What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940's if not man?

Question

I am confused. Everyone says we are causing the warming, but, looking at this graph, I see that there was also drastic warming from about 1910 to the 1940's. Since everyone agrees man is not responsible for this warming, what caused it? And if it was able to cause it 70 to 90 year ago, how do we know it is not the same cause of the current trend?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Dana,
Exactly how are you contributing this to "man"? Exactly how are "scientist" able to decide how much was the sun, and how much was man? Also, what was the cause of the Medival warm period, since man had NO hand in that period?

Shilo,
You may want to investigate some more. The "models" are programmed to show CO2 as the driver of temperature. And yet studies show that it is not the primary driver. Also, the models do not contain nearly all the possible factors at work. Currently, they model a few dozen factors. There are millions! I have yet to see a AGW model which actually includes cloud cover (because it is a negative force).

In modelling, I can make data give what ever results you would like to see. I ncurrent AGW models, they are programmed to have CO2 drive the climate. Funny that every year, new models come out with different predictions than last years model. Seems to me, they may not have this modeling stuff down.

Answer 1

Exactly -the temps from the 1910'sto the 1940's increased faster then they have today.

The problem is that there were no SUV's back then, so it's hard to blame man.

As you see by the answers, the story has to be weaved, facts contorted to make it appear that it was the sun or other reasons then and not today.

Answer 2

The climate of Earth is governed primarily by the series of regular cycles that both the Sun and Earth go through. Since the dawn of time these cycles have caused Earth to warm and cool.

Because they're cyclical they're also predictable. The simplest of these cycles is the rotation of Earth (day) and it's orbit around the Sun (year). The other cycles, although more complex, are equally as predictable. Consequently at any point in the past, present ot future we know just where the planet will be within the various cycles. From there it's a case of adding up the warming and cooling components to get a net figure, this tells us how much the planet will be naturally warming or cooling by. These constants are as regular as clockwork.

However, it's not quite so simple because there are a number of variables that need to be factored into the equation. These variables include the oceans, ecology and biomass to name but three.

During the period you mentioned - 1910 to the 1940's the constants combined and produced a significant net warming, in this instance it was primarily the Sun.

Since the mid 1940's the contribution played by natural cycles has been a very small one. In fact, the immediate contribution is a slightly negative (cooling) one - not enough to make a significant impact on the climate but a cooling one all the same.

It's for this reason that there's a lot of concern about what's currently happening with the climate. Theoretically it should be cooling slightly, in reality it's warming faster than has ever before been known.

Answer 3

Why bother fearing global warming? That's the path backwards. Remember the 1970s and the fuel economy laws and the smog laws, and people went "No no this is outrageous it's going to make cars worse?" Yeah there were some teething pains early on, but look at cars now! They are better in every way. Your average Lexus sedan has more horsepower than 2-ton musclecars had in the 60s. Cars handle better, they're safer, more comfortable, more reliable, more fun! Oh yeah, and they get great fuel economy and the skies are cleaner. Who would want to go back!? This is how Americans do things. So why fear and loathe global warming? It's going to be a catalyst for some amazing leaps in technology that, as usual, will make us the envy of the world.

Answer 4

If you had bothered to read the entire article, you would have seen the link to the global; warming article. In that article you would have seen the following:

"Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate.[50] These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions."

Try actually reading the articles. They explain quite a bit.

**Gee, I'm sorry, I was responding to your original question. The articles clearly state that we are not sure what caused the increase between 1910 and 1945, but that it is pretty clear that the increase since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Your original question asked how we know the same thing that caused the increase from 1910-1945 could not be the same thing that caused the current increase. I answered that question. I said nothing about any models or CO2 or anything else. I was simply pointing out a fault in your logic. Just because we don't know what caused the increase in 1910-1945 DOES NOT mean that we cannot know the cause of the most current increase.

I answered your original question, and am not interested in watching you "prove" your point by changing the subject.

Answer 5

Man must be responsible for the increased warming during that period. If it wasn't man then it would have to be some naturally occurring event. This would mean the global warming proponents are wrong when they assert that man is the primary cause. You must be some kind of conservative to talk this way.
How dare you suggest that the God Al Gore is wrong. Don't you know you are not allowed to bring forth any evidence that doesn't support his ideology?

Al Gore spoke to his followers from on high and ordered them to believe in man made global warming or suffer the punishment of being shunned and insulted by the far left zealots. He further decreed that the debate is over. Any further discussion is a sin. Follow him blindly and he will led you to a rosy future where Liberals rule in a bankrupt nation. Thus spake the might Al Gore.

Answer 6

That's been a sticking point ever since the greenhouse gas theory was first proposed.

To a lot of people from other fields, the greenhouse theory sounds plausible and may go part of the way to explaining the earths climate, but the theory just doesn't fit the past data very well. There's obviously other things happening.

Answer 7

The Sun! There was also a long warming period from about 800 to 1400 - can't blame that on the industrial revolution! And, of course, 'global warming' ended the 'mini ice-age' that followed that warming period (and coincided with the dark ages).

Answer 8

I attribute the rise to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation being in its warm phase. It turned to the cool phase from 1945 to 1975 and global temps went down. It went back to its warm phase in 1975 and just ended its warm phase and has entered a new cool phase. I expect 2007 to be cooler than 2006 and 2008 will be cooler than 2007 and so on.

CO2 has had some impact on warming but most of it is still natural.

Answer 9

did any also notice a huge temperature spike in the 1880's to around when Krakatoa erupted or how about the temperature and the average were downward in the years following 1998 where those man-made too?

Answer 10

The sun. If you notice in this article, there is a great correlation between the sun and temperatures. Notice also in one of the graphs how sun activity starts to raise at around 1910. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/The_Geologic_Record_and_Climate_Change.pdf