall come away Edified.

January 26, 2014 8:58 am

more soylent green!:
re your post at January 26, 2014 at 8:35 am.
Yes, as you say, we are at a point in time from the Big Bang to the Heat Death of the Universe when all heat will be uniformly distributed and everything will stop.
But that is cosmic cooling which started at the Big Bang. And that continual loss of entropy does not preclude local warming; e.g. wood gets warmer when it burns.
The Earth is a small locality in cosmic terms. We are discussing global warming of the Earth.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 9:12 am

richardscourtney says: @ January 26, 2014 at 5:23 am
….Global warming is also a political issue which from its start was independent of physical reality. And the start of the political issue of global warming was in early 1980 when Margaret Thatcher began her campaign to create the political issue….
And then moved to the USA.

Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington

However you could go back to Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance in 1992
Or you could go all the way back to Maurice Strong and the UN First Earth Summit in 1972.

As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:

It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.


The UN and the First Earth Summit in 1972, is where I would peg the start of the campaign.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All thesedangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only throughchanged attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (

The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 and its first report The Limits to Growth, was published in 1972. It is about the computer modeling of exponential economic and population growth with finite resource supplies. Five variables were examined in the original model. These variables are: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. WIKI
Among the alleged members are: Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, (The Chicago Climate Exchange) Anne Ehrlich, Stephen Schneider, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates are among the members link

January 26, 2014 9:18 am

Just after the first man (or woman) discovered how to make fire a few others didn’t like it, that’s when “global warming caused by man” began. [;)]

Frans Franken
January 26, 2014 9:23 am

The basic mechanism for atmospheric water vapor convection is:
Ocean surface water receives (radiative) heat which promotes evaporation; the evaporated water vapor is lighter than the surrounding air which makes the vapor rise.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere theoretically increases IR back radiation from the atmosphere, which promotes evaporation and convection. Convection thus provides an inevitable negative feedback to radiative surface forcing. Nevertheless, this mechanism alone does not necessarily annihilate all radiative surface forcing from CO2.
The mechanism you describe might enhance the negative feedback; can you please give a reference for this mechanism?
(I’m a mechanical engineer, graduated from Technical University of Eindhoven, the Netherlands; would you care to share your educational background?)

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 9:24 am

milodonharlani says: @ January 26, 2014 at 6:53 am
…Doesn´t spell anything, but makes kind of a gagging sound: Government-Academic-Industrial Climate Scam (GAICS).
Pronounce GACKS – I like it.

January 26, 2014 9:42 am

Gail Combs:
Your post at January 26, 2014 at 9:12 am is good and informative. I provide this link to it so people who missed it can find it.
As you say, prior to Margaret Thatcher becoming PM of the UK there were several people and organisations who saw global warming as a potential tool for them to use. But they did not initiate the AGW-scare because they could not.
Thatcher had a personal reason, the political position and government resources to create the AGW-scare which she did.
If I may be so presumptive as to put an agricultural analogy to you. Some tilled the ground, Thatcher grew the crop, and many gained the harvest, but all of them acted at the expense of we peasants who own the field.
The crop would not have been grown in the absence of somebody with a personal motivation and a similar political position to those of Margaret Thatcher. And when saw the harvest having its effects she seems to have regretted what she had done, although she had done it for her personal benefit.

January 26, 2014 10:20 am

John Tillman says:
January 26, 2014 at 6:02 am
“I´ve tried to come up with a phrase comparable to Ike’s Military Industrial Complex to tag today’s government-funded Climastrology..”
How about “scientific-technological elite”?
You need look no farther than Eisenhower’s selfsame speech. The bits that come right after the warning against the “military industrial complex”, which are generally downplayed or omitted:

Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 10:39 am

Richard M says: @ January 26, 2014 at 7:53 am
…What is causing the loss of “force”? Well, that force is probably solar energy and the loss could a combination of Earth’s tilt and Antarctic sea ice. Since a higher percentage of solar energy is now directed at the SH, the amount of sea ice reflecting away that energy reduces the planetary total. When we see more upwelling cold water, the ice increases and the Earth cools. At some point this initial cooling allows the NH to maintain land snow year round and this feedback sends the GAT plummeting.
I think the point to watch is Antarctic sea ice, Drake Passage and the strength of the wind driving the Antarctic Circumpolar current.
The current glaciation occurred when Antarctica moved to the south pole, the Isthmus of Panama closed and Drake Passage opened. That is the topography needed for glaciation at least currently.
fhhaynie says: @ January 18, 2014 at 8:24 am

