
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?
Nice job JTF!
The continued deconstruction of the CAGW meme continues.
Insert your custom inference here 》》》》
http://youtu.be/isePQ4fWhZs
As to Mr Mosher’s claim that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to “perturbations”.
Willis E. wrote an article here at WUWT that showed the atmosphere is resilient and rebounds from the effects of volcanoes. What greater perturbation than a volcano?
So, I ask, where’s the evidence of sensitivity to perturbations?
When I look at the history of climate in the last 150 years or so, I see only stability.
“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.”
Climate may still be chaotic, within bounds, over multi-decadal periods. See Lorenz 1986, final page:
http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Index_Cycle_Alive_Well_85q.pdf
MarkB (March 29, 2014 at 2:00 pm) “The rise from 1900 to the 40s is principally CO2 and solar forcing of similar magnitudes during a period of minimal volcanic activity. ”
Coincidentally that is exactly what I was told at SkepSci. The main problem with that claim is that solar forcing was higher in the second half of the 20th century than in the first. That would mean that the late 20th century rise would have to be mostly solar since it is pretty much the same slope.
John Finn;
However, the last time the earth’s average temperature was 5k lower than to-day mile-high ice sheets covered much of northern Europe and America.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Fine. Shrink it to a 10 degree scale. We’re still talking very stable temperatures over a very long time, and the variation in the last 130 years is mice nuts. Not to mention that those ice sheets didn’t appear over night, they grew over a time period irrelevant to the debate.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
We discuss at length the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from some 300 to 400 ppm in +/- 300 years because, allegedly all by itself, it increases the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which has/will increase the Earth’s temperature.
Nobody seems to want to discuss the effect of changes in water vapour over the same 300 years which we all know has a green house effect some 40 times greater than the relatively insignificant CO2?
So which effect is stronger, water vapor’s cooling effect or warming effect? Interestingly, it is seldom mentioned in the global warming debate that the surface cooling effect of evaporation (which creates water vapor) is stronger than its greenhouse warming effect.
A tradie just asking.
Clouds do both depending on which season it is. Clouds can trap warmth generated by the earth, in winter. That’s why frost doesn’t form here if it is overcast. But it also shades us in hotter weather. A simple example is the desert reasons, they have a hot day followed by a very cold night. No clouds. In their winter months the night time temps can go minus.
Your ‘blue’ comments are always so informative.
Not to mention that those ice sheets didn’t appear over night, they grew over a time period irrelevant to the debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And before I forget, the ice sheets were a consequence of external forcing of the system due to orbital eccentricities. This is completely different from Mosher’s claim which is that the system can easily be perturbed by forcings that are internal to the system. As the temperature data from major volcanic eruptions shows, the system is highly resilient and recovers rapidly. You could argue I suppose that continental drift played a factor and that is an internal forcing but frankly, if you have to move a continent to make my assertion false, I’m no more concerned than I am about a few tenths of a degree over 130 years.
If you want to get nitpicky about it, how about “the first time a human exhaled”?
I’d rather study questions that have greater effects on reality, such as “How long ago did politicians discover that making up phony emergencies wins popular support?” I’d guess it was long before the first democratic government, since all or most religions appear to have been invented to take advantage of exactly that principle.
It’s not ‘Anthropogenic Warming’, its ‘Homocentric Warming’.
It’s the delusion of grandiose minds and as absurd a construct as say, “Anthropogenic tidal change.”
It’s just bad religion
I don’t care what physicists say about CO2, historical & modern data says there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels & temperature, except in that warming raises CO2 levels.
Murray Salby also shows that mankind’s CO2 does not dominate atmospheric CO2 increases, in fact in some years, despite our emissions, CO2 levels fail to increase at all !
We are merely re-releasing a tiny portion of the trapped CO2 that was once part of the atmosphere and it wasn’t too warm then and we are still in a state of impoverishment of atmospheric CO2, yet nitwits preach ‘Runaway warming’ & ‘ Tipping Points’.
Adding water to a bucket will increase its level but how much does that bucket of water raise a sea ?
This notion that our trace of a trace constituent can somehow overwhelm all other climate factors to send the temperature spiralling one way or another & that it can be remedied by forcibly redistributing the wealth of free people’s into the hands of crisis constructors is the most idiotic cause mankind has ever championed.
I recall in 2002 sitting a unit regarding ‘Earth in Crisis?” And one of the students (not very bright) asked about Greenhouse gases poisoning the earth (not climate) one of the units was about studies of pollution in Bangkok. But the lecturer said that the sun was responsible for a lot of our weather patterns. i.e., sun spots. I remember doing two essays on the cutting down of Amazon rain forests and the effects of the erection of the Aswan dam in Egypt. Anyway no mention of AGW climate changes
skeptic scientist says “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..”
Most of what you see is what is created by the various adjustments added to “correct” the original data. HadSST for instance cools the 19th c. thus reducing the cooling to 1900, it inserts a 0.5 degree cooling post WWII and adds a little warming later.
If one were to be cynical , one could conclude that the data has been intentionally manipulated to fit the CO2 hypothesis. If one is of a generous nature, not prone to “conspiratorialed idealisationisms ” one could conclude that the data has been accidentally manipulated in a way that, coincidentally, fits the CO2 hypothesis.
