
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.
Good comment. Who decides on certainty? The IPCC? I say wait and look at the satellite temps V projections. If it doesn’t do anything scary, continue to wait. Right now it’s not scary (17 years of standstill).
The actions that make sense are basically to carry on doing what we have been doing since before the last glaciation – adapt to the climate and weather. There is nothing certain about the IPCC’s scary scenarios or failed projections.
Who would take chemotherapy for a cold? This what the world is being asked to do. One could argue that we are being asked to take chemotherapy for having strong, lustrous hair! (Benefits of warm).
The pattern looks to track quite well with the amount of solid fuel burnt (i.e. coal). When this increases there is no increase in temperature, but when it stays constant, there is a rapid rise.
Bruce Cobb says:
CO2 forcing currently is about twice what it was in 1970, …
Based on reality, not only is it unreasonable; it is positively daft.
To be more clear, I’m referring to forcing above a baseline of 280 ppm “natural”. This isn’t particularly controversial.
justthefactswuwt says:
March 29, 2014 at 2:50 pm
MarkB says: March 29, 2014 at 2:00 pm
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 . . .
I was looking at Amman 2007 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf ) for a historic solar forcing estimate. My bigger point is that it’s kind of silly suggest that a particular forcing (CO2 in this article) is “de minimis” without considering the magnitude effect of other recognized forcings and internal variability. Admittedly these are not quantified as well as one might hope the further back into the record one goes. What many seem to miss is that, while it means my statements are not impervious to criticism, the same goes for the line of reasoning pursued in this post.
Sorry – no.
The easiest way to explain “the pause”, and incidently most of what you discuss here is to educe two facts:
1 – the CO2 causation theory is over-stated. There is an effect, but it’s about an order of magnitude below estimates and so largely immaterial.
2 – we do not know whether there actually isw much of a trend in tempertaure records because the data is neither accurate nor complete to begin with and has been serially adjusted so often as to be useless as an indicator of small differences today. Basically, data applicable to the 20th century was “adjusted” down for the earlier part and up for the later part in an attempt to show warming. Since then the adjustments have been less dramatic (because people like Watts et al would catch the changes) and so we get today’s “pause.”
Bottom line: we know the CO2 scare isn’t real – but we don’t know whether we’re getting warmer, cooler, or changing at all.
“”Bottom line: we know the CO2 scare isn’t real – but we don’t know whether we’re getting warmer, cooler, or changing at all.””
So The AGW/CC scare is doing its job then! (OMS).
Animals and plants have “influenced” the climate from day 1.
The climate has “influenced” humans from day 1.
Now this was the start of man made global warming. 😉
Here is the link.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/change
MarkB, all you are saying is that the conjecture of our CO2 warming the earth “could” be right, even though the facts don’t show it.
And the Loch Ness monster “could” be real, as well as Bigfoot. Yes, we just need to look harder.
Maybe just compare cycle 20 and 24 and the a graph will become clear?
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl20.html
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
When big silver birds in sky started reflecting radiation and pumping out heat.
http://www.flightradar24.com/52.25,-0.57/7#./2?&_suid=139619474218105559875547506952
Well they reflect more radiation than CO2 per square metre.
Since when is 280 ppm a natural baseline?
It is worth comparing the galactic radiation in cycles 20 and 24 It was much stronger than at high cycles.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=01&startyear=1965&starttime=00%3A00&endday=28&endmonth=03&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
I do not think Anthropogenic Global Warming has ever started.
I think the warming from 1980 to 1998 was mainly due to natural oceanic causes, with some help from additional natural and man-released CO2. Same for 1910 to 1945.
I do not believe CO2 is the climate’s control knob, as I heard at AGU’s years ago.
oh, around 8000 years ago, when humans developed agriculture (rice paddies) and animal husbandry, thus increasing methane emissions. Otherwise we’d be in the next ice age by now, according to Dr. Milankovic.
MarkB says: March 30, 2014 at 7:52 am
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
I was looking at Amman 2007 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf ) for a historic solar forcing estimate.
That is a modeling exercise, where a simplistic model was used to try to explain changes in Earth’s temperature. Where the simplistic model couldn’t explain the observations, it was assumed that anthropogenic influences must exist, i.e.:
“In conclusion, our model results indicate that the range of NH-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories (cosmogenic isotope record as a proxy for solar forcing, and volcanic forcing) constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be 0.2°C. Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.”
“Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of 0.2°C ( 1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf
In summary, they don’t understand why Earth’s climate changes so their solution is to attribute all unexplained changes anthropogenic forces. That’s not science, that’s voodoo…
My bigger point is that it’s kind of silly suggest that a particular forcing (CO2 in this article) is “de minimis” without considering the magnitude effect of other recognized forcings and internal variability.
It’s kind of silly that you didn’t read the article or are purposely misstating what I wrote. My use of
de minimis within the article was is relation to Net Carbon Flux From Land Use, i.e.:
“However, when you look at the Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes from 1850 to 1990;
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="542"]
it is apparent that the majority of the increase occurred after 1950, and the change between 1900 and 1950 was de minimis.”
If you actually look at the change in Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Changes between 1900 and 1950, it is de minimis. In terms of total CO2 forcing, I wrote that “the warming from 1910 – 1940” was “before Anthropogenic CO2 became potentially consequential” and no one has presented any evidence to refute that. There have been billions of dollars spent and thousands of studies conducted on Anthropogenic CO2, show us credible research that indicates Anthropogenic CO2 had a significant influence on increased CO2 levels from 295.7 ppm in 1900 to 311.3 ppm in 1940, and furthermore that this increase in CO2 levels was sufficient to have a significant influence on Earth’s temperature.
