Saturday, May 28, 2016

How Much Warming Have Humans Caused?

How much did temperatures rise since 1900?

Differences in baseline (reference period) can result in dramatic differences in temperature rise. The U.K. Met Office HadCRUT4 dataset typically presents temperature anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 baseline. NASA typically uses a 1951-1980 baseline, but the NASA website allows for different baselines to be selected. When selecting a 1961-1990 baseline, the temperature of the past period of six months was 1.05°C (1.89°F) higher than this baseline, as illustrated by the NASA map in the left panel of the image below. But when compared to 1890-1910, the temperature of the past period of six months was 1.48°C (or 2.664°F) higher, as illustrated by the NASA map in the right panel of the image below.

A polynomial trend can reduce variability such as caused by volcanoes and El Niño events. The graph below was created with the NASA L-OTI monthly mean global surface temperature anomaly, which has a 1951-1980 baseline, and then with 0.29°C added, which makes the anomaly 0°C in the year 1900 for the added polynomial trend.

This gives an idea of how much temperatures have risen since the year 1900, with a rise for both February and March 2016 showing up that was more than 1.5°C, as also illustrated by the image below. The trend further points at temperature anomalies that will be more than 1.5°C (from 1900) within a decade and more than 2°C soon thereafter.

Temperature Rise before 1900

To see by how much temperatures have risen compared to pre-industrial levels, we need to go back further than 1900. The graph below shows that carbon dioxide concentrations have gone up and down between roughly 180 ppm and 280 ppm over the past 800,000 years and did recently reach a peak of 411 ppm (peak hourly average on May 11, 2016).

The graph below, from an earlier post, shows how in the past, over the past 420,000 years, temperatures (and levels of CO2 and CH4) have gone up and down by some 10°C, in line with the Milankovitch cycles.

Historically, carbon dioxide rises of 100 ppm have gone hand in hand with temperature rises of some 10°C. The recent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations is a 131 ppm rise (from some 280 ppm to 411 ppm). The rise in methane concentrations is even steeper. Could we therefore expect a temperature rise of more than 10°C to happen, and if so how soon could this eventuate? As described below, warming caused by humans could result in a temperature rise of more than 10°C (18°F) within a decade.

The graph on the right, created by Jos Hagelaars, shows that temperatures started rising some 20,000 years ago, reaching a peak some 7000 years ago (in the blue part of the graph). For more detail, also see the comic added at the end of this post.

The graph underneath, based on work by Marcott et al., focuses on this blue part of the graph, while using a 1961-1990 baseline. Temperatures reached a peak some 7000 years ago, and then came down to reach a low a few hundred years ago.

The peak and the bottom temperatures (highlighted in red on image on the right below) for that period suggest there was a fall of more than 0.7°C.

So, a few hundred years ago, temperatures were falling and they would have kept falling, in line with the Milankovitch cycles, had there been no warming caused by humans.

From that bottom point, temperatures first rose by about 0.4°C, overwhelming the downward trend that would otherwise have taken temperatures down further, and then there was an additional rise of at least 1.05°C, when using a baseline of 1961-1990, indicating that humans caused a total of at least 1.45°C warming.

Lewis & Maslin (2015) suggest that, since CO2 began to rise from a low point in 1610, that year could be taken as the start of the Anthropocene. The image on the right also shows that the year 1750 was a low point for CO2 levels and temperature, i.e. well below the baseline of 1961-1990.

The image on the right, from, shows CO2 levels and temperatures rising hand in hand from 1750.

Humans have caused even more warming

The situation looks to be even worse than what the above figures may suggest. Indeed, the bottom low point in the Marcott graph would have been even lower had there been no warming by humans. 

The fact that humans did cause substantial warming between 1800 and 1900 is illustrated by the graph below, from a recent post by Michael Mann, who adds that some 0.3°C greenhouse warming had already taken place between the year 1800 and the year 1900.
Some 0.3C greenhouse warming had already taken place by 1900, and some 0.2C warming by 1870
Further studies suggest that humans also caused substantial warming well before 1800, as illustrated by the image on the right. While this study focuses on Europe, it does suggest a rise from 1600 to 1800.

