
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.
Here is warming.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2014.gif
It depends on what year they want to cherry-pick. In any case, it’s been AWOL these past 17 or so years. Some say it’s hiding somewhere deep in the oceans.
Afraid to come out, I guess.
Since no one knows the final cumulative effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere in relation to the other forcing factors at any particular time which are themselves poorly understood it is impossible to say but if at all it can’t be before ~1945.
over the past century….
ok, who were the morons that let them get away with declaring the LIA the perfect temperature
About CO2….when something like CO2 bottoms out and becomes stable at a low level….it’s reached it’s limit for being limiting….anyone that thinks that level is optimum or desirable is an even bigger moron
Maybe in 2013 it was warming? I think not.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2013.gif
Another heresy.
Anthropogenic Global Warming as a measurable entity, distinguishable form natural cycles, is yet to begin.
Has not happened.
Anthropogenic Global warming as a political ploy… as Robin says.
But another beautiful question for the members of this cult, the cult of calamitous climate will attempt to burn you at the stake, before they honestly attempt to answer this question.
There wasn’t much of any to speak of until Hansen & Co began committing the crime of altering Federal data to make it appear as if there was a lot.
The climate trials for these bastards can’t come soon enough…
================================================================
Before that should be addressed I think there are two more important questions to answer.
When Did Bovinian Global Warming Begin?
When Did Gaiainian Global Warming Begin?
Using some of the standard estimates for forcing, CO2 forcing currently is about twice what it was in 1970, about four times what it was in 1920, about eight times what it was in 1880, etc. Not sure where you would say that began, but it would be significant after about 1900 and dominant after about 1950. Based on this, a claim of CO2 related global warming over the past century is not an unreasonable statement. The rise from 1900 to the 40s is principally CO2 and solar forcing of similar magnitudes during a period of minimal volcanic activity. Aerosol forcing is also significant, but less well quantified and may be the most significant factor in suppressing temperature rise in the 1945-1970 period. Internal variability due to ocean effects also clearly plays a role in the surface temperature record.
Steven Mosher says:
March 29, 2014 at 1:07 pm
“3. How much certainty do we need to take action?
4. What actions make sense?”
3. Depends on the action to be taken. If the action to be taken will be severe or catastrophic then you have to be essentially 100% certain. A surgeon wouldn’t do brain surgery to remove a substantial portion of the patients brain without being 100% certain there was at least some problem. You don’t do radical brain surgery because the patient MIGHT get a brain tumor sometime in the future.
4. I would say developing a new and more permanent energy source that is better than what we currently have would be actions that make sense. This would mean things like Fusion in the longer term and perhaps Fission in the more near term. The key is that the energy source needs to be as reliable, abundant and as INEXPENSIVE as fossil fuels. Windmills and solar on grand scales do NOT meet this criteria. They destroy the environment and kill animals needlessly besides being expensive and unreliable. We then transition off of using fossil fuels as a home/business energy source as the replacements come on line… not before. That to me, is what actions make sense.
John-
I thought the same thing….”butterfly wings”????? I thought it was Hiroshima bombs sensitive…..
Steven Mosher says: March 29, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Humans have “influenced” the climate from day 1.
When was “day 1” and what was the influence?
Now ,of course, our best understanding says that in the beginning the effect was small and swamped by other forcings.
“In the beginning the effect was small”, implies that the effect is now not small. Can you cite any evidence of Global-scale Anthropogenic influences on Earth’s climate?
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.
Don’t go out too far out on a limb there, i.e. is “somewhat confident” IPCC parlance for flipping a coin? And different, is that different warmer, different colder or different otherwise?
On another topic, I noticed that “Berkeley Earth is pleased to announce that we’ve merged an oceans temperature analysis to our existing land data, and have a new global data set: Land + Ocean.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/
“Berkeley Earth combines our land data with a modified version of the HadSST ocean temperature data set. The result is a global average temperature data set.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/data
Were you involved in developing the Land + Ocean dataset? Given the large and suspect adjustments that Hadley makes to the ICOADS data to create HadSST, do you know why BEST used the HadSST data set, versus applying its own processing to unadjusted ICOADS source SST data?
Steven Mosher says:
March 29, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Humans have “influenced” the climate from day 1
==================
yeah…and so have butterflies, corals, ferns, and elephants….
what’s your point?
Stupidest thing I’ve heard….
Since the radiative forcing is predicated on the atmospheric CO2 content and Professor Salby has demonstrated that the atmospheric CO2 content is not correlated to the anthropogenic emissions I question the whole hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions can be connected to any warming. I have no doubt that it is a greenhouse gas but ,if the atmospheric content is a function of the integral of global temperature and unrelated to anthropogenic emissions, It seems these emissions are too insignificant in relation to natural CO2 variations to have any measurable effect.
Don’t you know that it’s just that Mankind is evil and if not eradicated we need to at least pay penance to Mother Gaia? And only by giving Saint Gore billions and billions of dirty money can we absolve ourselves of our dirty carbon sins….