Admittedly these are not quantified as well as one might hope the further back into the record one goes.
There’s an understatement, how about our data is crap, our understanding is rudimentary and that model based paper is nothing more than guesswork?
What many seem to miss is that, while it means my statements are not impervious to criticism, the same goes for the line of reasoning pursued in this post.
Nothing is impervious to criticism, however in this case your criticism is unfounded and in no way challenges the findings of this article.
[quoting article]
“So what do you think? When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?”
—————–
In my opinion, CAGW began …. in the minds of a few scientists ….. post 1960 when more accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 were being made …. and was then per se, “reverse engineered” back to circa 1880 beginning in the early 1980’s.
============
[quoting article]
“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”.”
—————–
Sure nuff “climate change” began earlier, …. like 23,000 years earlier.
The earth is currently experiencing one of said Interglacial Periods of global warming “Climate Change” (IPGW or IPGWCC) that began some 23,000 years ago ….. and which is still in progress as far as I know ….. simply because there is no evidence that suggests a new Ice Age has begun.
Given the above said, anyone that ascribes to the “consensus of opinions” that CAGW global warming started over 100 years ago, ….. specifically in 1880, …. and which said claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change (CAGW) makes no mention of the “warming” associated with the IPGW, …. then their claims of CAGW can only means one (1) thing.
And that is, …. they have high-jacked all of the IPGW warming from 1880 to present …. and attributed it to their “junk science” claims of CAGW.
The IPGW warming that has been in progress for the past 23,000 years didn’t “suddenly stop” …. just because the NWS started recording surface temperatures herein the US in 1880.
=======================
[quoting article]
“Thus absorption rates of Land and Ocean Sinks were likely significantly higher prior to 1950.”
—————
But how can that possibly be …. when the ocean waters have been warming and the fact that the great forest across North America were being “clear cut” beginning in the early 1700’s and extending thru to the mid 1900’s?
Great forests of “hardwood” trees are great “sinks” for CO2.
“”So what do you think? When Did Anthropogenic Global Warming Begin?””
**************************************************************************************
duh 1982 lol
First we had to industrialize 4 hemispheres add population, automobiles, airplane traffic, etc..
Cumulative effect reaching culmination in the 80’s?
Impossible, to answer..
Changes in magnetic field strength’s in various locations, affecting solar inputs. etc… Dayside magnetic field mergers at null points in the field. Dayside cusp refilling and trapping of plasmas.. Stuff climate models didn’t even know existed..
Happened on a CLUSTER article little while ago..and
CLUSTER mission thinks they saw 3 cusps? Same time I have the Earth Wind Map open to N. Pole at 70 hPa depicting 3 major vortices.. OMG..Freak out coincidence..
Just the Facts: Where above do you actually prove that CO2 at ANY level can cause temperature to go up? I’m not talking about correlation, but causation. If you can’t show that it causes a temperature increase, it’s hard to insinuate when it’s effects started.
Got a Dr. S., type question.
If the Earth’s magnetosphere is anagolous to a spring action, then during times of reduced solar wind and reduced solar magnetic field and reduced plasma, the tension of the spring is more relaxed and will change cusp, null point locations, for periods of time..?
Bill Parsons says:
March 30, 2014 at 11:24 am
_______________________
Just sayin’ ..
if you have enough solar energetic particles, you can warm just about anything, even CO2.
But if you don’t have enough ‘solar energetic particles,’ then you can’t warm up anything, not even your CO2. boo hoo
Just sayin’..
Carla-date information on the geomagnetic field.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-eng.php
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1260&context=usdeptcommercepub
justthefactswuwt says:
March 30, 2014 at 10:33 am
… Nothing is impervious to criticism, however in this case your criticism is unfounded and in no way challenges the findings of this article.
Maybe I’m the only one having trouble here, but I don’t understand why you’ve presented an argument based on emissions and land use data estimates when the significant parameter (atmospheric CO2 concentration) has been more directly and precisely measured via ice core data. I presume you’re making the link to “anthropogenic”, but it seems that leaves the problem of explaining CO2 rise in the more reliable data set. My other point of confusion is that you’re declaring “significance” of the effect without a clear criteria for what is and isn’t significant.
Per my crap data source (and consistent with ice cores) the atmospheric CO2 100 years ago was about 300 ppm. In 1950 it was 310 ppm. If one grants that forcing is proportional to the logarithm of concentration then current CO2 forcing (about 400 ppm) above baseline (280 ppm) is a little over 5 times greater than 1914 and about 3.5 times greater than 1950. If 3.5 is your threshold for significance, so be it, but it seems kind of arbitrary. I prefer, as I tried to indicate above, a point where the CO2 forcing is plausibly of similar magnitude to confounding effects in the temperature record. You asked the question, I posed an answer and gave my rational.
Until somebody comes up with proof that CO2 “traps heat energy” the concept of anthropogenic global warming is just another crackpot idea. Don’t hold your breath.
ren says:
March 30, 2014 at 11:40 am
Carla-date information on the geomagnetic field.
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/arctics-eng.php
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1260&context=usdeptcommercepub
_______________________________________________________________________
Thanks Mr.Ren. Was thinking recently that I needed a magnetic field coordinate system overlaid on the geophysical system. Be cool to see that over at Earth Wind Map. Because I was thinking that in the eastward and westward drift of the magnetic equator, might be some other drifts and a relaxing of polar fields with a trickle down effect during times of lower solar wind dynamic pressures. Could be more mid latitude flux variations or lower than were used to…gee lower the atmosphere thermosphere and the whole things trickles down with it..