Another example of warming caused by humans before 1800 is presented in research by Dull et al., which suggests that burning of Neotropical forests increased steadily in the Americas, peaking at a time when Europeans arrived in the late fifteenth century. By 1650, some 95% of the indigenous population had perished. Regrowth of forests led to carbon sequestration of some 2 to 5 Pg C, thereby contributing to a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide recorded in Antarctic ice cores from about 1500 through 1750.

Since at least the fourth century A.D., coal has
been burned in China. W. F. Ruddiman further points in a 2007 paper at human emissions from burning biomass and irrigation, livestock and human waste, and the resulting climate system feedbacks. As illustrated by the image on the right, this had already caused substantial warming prior to the industrial revolution.

In conclusion, substantial warming took place before 1900, making that temperatures were higher than what they would have been had humans caused no warming. Greenhouse gases emitted by people held off a temperature fall that would otherwise have naturally occurred, and they caused a temperature rise on top of that.

Paris Agreement

NASA data suggest that it was 1.48°C (or 2.664°F) warmer than in 1890-1910 for the period from November 2015 to April 2016. Note again that this 1890-1910 baseline is much later than pre-industrial times. The Paris Agreement had pledged to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. On land on the Northern Hemisphere, it was 1.99°C (or 3.582°F) warmer (right map of the image below).

[ Temperature anomalies for the period from November 2015 to April 2016, see also comments ]
The above images only account for a half-year period (November 2015 to April 2016), so they are only indicative for what the total rise will be for the year 2016. Nonetheless, when taking into account warming caused by people before 1900, the year 2016 looks set to hit or even exceed the guardrails that the Paris Agreement had pledged would not be crossed. The situation looks even worse when considering that temperatures measured in ice cores already included a substantial amount of warming due to humans even before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

February 2016 was 1.67°C (3°F) warmer than 1890-1910
Again, at the Paris Agreement nations pledged to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

When looking at a single month, February 2016 was 1.67°C (3°F) warmer than 1890-1910 (see image right). When adding a mere 0.34°C to account for warming before 1900, total warming in February 2016 did exceed 2°C. Looking at it that way, the guardrails set in Paris in December 2015 were already crossed in February 2016.


So, what is the situation? On the one hand, there's the current observed temperature rise (∆O). This rise is typically calculated as the difference between the current temperature and the temperature at a given baseline.

However, this ∆O does not reflect the full impact of human emissions. Temperatures would have been lower had there been no emissions by humans. The full warming impact due to people's emissions therefore is ∆E. This ∆E is higher than the often-used observed rise, since the baseline would have been lower without warming caused by humans.

At the same time, part of global warming caused by people is currently masked due the aerosol emissions (∆A). Such aerosol emissions result mainly from burning of fossil fuel and biomass. There's no doubt that such emissions should be reduced, but the fact remains that the current temperature rise may increase substantially, say, by half when the masking effect disappears.

Thus, the full (unmasked) current warming caused by humans is the sum of these two, i.e. ∆E + ∆A, and the sum could be as high as 3°C or even more than 5°C.

In addition, there is a future temperature rise that's already baked into the cake (∆F). Some feedbacks are not yet very noticeable, since some changes take time to become more manifest, such as melting of sea ice and non-linear changes due to feedbacks that are only now starting to kick in. Furthermore, the full effect of CO2 emissions reaches its peak only a decade after emission, while even with the best efforts, humans are likely to still be causing additional emissions over the coming decade. All such factors could jointly result in a temperature rise greater than ∆E + ∆A together, i.e. ∆F could alone cause a temperature rise of more than 5°C within a decade.

In summary, total warming caused by humans (∆E + ∆A + ∆F) could be more than 10°C (18°F) within one decade, assuming that no geoengineering will take place within a decade.

The situation is dire and calls for comprehensive and effective action as described in the Climate Plan.

[ image from ]


- Methane Erupting From East Siberian Arctic Shelf

- Jos Hagelaars' graph, created with graphs by Shakun et al., Marcott et al. and more, is at:

- Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, by Shakun et al.

- A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, by Marcott et al.