We can then look at some of the public statements of the Met. Office’s “cheif scientist” Julia Slingo, to decide which of these interpretations best fits the predominant mentality in the postitions of influence in that organisation.
We can then look at current presentations over at Berkeley Earth to understand their mindset and decide why they chose to integrate this particular SST record to create a land+sea dataset.
My computer is acting up again. The long term scientific investigation of the Amazon, showed that cutting down huge tracks of rain forest for agricultural use, did cause a lift in the cloud cover and precipitation. They recommended for every acre of rain forest cleared an equal number of rain forest should be left intact. With the Aswan dam, yes initially, the delta fishing industry failed because of the lack of silt brought down by the annual flood, it corrected after 30 years. Also malaria increased and that snail infestation was rife at first. But vaccinations were invented for the snail, and they flooded stagnant water. However, farmers were forced to now use fertilisers that increased the cost of crop production. So pollution can be curbed. And so can SMOGS.
Warming has officially ‘restarted’ in Wisconsin. Made it all the way up to 52F, in Winnebago County today. My brother informs me they had their first barbeque of the year…. above freezing. And the ice is sooooooo thick and hard on Lake Winnebago and Lake Buttes Des Morts that they are still driving trucks out on them for ice fishing.
Now, for more important news!
The University of Wisconsin – Madison fighting Badgers mens basketball team is IN THE FINAL FOUR!
WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just as well basketball is held inside. Go UofW!
One thing that is a bit interesting is that more fossil based CO2 has been sequestered since 1950 than all the CO2 emissions + land use changes before 1950. Kind of puts the pre-1950 impact in perspective.
If one believes that CO2 does have a warming influence then clearly our impact began as soon as we started influencing the total atmospheric CO2. But, given that the influence appears to be trivial, then some small portion of a trivial impact is not very interesting.
Instead of “When” why not ask “Why” !
As in, What evidence exists of ‘Anthropogenic’ ?
Why does the Earth ‘warm’ by ‘Anthropogens’. What is the power potential of ‘Anthropogens’ ? What is the mechanism responsible for transferring ‘warming’ from ‘Anthropogens’ to the Earth ?
Are ‘Anthropogens’ an endangered political species ?
Ha ha.
You didn’t fix the link, Henry Clark. You put the link in your name in the blockquoted post here. lol
Here is the link you mention in your March 29, 2014 at 5:50 pm post:
http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg
Good info for people like me.
I’m with cynical_scientist on March 29, 2014 at 2:27 pm
‘.. 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. ‘
And I would go further and say that Callendar around 1940 had a better argument on the available evidence than anyone today. Back then they were looking at an impressively persistent steady rise across the NH temperature for 50 years. Today’s alarmist lack the luxury of their ignorance of the possibility of two extended pauses.
cynical_scientist says: March 29, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Willis Eschenbach – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Ed Hoskins – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
European Environment Agency – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Meehl et al., 2004 – Click the pic to view[/caption]
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.
There is definitely a logarithmic response to CO2, i.e.:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"]
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"]
However, CO2 levels were rising naturally before 1900;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="600"]
CO2 levels only increased from 295.7 ppm in 1900 to 311.3 ppm when the warming concluded in 1940. NASA GISS, Anthropogenic CO2 emissions were minimal prior to 1950;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
and natural carbon sinks likely absorbed much of the Anthropogenic CO2 emissions that did occur:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="581"]
Meehl et al., 2004 found that “By far the largest temperature response is to the GHGs in Fig. 1e, with slow warming occurring in the first half of the twentieth century up to about .+0.1 C in the 1940s,” Here is their Figure 1e. Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Greenhouse Gas Residual {GHG residual [(GHG
+ sulfate) – sulfate]} compared to Observations:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="581"]
However, Meehl et al, 2004 is model based, i.e.; ” The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model with anthropogenic forcing (mainly GHGs), while the early twentieth-century warming is mainly caused by natural forcing in the model (mainly solar).” thus even their claim the “warming occurring in the first half of the twentieth century up to about .+0.1 C” is suspect.
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..
If anyone at the IPCC had evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 had a consequential influence on temperatures before 1950, then they wouldn’t have put this mealy-mouthed language into AR4:
“It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records.”
But where is the cooling? It is a travesty we cannot find the cooling.
When did AGW begin?
We don’t yet know because we have not yet devised a method of confidently separating natural from AG causes and effects.
End of short story.
bushbunny says:
March 29, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Just as well basketball is held inside. Go UofW!
Hey bushbunny!
Thanks for the shoutout from the Land Down Undah! Nice to know there are Badger fans under the Southern Cross!
Mac
A link to a better explanation of the Ruddiman Hypothesis is
here
It’s based in a spike in methane which Ruddiman deems “anomalous” from the amplitude shown in 14 previous “natural” cycles. His baseline graph, (see page 3 of the link), shows a 350 k year. record of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, with insolation and methane in relative synchrony, until the most recent crest (5,000 years bp), when methane staged an apparently sharp departure upwards relative to the insolation.
I’m not a subscriber. Just providing what looks like the outside fringe answer to your question. I’m still skeptical of paleo records, since they can be fiddled in any number of ways. But this provides a better look into Ruddiman’s hypothesis than the link I gave a above.