If I were asked to pick a single point on earth that most likely has the greatest effect on global weather and climate, it would be 0 and 90W (Galapagos). This is where El-nino winds, the deep sea Cromwell current, the Panama current, and the Humbolt current meet…

And I would have to agree with him.
ENSO is presently neutral/La Niña and we are getting the Polar Express brining cold polar air down into North America. Steven Goddard has a rather interesting comparison of the North American glaciation and the current pattern of the Polar Express: link Another source: link also mentions “….around 13,000 14C y.a., retreat of the the western and eastern North American ice sheets exposed an ‘ice free’ corridor linking Alaska to the land to the south…” even at the height of the Wisconsin Ice age the reconstruction shows tundra in parts of Alaska.
WUWT had an article about a year ago: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? about a September 2012 paper that indicated “…the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.”
Getting back to the Antarctic sea Ice and Drake Passage.
If you look at this Sea Surface Temperature map it has a good image of the tongue of cold water from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current just before Drake Passage, headed up the coast of South America to Galapagos.
Trying to find information on the subject is quite frustrating . You get things like:
Decadal Changes of Wind Stress over the Southern Ocean Associated with Antarctic Ozone Depletion.

… the positive trend of Southern Ocean surface wind stress during two recent decades is detected, and its close linkage with spring Antarctic ozone depletion is established. The spring Antarctic ozone depletion affects the Southern Hemisphere lower-stratospheric circulation in late spring/early summer. The positive feedback involves the strengthening and cooling of the polar vortex, the enhancement of meridional temperature gradients and the meridional and vertical potential vorticity gradients, the acceleration of the circumpolar westerlies, and the reduction of the upward wave flux. This feedback loop, together with the ozone-related photochemical interaction, leads to the upward tendency of lower-stratospheric zonal wind in austral summer. …

Gotta blame mankind one way or the other it would seem or you can’t get a paper published.
A physics paper: Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays

Cosmic rays may be enlarging the hole in the ozone layer, according to a study appearing in the 13 August print issue of PRL. Researchers analyzed data from several sources, and found a strong correlation between cosmic ray intensity and ozone depletion. Back in the lab they demonstrated a mechanism by which cosmic rays could cause a buildup of ozone-depleting chlorine inside polar clouds. Their results suggest that the damage done by cosmic rays could be millions of times larger than anyone previous believed and may force atmospheric scientists to reexamine their models of the antarctic ozone hole.

It should be interesting to watch and see what happens to the strength of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, sea ice and ENSO as Solar Cycle 24 winds down to another minimum.

January 26, 2014 10:53 am

Another job well done, Just The Facts. And I thank you.. there is a song here..
“”Anyway, what do you think, when did Global Warming begin?””
Based on the first 3 graphs of the post, that’s a loaded question. My choice is the start of the current interglacial oooh around 11,000 years ago. And for the start of the cooling within this interglacial, about 6800 years ago.
How far has the heliosphere travelled in its orbit over 450,000 or 11,000 years?
My interstellar eyes are telling me the general interstellar background can be seen in the first graph. And by no means was it a warm ionized bubble through out.
And in the top half of the second graph, more detailed and finer structure, of the interstellar background can be seen. But those are just my interstellar eyes.
So maybe we should keep an eye on rotation changes and increases in particle flux precipitation. Such as those from solar energetic protons SEP, galactic cosmic rays GCR and energetic electron precipitation EEP. Rotation changes and particle precipitation will change atmospheric circulations and pressure changes and chemistry.

January 26, 2014 11:06 am

I’d say, from a complete layman’s perspective, that “Global Warming” began roughly when certain gov’t sponsored “scientists” discovered they couldn’t continue to get grant money based on the threat of the “Coming Ice Age” and discovered the global desire to punish advanced economies (chiefly the US) could be co-opted to the new agenda of the threat of “Warming”, gaining them even more funding and prestige.

