When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?

global_fossil_carbon_per_capita_google_chart
Image Credit: The Economist

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;

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

Global CO2 from Fossil-Fuel Emissions By Source;

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

and Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuels,

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

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:

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

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.:

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

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

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

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;

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

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:

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

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?

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

194 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ren
March 29, 2014 11:51 pm

This year, you will have to smoke to orchards, because the flowers be cold.

Perry
March 30, 2014 12:08 am

“When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
When it deviated from the World’s perfect global temperature, which is…………………..? Anyone?
Some surprising answers.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080505182254AADuY4C
Eli Rabbett had to change the question, but with him, it’s hare today, gone tomorrow. I’m not going to link to him straight.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=what+is+the+perfect+global+temperature&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB547GB547&oq=what+is+the+perfect+global+temperature&aqs=chrome..69i57.26311j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Larry in Texas
March 30, 2014 12:51 am

Steven Mosher says:
March 29, 2014 at 1:07 pm
“we can be somewhat confident that the climate of the earth with humans would be different than the climate without humans”
The above statement is about like saying that we can be “somewhat confident” that the climate of the earth without God would be different than the climate of the earth with God.Your observation is only a statement of faith-based ideology, totally unscientific, and arbitrarily a priori on your part. I don’t know how “confident” at all you can be, Mosh. Show me some real, credible evidence that this is actually the case, especially in light of the fact that the climate of the earth was so variable and nasty before the emergence of humanity (after all, it is the “butterfly” effect that Konrad Lorenz was talking about, not the “human” effect). The truth is, you have no evidence, other than highly complicated and speculative models with nothing but garbage assumptions behind them. Which is why the models are not currently coinciding with observations.

gbaikie
March 30, 2014 1:00 am

” Perry says:
March 30, 2014 at 12:08 am
“When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
When it deviated from the World’s perfect global temperature, which is…………………..? Anyone?”
I think safe to say it wasn’t during the Little Ice Age.
And as far as long term our Ice Box Climate is not good- having about 1/2 the land area under a mile of ice would not even make the most avid skiers happy.
So in regards to the longer term for humans and life in general the last few million years has not been good.
I think if about 5 C warmer it would be better. And I think it would tend to cause the Russians less evil..

Larry in Texas
March 30, 2014 1:02 am

davidmhoffer says:
March 29, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Although other responses to Steven Mosher were good, I must heartily concur with yours. Your response is a better one than mine, to be sure.

hunter
March 30, 2014 1:09 am

Steve Mosher makes an important point:
Humans have always influenced the climate and the environment. As does all life, in sufficient numbers. Trees, plankton, termites, herding ruminants, etc. are all parts of the bio influence on climate.
However, I do not believe that the evidence shows the climate is so easily perturbed by small changes in atmospheric gasses or even particulates. Krakatoa, Pinatubo and other volcanoes in historic times did not trigger perturbations that swung in worse and worse arcs of out of control feedbacks and forcings. In the face of rising CO2 we see cyclone rates flat to down, and ditto for drought, flood, snow, heat and cold.
So the question of when AGW began is in a sense meaningless in the way the climate obsessed mean it.
“Climate change” is human created in the sense that humans created a story to put people at the center of climate. Like the great flood stories put humans displeasing God at the center of why floods happen, AGW puts human use of technology at the center of a story to explain why bad weather happens today.

mwhite
March 30, 2014 1:34 am

Those that be;believe once suggested that the medieval warm period must be made to go away.
I have the sneaking suspicion that the doom mongers have have managed to “adjust” most of the 1930/40s warm PDO peak out of existence.

ren
March 30, 2014 2:03 am

“Climate change” is human created in the sense that humans created a story to put people at the center of climate.”
Man likes to have an impression that has control of the Cosmos, or at least above the Earth. But the Earth is a small part of Cosmos.

March 30, 2014 2:25 am

Never. It doesn’t exist, so it can’t have begun, or begin. The planet absorbs our influences and effects with barely a twitch. Nugatory and negligible.

Edohiguma
March 30, 2014 2:47 am

AGW? Never. If it did, where’s the smoking gun?
Given the development of the past 2,000 years, for which we have records from both Europe and Asia, I’m 100% convinced that we’re observing a natural phenomenon, a natural fluctuation. Up, down, up, down, up and eventually down again.
How could the ancient Romans and Chinese create temperatures similar to today without all the CO2? How could the people in medieval Europe, China and Japan do the same?

johnmarshall
March 30, 2014 3:13 am

Current warming is neither unusual nor rapid. History reveals periods of faster and more rapid temperature rise.
CO2 does NOT cause warming.

Dave the Engineer
March 30, 2014 4:26 am

It began when “saving the world” became *the* desired secular religious experience.

alan butters
March 30, 2014 5:02 am

Looking at the three non warming periods over the past 130 years, it seems that the cooling rate decreased for the second, and now appears zero for the current (third). This is consistant with an increasing rate of forcing. Given that the initial forcing rate would be very small, it seems rather pointless to try and pinpoint the start!!

