"The extra heat energy caused by the higher CO2 levels is in life itself and it seems that science is looking in the oceans when it is clearly in the nature all around them."
Dam that carbon cycle!
Congratulations on an interesting question. As a sceptic I obviously don't know and am reluctant to offer an opinion.
However, the scientists here should be all over this. The data and the models will all clearly show the exact date I am sure. It was probably a Monday.
Obviously, the start will ramp up slowly at first and then get a hold as more man-made CO2 is produced. Engineers have a method for determining rise times of waveforms like that so I expect the scientists have something much better.
This is a good opportunity for the experts to dive in and put aside the snears and prevarication and just state the facts.
There is no one year; both have gone on and continue to go on, but AGW is increasing and is now dominant.
If you mean when was AGW accepted as dominant over nature, again, there was no one year. The theory has been around for over a century but has only gained wide acceptance in recent decades.
Edit; No; no smoke or mirrors. The date AGW started can not be known , but Kano is probably on the right lines. For most of the history of AGW it has not been significant; only since the widespread use of fossil fuels began did it start to become a problem.
Real events can't necessarily be pinned down to a particulcar time period; AGW is a real event, it's start point can not be reliably determined and it is still occurring.
And yes; I do know what AGW is; it's people on your side who seem to struggle with their understanding of it.
I thought the IPCC said temps up to 1970 could be attributed to natural forcing but after that it was man made. I know the alarmists on here try to pretend that the weather BEFORE 1970 was always pleasant and we never suffered any tornadoes or hurricanes or floods. These things were all created after 1970 which proves that CAGW is real.
Hmm Markos got it wrong, the moment a sperm breaks through the cell wall it is human, even if it fails and dies.
1979 is thought to be the time when people started considering global warming,
But I suppose it would be when our ancient caveman ancestors discovered fire.
Edit. Of course not, but that's when man first started producing CO2, if your going to blame global warming on man (which I don't) that's when it started.
That question makes about as much sense as asking 'exactly at which second does an egg + sperm cell become a human being?'.
It's a gradual process and as you (especially) should know, the 'A' stands for assisted/accelerated - meaning that humans have an influence on, but don't dominate the global climate.
Let's see if I can make an analogy you can understand.
There is a mountain range. The wind and the rain have been eroding those mountains for thousands of years (or longer). Periodically, volcanic eruptions (the ash type, just so we're not having to deal with hardened lava) have been adding to those mountains, again for thousands of years or longer.
Someone comes to the mountain range, with a teaspoon, and takes a spoonful of dirt and moves it from one mountain peak to another. She keeps doing it. Another person comes. Then another. Soon, there are thousands, then millions of people, moving dirt from one peak to another.
At what point did anthropogenic processes (the people with the spoons) "take over" from natural mountain formation and erosion? Looked at from one view, the first time someone moved a spoonful of dirt. Looked at it from another view, never. The erosion and eruptions are still happening, but they are no longer the *only* force causing the shape of the mountains. And, eventually, the people with spoons are a larger influence, on average, than the natural erosion and formation that have been happening for millenia.
One eruption may add more dirt to a particular mountain than a few years' worth of people with spoons, and one particularly bad storm may erode more, just like changes in ENSO and PDO can exceed the changes in temperature from anthropogenic CO2 in the short term. But, on average, the shape of the mountains is being determined more and more by where the people with spoons move the spoonfuls of dirt, and less and less by natural erosion and eruptions.
edit:
in a sense, you're asking the wrong question.
We can make some good guesses of what the mountains would have looked like without the spoons, by measuring known natural formation and erosion events. If we look *only* at what the people with spoons do, we won't get the right answers for the current shape of the mountains. But if we look only at the natural events, we *also* won't get the right answers.
You seem to be suggesting that the Earth's average temperature transitioned in some perceptible way from a "natural" state, with no anthropogenic influences, to an "unnatural" one with no significant natural influences. It's more accurate to think of it in terms of percentages.
When the first person with a spoon moved the first spoonful of dirt, the mountains were technically in an "unnatural" state, *from that moment on*. There was dirt where it would not have been without human influences. But while it was still just the one person with the one spoon, the influence was so small that it is effectively lost in natural processes. Probably significantly less than 1%.
But by the time you have a million people with spoons, the human influences are larger than the natural ones--probably around 60-80%. But the natural influences are still *there*. And an occasional dramatic event can exceed the influence of a couple of years of spoons, even when there are thousands or even millions of people with spoons.
At what point in that gradual process do you consider the situation to be "unnatural"? Maybe at the first spoonful. Maybe when the spoons are causing about half of the changes. Maybe at some level between those--25%, say. Different people would draw different lines--not because they disagree about what is actually happening, but because they disagree about the precise definition of "unnatural".
Climate alarmist Tamino puts it at 1975. Though it looks like temperatures started rising after that, he has some statistical reasons for that conclusion.
Its all Natural.
Our rising global temperature is a natural result of Humans pumping giga tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
II think 1881 was when scientists realized that the Earth was warming and that humans may have a part in it
We haven't switched over...as the AGW hypothesis is a scam...a hoax...a political ruse. PSEUDOSCIENCE.