MarkB says:
March 29, 2014 at 2:00 pm
CO2 forcing currently is about twice what it was in 1970, about four times what it was in 1920, about eight times what it was in 1880, etc. Based on this, a claim of CO2 related global warming over the past century is not an unreasonable statement.
Based on reality, not only is it unreasonable; it is positively daft.
Being a devil’s advocate here, since we know that the response to CO2 is logarithmic the response to the small increase pre 1950 is expected to be greater than the response to the larger increase post 1950. You should graph something like log[(emissions + k)/k] against time where k is some estimate of the background level of natural emissions.
My point is that since the response is logarithmic you can’t answer the question by just eyeballing the graph of CO2 emissions. When I look at the curve I really don’t see a kink in 1950 – I see a smooth exponential growth curve with nothing particularly special happening in 1950..
What really annoys me is that JTF is using the massively adjusted Hadley fabrication as a guide to any sort of temperature reality.
Even Hansen had 1940 temps up very near 2000 temps before this fraud got started. !!
Depents if you count influences due to land use changes also, or just CO2, in anthropogenic causes. Several papers (Cristadis 2013, and earlier) have noted apparent changes related to the epidemics brought to the New world (much Amazon etc farmland returned to forest for a while) and other land use related causes.
Steven Mosher says:
March 29, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Oh dude, did you read “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” too? Far out, man.
When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
====
Seems to be the second someone was tricked into thinking man made CO2 was magical and cumulative…
I assume we will never dispose of the modern-day warmist hyperbole by just showing a 16-17 year pause that contradicts greenhouse theory. We keep hearing stewards and respected contributors to this web site saying that Mankind is a contributor to global warming, and they may have some science to back it up. I plan to remain skeptical until I see a lot more evidence. But since you brought it up.
Gail Combs referenced the “Ruddiman Hypothesis” in the earlier thread, which you’ve linked above, and (without re-reading the whole thing) I think it was the only post which seriously examined the possibility of Mankind’s “earliest contribution to climate” in the paleo records. Whether you subscribe to this facet of mankind’s “contribution” or not, it is interesting, and worth discussion, since it sends warmists’ green hearts into heavy palpitations to be able to ascribe serious blame to our predecessors. I don’t believe it, but, in any case, it addresses your question this way:
Pre-industrial societies were having a noticeable impact on climate as far back as 8,000 years.
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate, by William F. Ruddiman
Since at least one commenter, above, believes this, I guess the thinking is still with us.
Even though the AGW hypothesis is all over the place and not even wrong IMO, the consensus is very specific when AGW became significant. It’s also the only plausible timing – the CO2 emissions (and other alleged anthropogenic effects) were simply insignificant before roughly the middle of the 20th century. Skeptics should know what excatly they’re skeptical of. The AGW convinced don’t like it when it’s pointed to them that the divergence between natural only and anthropogenic + natural (in the models) did not arise before ~1950.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-23.jpeg
Again, even according to the AGW consensus, any climate change before ~1950 is purely natural.
MarkB says: March 29, 2014 at 2:00 pm
WoodForTrees.org – Paul Clark – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Using some of the standard estimates for forcing,
Are those the same “standard estimates for forcing” that can’t explain why Global Warming stopped in the late 1990s or early 2000s, referred to as “The Pause? If you look at Werner Brozek’s recent article, the Pause in each major temperature data set is as follows:
For GISS, the slope is flat since November 2001 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January)
For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since August 1997 or 16 years, 6 months. (goes to January)
For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since January 2001 or 13 years, 1 month. (goes to January)
For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 13 years, 2 months. (goes to January)
For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 9 years, 1 month. (goes to January using version 5.5)
For RSS, the slope is flat since September 1996 or 17 years, 5 months (goes to January). So RSS has passed Ben Santer’s 17 years.
(P.S. The anomaly for February for RSS has come in and the time is now 17 years and 6 months going from September 1996 to February 2014.)
Shown graphically, that looks like this:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="640"]
The rise from 1900 to the 40s is principally CO2 and solar forcing of similar magnitudes during a period of minimal volcanic activity.
Written with such confidence. So we are supposed to either believe MarkB et al., 2014 or Delworth et al., 2000:
“causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.”
What makes you so confident that “The rise from 1900 to the 40s is principally CO2 and solar forcing of similar magnitudes”? Can you cite evidence to support your position?
Not sure where you would say that began, but it would be significant after about 1900″
Can you cite evidence to support your position?
and dominant after about 1950.
If CO2 forcing was “dominant after about 1950”, why did temperatures drop until 1975?
Steven Mosher;
Since the climate is chaotic and sensitive to small perturbations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Huh? I’m looking at the graph at the top of this post which shows about 1 degree of change over the course of 130+ years. That’s sensitive? If the graph was done in degrees K instead anomalies, on a reasonable scale of say 0-350K, it would look like a flat line with a barely discernible trend.
The data is absolutely screaming the exact opposite of your claim.
As for chaotic, sorry, but you have weather confused with climate. Weather is chaotic. Climate, being the average of weather over the long term, is clearly stable as hell. You managed to get two things completely bass ackwards in less than one sentence.