Image Credit: Marathon Nation – Soft 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:
“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:
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:
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:
This is why the IPCC only claims to be;
“95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s” BBC
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:
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;
and this NASA GISS Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Anomaly graph for the last 17 years;
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:
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;
and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels, you can see that emissions have been growing rapidly in the last few decades:
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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
milodonharlani says: @ur momisugly 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.
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.
Richard
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:
Richard M says: @ur momisugly 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A SWAG:
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: @ur momisugly January 18, 2014 at 8:24 am
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.
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
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.
Village Idiot says: January 26, 2014 at 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?
Funny, you claim that the facts I present are “faith strengthening”, yet in your next sentence you profess faith that temperatures will “start going up again”, i.e. when, not if.
Can you identify any inaccuracies in the facts I’ve presented in the article? Can you present any evidence in support your faith that temperatures will “start going up again”?
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.
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.
Bart says: @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly close to zero) Here is another one starting in 1953. http://www.livescience.com/11233-science-spending-federal-budget.html
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly 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:
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.
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.
Gail Combs says:
January 26, 2014 at 11:10 am
Bart says: @ur momisugly 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
It started around the late 1970’s-early 1980’s; before that, the same
clownspeople were warning us about “The Coming Ice Age.”Gail Combs says:
January 26, 2014 at 10:39 am
—————————————–
Thank you Gail for that informative post.
I’ve been using this website
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-82.17,54.28,345
to watch that vortex belt. And had to wonder about that glacial extent in the N. Hemisphere, you mentioned.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/shockingpolarvortexfrom20000yearsagovs20140122v001.png
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.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e118501
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.
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.
Wonder how certain individuals might feel about an 11 year CR-Cycle?
sounds kinda eeerie
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
http://www.clim-past.net/8/1473/2012/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf
““…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.” “””
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 )
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-33.82,87.49,345
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 ..
Global warming started in Germany..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_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 🙂
milodonharlani says:
January 26, 2014 at 1:28 pm
No argument from me re the sentiment. But…
That’s not an “and”.
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.
“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.
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.
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.