Mervyn
March 30, 2014 5:24 am

I find it rather fascinating that when humans largely represented people who had faith in a God, and followed a religious faith, they had reason to be optimistic. People only had to pray to God. They only had to have faith. And they did. And it helped them face tomorrow with excitement of what a new day brings.
Unfortunately, in this day and age of atheism, with people doubting the existence of God and not following or practising a religious faith, it seems these people still need to have faith in something… IPCC climate alarmism and environmentalism. Such people think their role is to convert the non-believers. And all they see is a pessimistic future because humans are sinning against Earth’s plants and animals, and humans are the cause of a coming climate catastrophe.
The creation of global warming alarmism is a non-problem that has become a mental health issue to those lost souls promoting climate alarmism, who should, instead, be directing their efforts to a positive future.

ren
March 30, 2014 6:02 am

However, you have to accept that solar activity is the lowest since 100 years, and the sun’s magnetic field behaves atypically. This could mean a long period of weak solar activity. This will have a huge impact on the stratosphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm

richard
March 30, 2014 6:02 am

if we are having an effect it seems to be beneficial.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions
Date:
July 8, 2013
Source:
CSIRO Australia
Summary:
Increased levels of carbon dioxide have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called carbon dioxide fertilization, according to new research.

Perry
March 30, 2014 6:19 am

Sometimes, I consider more is better, therefore I commend to the audience that if absolutely necessary, we return to living under the regime of the Germanic pantheon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_gods
After all, mankind has identified with many versions of gods. Slowly, in some parts, their numbers diminished, so that for some it’s either one; or none, which is my atheist desiderata.
There is another alternative; Celtic Paganism. Who shall we propose to be the Wicker Man? Mucus Mann or Death Trains Jimmy? We’ll need someone to compose an “Ode to the Sacrifice”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicker_man

Tommy E
March 30, 2014 6:20 am

Question: When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?
Answer: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” There you go … Everybody knows that eating too many apples causes flatulence, that flatulence contains methane, that methane is a greenhouse gas, that greenhouse gasses cause global warming, ergo … it’s been going on for a very, very long time.
And to help out all our neighbors further north in Wisconsin and Canada who are still suffering in the grips of the longest nastiest winter in recent memory, the wife just baked an apple pie, which we intend to eat all of today. Just doing our part …
Regards.

Bruce Cobb
March 30, 2014 6:22 am

The Warmists deliberately conflate the warming since the LIA, or “modern warming” with a more recent, and short-lived period of warming lasting roughly 20 years, from the late 70’s to late 90’s. They need people to be confused about that. In the same manner, they conflate issues of real pollution – soot and aeorosols which degrade the quality of our air with the fake pollution they call “carbon”.

Dave the Engineer
March 30, 2014 6:31 am

I agree completely. But what do I know I’m an atheist myself. The difference is I have accepted my atheism as a true belief rather than a cynical fad (perhaps fad is not extreme enough). And I am optimistic about the future. Not the immediate future unfortunately, but the future after these “lost souls” have withered away. And to make things even more challenging to the mental health of these lost souls enviros; in my job as an environmental manager for a manufacturing company and previously for a hazardous waste disposal company I have done and do more to protect the environment then they have achieved. Which makes me even more blasphemous.

Robert of Ottawa
March 30, 2014 6:47 am

Edohiguma March 30, 2014 at 2:47 am
How could the ancient Romans and Chinese create temperatures similar to today without all the CO2? How could the people in medieval Europe, China and Japan do the same?
Edohiguma, the historical record is always the hammer for me … the Warmistas do everything they can to avoid it.

Jimbo
March 30, 2014 6:54 am

Soooooo the IPCC should be saying that man was responsible for most of the warming since 1975? As for the standstill since 1997 it’s still our fault. 22 years of man-made global warming, 17 years of surface temperature standstill and there’s a 97% consensus!
I do note that the IPCC has said MOST of the warming was down to man since 1950, so take out the natural warming and what the heck do you have left? We often here about how the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age but the above post begs some difficult questions.

Coach Springer
March 30, 2014 6:58 am

A lot of detailed debating here, but … All I can see is big increases in anthropogenic emissions +appear+ to cause 20-year pauses in natural temperature increases.

David
March 30, 2014 7:09 am

It mostly ended at 160ppm below which all plants die.

david(swuk)
March 30, 2014 7:14 am

AGW is a result of the panic caused in Gov. circles that GC/Glaciation was on its way in the 70`s and so it decided to point everybody in the opposite direction as intervening `Solar Max` fortunately arrived to delay things – AGW consequences can be handled but GCooling and the prospect of mass Southerly Exodus in US and/or Europe & Asia could not – Co2 is likely a Top of the Trop coolant as well as being a modest GHG in my book.