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 11:10 am

Bart says: @ January 26, 2014 at 10:20 am
…“I´ve tried to come up with a phrase comparable to Ike’s Military Industrial Complex to tag today’s government-funded Climastrology..”
How about “scientific-technological elite”?
You need look no farther than Eisenhower’s selfsame speech…
What is rather interesting is Ike was president from 1950 to 1958. This is when spending on ‘science’ went exponential in the USA . (can’t find the link starting in 1950 @ close to zero) Here is another one starting in 1953. http://www.livescience.com/11233-science-spending-federal-budget.html

Supplement 1: The Evolution and Impact of Federal Government Support for R&D in Broad Outline
…. before World War II the United States was not as strong as the advanced countries of Europe in R&D. Private R&D spending was quite limited, university research was supported largely by private foundations and the states, and the federal government financed only about one-fifth of the nation’s R&D.2 Annual federal R&D expenditures at the eve of war in 1940 totaled under $70 million, or about 1 percent of present-day expenditures, when adjusted for inflation….

Gail Combs
January 26, 2014 11:32 am

richardscourtney says: @ January 26, 2014 at 9:42 am
I do not disagree, however I think sooner rather than later the international group would have figured out how to start the scare. Sort of like calculus or non-euclidean geometry. It was time and they would have found some politician to use.
If I understand correctly Thatcher latched onto Global Warming due to influence from one of her senior advisors, the British ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell
This is what I find when looking into Tickell.
Tickell wrote a 1977 book Climactic Change and World Affairsdetailing the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate.
Allegedly Tickell is a member of the Club of Rome:

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

I am more interested in the puppet masters than I am the puppets (politicians) because politicians come and go the masters go on sometimes for generations.

Dan Pangburn
January 26, 2014 12:49 pm

The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are offered.
Two primary drivers of average global temperatures explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and provide credible estimates back to 1610.
CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.
The drivers are given at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/ which includes eye opening graphs and a plethora of links and sub-links to credible data sources.

John F. Hultquist
January 26, 2014 12:57 pm

Gail Combs says:
January 26, 2014 at 11:10 am
Bart says: @ January 26, 2014 at 10:20 am
…“I´ve tried to come up with a phrase comparable to Ike’s Military Industrial Complex to tag today’s government-funded Climastrology..”
How about “scientific-technological elite”?

Might I suggest:
Socialistic Hemorrhoidal International Thugs

Barbara Skolaut
January 26, 2014 1:16 pm

It started around the late 1970’s-early 1980’s; before that, the same clowns people were warning us about “The Coming Ice Age.”

January 26, 2014 1:17 pm

Gail Combs says:
January 26, 2014 at 10:39 am
Thank you Gail for that informative post.
I’ve been using this website
to watch that vortex belt. And had to wonder about that glacial extent in the N. Hemisphere, you mentioned.
Those pesky GCR,
Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion
Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.

January 26, 2014 1:28 pm

Gail Combs says:
January 26, 2014 at 11:10 am
Bart, except they’re not an elite. The best scientists know CACA’s a hoax. The scamsters are second or third raters, who would at best be teaching junior high science classes if not for the enormous federal & private grant trough from which they can now feed.

January 26, 2014 1:44 pm

Re. discussion about onset of Industrial Revolution, bear in mind that its first part, textile factories, was water-powered & transport was by canal,despite Watt’s improved steam engine. With the railroads & steel however came greater use of coal, the forests in populous parts of Europe & Asia having largely been denuded already.
Around 1750, annual world coal output was less than 10 million metric tons. Then greater use of steam-power to pump water out of coal mines kick started the second phase of the IR, By 1860, global coal production rose to 130 million tons, then by 1900 to a billion tons, with coal providing 90% of total energy consumption. But oil was already in the pipeline, so to speak.

January 26, 2014 1:54 pm

Wonder how certain individuals might feel about an 11 year CR-Cycle?
sounds kinda eeerie

January 26, 2014 2:25 pm

This is also quite interesting wrt all the recent and the persistant N. polar vortex activity.
tx Gail.
Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
Posted on October 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts
Perspective by William McClenney on the paper of the same title by:
P. C. Tzedakis, E.W. Wolff, L. C. Skinner, V. Brovkin, D. A. Hodell, J. F. McManus, and D. Raynaud
““…thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.” “””

January 26, 2014 2:36 pm

Check out the Earth Wind at 70 hPa now isn’t that just something.. has that bipolar look to it..
This web tool is so cool. Spin the Earth so the N. pole is facing you and change to different heights of wind, temp, pressure. (bottom left of page, word ‘earth’ is an active link opening tool box )

January 26, 2014 2:46 pm

Maybe it’s best to go looking for some missing sunspots in all this. Something to do with missing magnetic flux transferring..
Thanks again Just The Facts ..

