For years, skeptical scientists have been pointing at data that showed the the world started warming somewhere from 1700 – 1820. This has been known from glaciers, sea level studies, ice cores, boreholes, ocean heat content estimates, and more proxies than any climate-nerd cares to name.
Finally, expert climate modelers are “surprised” to discover this:
“…their study had detected warming in the Arctic and tropical oceans from around the 1830s, just 80 years after the Industrial Revolution started in England. “It was an extraordinary finding,” she said. “It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear. The climate warming we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago.”
How many grant dollars did it take to figure out what skeptical scientists have been saying for years?
The correlation with global temperatures and actual numerical human emissions is abysmal, so now Abrams et al ignore the numbers and appear to suggest that “The Industrial Revolution” itself started the warming — as if the mere invention of the steam engine heated the world.
[Dr Abram] said the study attributed the gradual warming to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the move from an agricultural to industrialised society.
“The climate system did respond quite quickly to industrialisation …. it was a small response, but it’s a measurable one.”
Global warming started 200 years ago, but human emissions of CO2 were bugger-all-of-nothing until after World War II. Humans have put out nearly 90% of all our CO2 molecules ever since the War started. We’ve put out 30% of all our emissions ever since the year 2000. The message hammered home over and over, is that temperatures don’t correlate at all well with our CO2 emissions and never have.
Planes, cars and coal power plants make no difference to global warming
Phil Jones told us that global temperatures kept heating at the same rate in the 1880s as they did in the 1920s as they did in the 1980s. (See that graph below).
The warming isn’t any different when human CO2 emissions are small or massive. The rate of warming was the same in the 1920s when nearly half of all horsepower still came from horses. Indeed without any electricity at all, and no cars, humans “caused” warming which was as fast as a decade when a billion people flew in the sky.
Then, when the Industrial Revolution hit China, the global temperatures “paused”.
Here is a new pretty graph (click to enlarge) from Abrams et al showing what skeptics have said all along, that the world is warming out of a little ice age:
CO2 is supposed to warm the whole globe. It isn’t working out like that.
The warming started long before our emissions became important
The correlation looks “good” from 1979- 1999, but there are contradictions in every other time period. . Everything about this graph tells us that CO2 is not a major controller. Other forces are more important and the mainstream climate modelers don’t know what those drivers are — they are not even looking for them. (On the other hand, people free of government funded groupthink are — see Seven possible ways the sun could change our cloud cover, and Is that one new Solar force, or two? The Force-ND Hypothesis.)
Global warming delayed in the Southern Hemisphere:
Interestingly, the study found sustained warming was delayed in the southern hemisphere by about 50 years.
Dr Abram said this could be linked to the circulation patterns in the southern oceans that move warmer waters away from the Antarctic and into the sub-surface ocean.
Maybe it’s because there’s more ocean in the South? Dear Dr Abram, did any of the “global atmosphere and circulation” models model that circulation accurately before your discovery? Since you were so surprised, I guess not. (The abstract confirms that).
The immovable wall
Note the usual mindless caveat:
Dr Abram said the study did not alter “anything we know about how climate has changed during the 20th century”.
Nothing ever does. That’s exactly why government-strangled-climate-science is in an endless rut, predicts nothing, and is “surprised” by the inanely obvious.
The evolution of industrial-era warming across the continents and oceans provides a context for future climate change and is important for determining climate sensitivity and the processes that control regional warming. Here we use post AD 1500 palaeoclimate records to show that sustained industrial-era warming of the tropical oceans first developed during the mid-nineteenth century and was nearly synchronous with Northern Hemisphere continental warming. The early onset of sustained, significant warming in palaeoclimate records and model simulations suggests that greenhouse forcing of industrial-era warming commenced as early as the mid-nineteenth century and included an enhanced equatorial ocean response mechanism. The development of Southern Hemisphere warming is delayed in reconstructions, but this apparent delay is not reproduced in climate simulations. Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account.
How do you take “natural variability” into account when the models don’t understand and can’t predict natural variability? Not one major model can hindcast the last 10,000 years. None of the circulation models can model the circulation. All the bumps like the modern warming bump are a mystery.
Abram, et al (2016) Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents, Nature, VOL 536, p 415
H/t to Willie Soon.