
By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”:
Note: This article builds upon a previous article, When Did Global Warming Begin?, which offers highly recommended background for this article.
There appears to be some confusion as to when humans might have begun to influence “Earth’s Temperature”. For example, “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
NASA Climate Consensus page “‘Global warming started over 100 years ago‘: New temperature comparisons using ocean-going robots suggest climate change began much earlier than previously thought”. The Daily Mail “The temperature, they pointed out, had fallen for much longer periods twice in the past century or so, in 1880-1910 and again in 1945-75 (see chart), even though the general trend was up. Variability is part of the climate system and a 15-year hiatus, they suggested, was not worth getting excited about.” Economist “Our Earth is warming. Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years.” EPA
However, there is not compelling evidence that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950, i.e. “Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.” NASA Earth Observatory “The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.” NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000 “Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.” Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: “There exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950”. EPA
So how to clear up this confusion? Let’s take a look at the data…
If you look at Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels;

Global CO2 from Fossil-Fuel Emissions By Source;

and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels,

you can see that Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels did not become potentially consequential factor until approximately 1950, and then grew rapidly thereafter. Per the Economist, “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.’” The large increase in Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels since 1950 is quite clear in this Global Per Capita Carbon Emissions graph:

There have also been claims made that Land Use Changes measured as Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere were a significant source of Anthropogenic CO2 i.e.:

However, when you look at the Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes from 1850 to 1990;

it is apparent that the majority of the increase occurred after 1950, and the change between 1900 and 1950 was de minimis. Furthermore, the Houghton data these graphs are based upon is highly suspect, i.e. from IPCC AR4: “Although the two recent satellite-based estimates point to a smaller source than that of Houghton (2003a), it is premature to say that Houghton’s numbers are overestimated.” Houghton’s method of reconstructing Land-Use Based Net Flux of Carbon appears arbitrary and susceptible to bias; i.e. “Rates of land-use change, including clearing for agriculture and harvest of wood, were reconstructed from statistical and historic documents for 9 world regions and used, along with the per ha [hectare] changes in vegetation and soil that result from land management, to calculate the annual flux of carbon between land and atmosphere.” Furthermore Houghton’s findings have varied significantly over time, i.e. in Houghton & Hackler, 2001 they found that, “The estimated global total net flux of carbon from changes in land use increased from 397 Tg of carbon in 1850 to 2187 Tg or 2.2 Pg of carbon in 1989 and then decreased slightly to 2103 Tg or 2.1 Pg of carbon in 1990“. However, by Houghton, R.A. 2008 he found, “The estimated global total net flux of carbon from changes in land use increased from 500.6 Tg C in 1850 to a maximum of 1712.5 Tg C in 1991“.
Given Houghton’s overestimations, arbitrary reconstruction method and highly variable results, his Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Change data is not credible. However, even if it was, Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Change was inconsequential prior to 1950;