January 26, 2014 2:54 pm

Global warming started in Germany..
A simmering movement with built in support, unsold itself into what we have today..
This is why they look down on the denier.. Your a smoker 🙂

January 26, 2014 3:20 pm

milodonharlani says:
January 26, 2014 at 1:28 pm
No argument from me re the sentiment. But…

elite or élite (ɪˈliːt, eɪ-, ɪˈliːt, eɪ-)
— n
1. ( sometimes functioning as plural ) the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc

That’s not an “and”.

January 26, 2014 4:45 pm

Global warming starts in the morning and ends mid-afternoon (local time) every day. I think the warming causes the sun to come up – no science just gut instinct.

January 26, 2014 6:48 pm

“Global warming”? Is that the warmists definition, or one that actually *means* that? For the former: probably when Lamb’s funding ran out and he had to create a new scare in order to receive more. For the latter: pick a date; the Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years.

January 26, 2014 7:23 pm

Whenever global warming began, the key is in the oceans. The world’s oceans have about the same heat capacity in the top 15 meters (50 feet) as the entire atmosphere.
Satellite images record close to zero infrared emitted from the surface of the oceans. The energy leaves the oceans by evaporation and re-enters the atmosphere via precipitation.
However, we know much less about ocean temperatures and cloud physics than about land temperatures. The instrumentation to measure both will eventually tell us what we do no know.
I expect that younger readers will live long enough to see climate models that are able to project climate change.
Give it another 30 years and the models projections will converge. That’s how to tell if there is consensus. At present, climate projections from the models diverge widely. That’s how we know there is no consensus.
What has happened is that scientists have jumped the gun and tried to convince the public they know the climate system well enough to predict the future.
Lack of humility and lots of grants = hubris, nemesis and public resistance to funding science.

January 26, 2014 9:10 pm

Definitely 1987. I have documented evidence. I was just watching my new collection of Star Trek Next Generation DVDs, and clearly a reference in Season One to ozone depletion from an anthropogenic power source was what nearly caused the downfall of an advanced civilization.

January 26, 2014 9:11 pm

I think I missed a verb. I hate it when I do that. I guess I just excited.

January 26, 2014 10:53 pm

All so un-original. Copying Revelation…
“The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.”
Earthquakes, fish kills, scorched earth, plagues, and on and on. The only calamity not parallel with the Bible is the supposed flood that will be here any minute….

Dr. Strangelove
January 26, 2014 11:58 pm

When did global warming begin? Since climate is always changing, it depends on the timescale. On multidecadal scale, global warming started 1977 with the “Great Climate Shift.” Since the latest warming 1977-98 is only 21 years long, there is not enough empirical evidence to claim AGW has started at all. Natural variability can be 30-year cycles or longer. Hence it cannot be ruled out.
On centennial scale, global warming started ca. 1700 coming out of the LIA. On millennial scale, earth has been cooling since the Interglacial Maximum 6,000 years ago. On longer timescale, earth is still in an ice age since 2.58 million years ago. Temperature today is one of the coldest in 540 million years of earth history.

January 27, 2014 12:00 am

Jaffa wrote –
“Global warming starts in the morning and ends mid-afternoon (local time) every day. I think the warming causes the sun to come up – no science just gut instinct.”
You are close to the truth here but putting a face on this truth can be such an adventure through history and the technical details.
The first instance of modeling by artificial means was when accurate watches appeared in the late 17th century and the first conclusion they lunged at using a watch was that the daily return of a star to any foreground reference such as a chimney or a tree was due to the rotation of the Earth. Up to this point the actual foreground reference was the central Sun and the first appearance of Sirius after a number of months lost in the glare of the Sun fixed the Earth’s position in space and more importantly,the number of rotations it took to return the Earth to this same position,in this case 1461 full rotations for 4 orbital circuits .