- The Columbian Encounter and the Little Ice Age: Abrupt Land Use Change, Fire, and Greenhouse Forcing, by Dull et al., in:

- Arctic Climate Records Melting

- 2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility, Ulf Büntgen et al. (2011)


  1. Excellent article Sam.
    Thank you
    Take care and keep fighting


    1. I usually try to avoid replying to myself ;-)
      But I wanted to tel you I'm giving a go at translating this fine article for le Climatoblogue.
      I hope you still agree me doing this:-)
      And yes, I credit you and link to you in my article.
      Hope your Sunday is smooth.

      See you Sam

    2. Yes Jack, great to see the message shared in French at Le Climatoblogue.
      Sam Carana

    3. The effects of global warming, and CO2 induced ocean acidification are having severe impacts...
      I started reading studies made by Biologists and I wrote 2 articles on the very dire state of the oceans.
      Please check this out :
      If the methane monster is about to wake up. the Hydrogen Sulfide beasts are also on the rise.
      Hydrogen Sulfide is the biggest killer in precedent hothouse extinctions.

  2. Finally we are getting past the bullshit "Humans are causing most of the warming" as you so clearly show humans are responsible for all of the warming, plus some. Thank you Sam Carana.

  3. "The situation is dire and . . .".

    This defines what is meant by ye olde saying - "To dig one's own grave".

    That expression does actually mean something.
    As in - One cannot dig oneself out.
    Some 'other' may lift you out.

    In this case, however, there is no 'other'.
    No ever loving God, no silver bullet techno-fix, no fantasy white knight rescuer.
    Just magical thinking. A defining psychological trait of The Peak Primate.

    The Environment is going down; the food crops are going down.
    So goes The Peak Primate.

    1. Yes, the situation is dire. The more reason to support the Climate Plan.

    2. Actually if mankind could framework Open System Enterprise to best support and enhance Earth's Biosphere, the wheels of accounting can turn in direction of Error Correction and test fun and ingenuity Y like the big enough why to actually evolve specie new, symbiotic life form immunized against intelligence extinction. That is if we can surmount a bit of a handicap huge.

  4. Hello again Sam
    Article translated :-)))
    I'd have 1 favor to ask you if you please.
    Do you remember this spiraling graph
    Well, it's nice, but it's wrong.
    In February 2016, we crossed the 1,5°C mark
    The 1,5°C and 2°C goals are based on the 1880 average
    And btw, not pre-industrial era which most agree it began more or less in 1750.
    Well, that's what I think I know lol
    So, if the goal is really set on the 1880 average, could you please try to keep up lined onto that goal by using 1880 average.
    Have a nice day and thanks again for all your work
    Take care


    1. Good work, Jack. Yeah, many do wrongly calculate the 1.5°C and 2°C guardrails from the year 1880, instead of from the start of the Industrial Revolution. Hopefully, this post (and your translation) will help clarify this.
      Sam Carana

    2. BTW, this May 9, 2016, Ed Hawkins spiral uses anomalies (deg C) relative to 1961-1990, starting in 1850, based on HadCRUT4 Data.

    3. Hello Sam
      What I meant to say is the the 1,5°C and 2°C goals are based on the average temperature of the year 1880 by the IPCC and COP.
      It's why that spiral graph is incorrect, February 2016 was 1,58°C above the 1880 average and the spiral doesn't event cross that 1,5°C goal line.
      When they say the goal is to keep the rise compared to pre-industrial era, we know it's a fat lie. COP and IPCC are political entities, it's why they seem to not even notice when they lie; and most people don't have a clue of the difference it makes, or they just don't really know what they're talking about, like so many politicians...
      February 2016 would have been about 1,95°C warmer if we measured global warming from the 1750 (beginning of the industrial era) baseline and so, would almost touch the 2°C goal line.
      We need someone to redo that spiral graph, but based on 1880, and perhaps do it again based on 1750 :-)
      Take care and keep fighting


  5. I have been reading for several years that climate sensitivity to doubled co2 is about 3*C, with Skeptical Science backing up that assertion. Yet here it is showing 10*C with just 100 ppm increase in co2 concentrations from the Milankovitch cycles. I have to take some time to rethink what our earth future is with all this.