and it appears that Land and Ocean Sinks would have absorbed any increace, along with much of the minimal pre-1950 Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels. This is supported by the findings of Canadell et al., 2007 that, “Of the average 9.1 PgC y −1 of total anthropogenic emissions (F Foss + F LUC) from 2000 to 2006, the AF was 0.45; almost half of the anthropogenic emissions remained in the atmosphere, and the rest were absorbed by land and ocean sinks.” Furthermore, they found “increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions.” Thus absorption rates of Land and Ocean Sinks were likely significantly higher prior to 1950.
As such, since there is not compelling evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to have ab influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950, Anthropogenic CO2 cannot be the cause of the warming that occurred before 1950. However, this doesn’t mean that CO2 based Anthropogenic Global Warming began in 1950, because 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. However, this doesn’t mean that CO2 based Anthropogenic Global Warming began in 1975, because as Phil Jones noted during a 2010 BBC interview, “As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.” As such, the warming from 1910 – 1940, before Anthropogenic CO2 became potentially consequential, is “not statistically significantly different” from the warming during the period from 1975 – 1998 when the IPCC AR5 claims to be ” extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”. Given that “causes of the earlier warming are less clear“, our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best, and our historical record is laughably brief, it is confounding how the IPCC can be so “extremely” sure “that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”, which is “not statistically significantly different” from the natural warming that occurred between 1910 – 1940.
Regardless, claims that “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century” are erroneous and indicative of either ignorance or duplicity on the part of NASA’s Earth Observatory, NASA’s Climate Consensus page, The Daily Mail, the EPA and many others. So what do you think? When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The GoreBull warming scam got it’s big boost on 12/13/2000.
Why couldn’t he just pretend to build houses for poor people.
I think it began in 1972 at the UN Conference on the Human Environment http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156774/ when stressing human causation that would be global in impact was seen as yet another useful weapon against the prosperity of the West. All remedies involved increasing public sector power at a global level.
Especially now that I have seen that Louis Sohn wrote the conference report in 1973. I knew him as a law school prof. Small world.
Crap Robin, @njsnowfan had the answer. I was hoping no one else would respond.
From the post..
I’ve been following this AGW scam for a number of years now. I’ve yet to see ANY evidence, compelling or not, that anthropogenic CO2 influences Earths temperature prior to or post 1950.
I’d love to see some evidence. Anyone got any?
Global Warming began when the United Nations realized that a brouhaha in this regard could lead to global governance (their global governance).
“That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750”
No, I make it since the beginning of humanity looking at the graph.
Note per capita C emissions the long rise was suddenly attenuated by the new organization OPEC’s cartel price rise in 1974 and maintained relatively flat by major recessions in the early 1980s, 1990s, Asian currency crisis 1997-98 and new millennium. The big rise afterwards was the phenomenal growth in the Chinese economy – attenuated by global slowdown since 2008. Yeah we could moderate carbon emissions by going into deep economic recessions.
“Furthermore, they found “increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions.”
However, according to James ‘coal death train’ Hansen, the airborne fraction [AF] of CO2 man-made emissions has sharply decreased post-2000, due to “a surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal”!:
“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean’s upper layers).
We suggest that the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3 is related to the simultaneous sharp increase in coal use (figure 1).
We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems.”
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/1/011006/erl459410f3_online.jpg
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=hansen+airborne+fraction
Note the following that shows two different 540 month periods (45 years). One period is before 1950 and the other is after 1950.
WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
Without looking at the dates, and just by looking at the general shape and slope, could you tell which was which?
One slope is very slightly steeper than the other. However the difference (0.016/year – 0.012/year = 0.004/year) is very minor. Such a small difference does not necessarily require an explanation. However if you wanted to attribute it to man-made CO2, then there is no way this could be a problem. Even the IPCC would agree that an increase of 0.4 C/century would not be a problem for hundreds of years.
Excellent question, I doubt that the believers themselves couldn’t find a consensus to believe that is consistent with the data. And BTW is all the data set have been ‘adjusted’ to transform the cooling of the 50’s to the mid 70’s into a somewhat flat trend?
WUWT is primarily a science website but the international advocacy surrounding “global warming” is primarily a political movement that has much to do with “global” and very little to do with any actual “warming”.
Robin is looking for answers in the right places.
AGW began after the first hominid struck two flints together. Fire is the original sin for enviromentalists (sic).
soon after the League of Nations transitioned to the United Nations and people decided to spread the wealth.
thats the underpinnings of the foundation required to answer the question IMO.
You mentioned the Phil Jones interview. Below are the results based on todays adjusted Hadcrut3. His three slopes were 0.163, 0.15 and 0.166. Now, the same three slopes are 0.101, 0.157 and 0.184!
WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
Below is what was true at the time of the interview:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
When did AGW begin? It hasn’t…
…. and if the pre-1950 warming is not anthropogenic, then what did cause it? And why are alarmists so certain that the periods of post 1950 warming weren’t caused by the same ?
Tough questions & good reasons to be skeptical.
Where’s the warming?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2014.gif
wbrozek says: March 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Bob Tisdale – bobtisdale.wordpress.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
One slope is very slightly steeper than the other. However the difference (0.016/year – 0.012/year = 0.004/year) is very minor. Such a small difference does not necessarily require an explanation.
This is readily explained by the highly suspect Bucket Model adjustments Phil Jones and company made on the pre-1950 Sea Surface Temperatures i.e.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/the-bucket-model/
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="550"]
The graph above compares the ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set) v2.5 data set to HadSST3, HADISST and ERSST.v3b. ICOADS is the original unadulterated Sea Surface Temperature record. HadSST3, HADISST and ERSST.v3b, all include bucket model adjusted ICOADS data, and HADCRUT4 is “a blend of the CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset.” Met Office
If the highly suspect Sea Surface Temperature “Bucket Model” adjustments are removed, then the warming during the first half of the 20th century would be significantly larger than than the warming during the second half of the century…
Humans have “influenced” the climate from day 1. Now ,of course, our best understanding says that in the beginning the effect was small and swamped by other forcings. Since the climate is chaotic and sensitive to small perturbations ( butterfly wings and all that) we can be somewhat confident that the climate of the earth with humans would be different than the climate without humans. The same way the climate would be different without plankton.
The issues remain as follows
1. How much of the change we see is due to
A) solar forcing
B) volcanic forcing
C) internal variability
D) GHG forcing
E) unknown forcings
2. How much certainty do we have in identifying the contributions of each of these forcings
That certainty is limited because…..
A) we cant do controlled experiments of With/Without any of the forcings
B) all conclusions about the role of the forcings will depend on statistical methods
with plenty of assumptions.
C) Virtual experiments with simulations can give you clues, but not much more
D) anyone who argues that One forcing explains it all ( the sun dunnit, its all natural,
its all C02) is overly confident and not practicing skepticism
3. How much certainty do we need to take action?
4. What actions make sense?
Great post. Warming begin? Finished fixing the furnace at 3:00, so about then.
“When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
It depends on whether we’re talking about Infinitesimal Anthropogenic Global Warming which started sometime in antiquity or Measurable Anthropogenic Global Warming which may start decades or even centuries from now (if ever).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=889
It seems that tropics are damned near immune to radiative change, with a corrective feedback of about 90% of any change in forcing.
Extra-tropical regions will be more sensitive. Still writing this up but for tropics it looks like Linzen & Choi are pretty close, which means almost all others are badly off.
Steven Mosher says:
“Since the climate is chaotic and sensitive to small perturbations”
Any evidence for this outside of a virtual world?
When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
ah, a trick question.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, like unicorns, is imaginary.
It began with lies and propaganda. Ignoring the facts! With a little influence from $.
Where’s the warming?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_SH_2014.gif