What they did was assert that the daily return of a star to foreground position in 23 hours 56 minutes was due to the daily rotation of the Earth and built on that foundation even though the overall qualifiers expose the cracks in that conclusion as a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes of an average 24 hour day within the 365/366 day calendar framework. The point is that appreciation of the true foreground reference of the central Sun was lost and the annual astronomical event which uses Sirius as a marker for the Earth’s orbital position in space.
Modeling by artificial means is on trial here whether it was modeling planetary dynamics using watches and timekeeping averages or climate using computers. When they tried to model planetary dynamics using watches 250 years ago they lost the basic correlation between cause and effect as they still assert an imbalance between the temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour day and one rotation and that is a low point in human reasoning as a productive and creative endeavor.
What began in astronomy has now spread to terrestrial sciences and the words of Galileo should strike people in this respect –
“The same thing has struck me even more forcibly than you. I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat–not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage–if indeed it does not make them ill ” Galileo
To even allow yourselves to be called ‘skeptics’ is an admission of defeat and submission.

January 27, 2014 2:28 am

Real Septics are those who avoid the facts. That’s is why there is one called “Skeptical (of) Science”.
I know my response will be under a pile of other replies but for those who are reading and want to know what came first, the chicken or the egg. I’ll offer a dinosaur.
In the picture below are three simple lines. Two are CO2. One is detrended and raised above Hadcrut3. It is also magnified by a factor of 6.
Doesn’t this graph prove:
a. Heat comes before a CO2 surge, therefore is the cause – not the result of.
b. CO2 appears to stymy warming here.
c. Temperature and CO2 rates show poor compatibility.
May I add caution to this human output CO2 graph displayed.
The very page shows a second pie chart. with forestry and crop growing as a form of CO2 emissions instead of absorption. Are they pulling the leg of a snail? Plant mass is derived wholly from water and CO2 !!!!

January 27, 2014 7:26 am

Global temperatures began to slowly recover after the coldest decades of the LIA (1630-1690). However, after 1878 (the Great Climate Shift), this recovering process began to accelerate. For the next 110 years global temperatures rose on average at a steeper rate than they did the previous 200. However, since 1990 the rate that global temperatures increased began to Plateau and then stop later in the 1990s.

January 27, 2014 10:50 am

This graph is great! It puts the IPCCs increasing confidence against their projections and observations.

January 27, 2014 11:28 am

jaffa says:
January 26, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Global warming starts in the morning and ends mid-afternoon (local time) every day. I think the warming causes the sun to come up – no science just gut instinct.
That is just so beautifully put. Made my day.

January 27, 2014 11:38 am

From my Meteorology textbook: “The Atmosphere” by Lutgens/Tarbuck 1979
… (I)f the estimated increases (in atmospheric CO2)come to pass, calculations show that we can probably expect global temperatures to increase by nearly 1 degree C by the year 2000 and by about 2 degrees C by 2040.
Alarming in 1979, already.
Interestingly this also: …(T)here is presently no deterministic predictive model of the Earth’s climate
So the GCMs all came after 1979.

Abbie Normal
January 27, 2014 1:06 pm

Some years back, perhaps 20-30 years ago, before the current “climate change” silliness took off, I recall reading an observation from an astronomer that the earth’s temperature swings were also reflected in proportional temperature swings on Venus and Mars. The point being made at the time was that the sun’s moods had a equal affect on all the planets.
Perhaps someone ought to correlate the temperature deviations of all the planets and see if the charts correlate to what’s happening on Earth.

James at 48
January 27, 2014 1:55 pm

Big picture, it began about 12K YBP. But it is complicated. That trend seems to have reveresed about 3 – 4K YBP and from there it was a bit down hill. But more recently, the past 150 years, back up a bit but not as high as that past high point.

January 27, 2014 3:42 pm

Perhaps a distinction need to be made about ‘which’ global warming:
1) Modern Political-Religeous Global Warming: Hansen’s global warming ca 1988
2) Global (inverted) warming, i.e. the Global Cooling, theorized in the 1960-’70s
3) Pre-Modern academic era: Fourier, Arrhenius, Agassiz et al., late-1800s.
4) Geologic Global Change (temperature as one of many parameters thereof), soon after 4.8 billion years ago.
I would suggest that categories 1) through 3) are insignificant (though lively at times) and only 4) needs serious consideration.
Furthermore,I would posit that 1) through 3) are vestiges of the Ptolemaic Model (Geocentric) universe were the faithful of today now place Humanity at the center of their Earth supplying heat for all manner of physical processes.

January 28, 2014 3:24 am

January 25, 2014 at 10:23 pm
Thanks Very Much! for your compilation.
Go on!
Thank You! justthefactswuwt.
Thank You! Anthony…
Go on!
(Sorry for my english…)
Joxanjel from Basque Country

%d bloggers like this: