When did man made global warming begin?

When the first Caveman discovered fire and Oog Gore

threw a fit 200,000 years ago .

>>Can you point out the inaccuracies in the article?<<

"The warming during the periods of “1860-1880? and “1910-1940?, before anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions became potentially consequential, is “not statistically significantly different” from the warming during the periods “1975-1998? and “1975 to 2009?. Thus there is no indication that the warming between “1975-1998? and “1975 to 2009? is unnatural, unusual and/or caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions."

Reading this is like looking over the edge into the Grand Canyon of inaccuracies (aka stupidity).

Deniers always parrot the "correlation does not imply causation" line - and, yet, here we have an idiot claiming that a "not statistically significant" correlation" has something to do with the causes of those things.

In fact, there has never been a single instance here on Y!A where a Denier has used the term "statistical significance" in a way that indicates any understanding of the concept - because there are none here who know what it means.

Deniers see the word "significant" and stupidly assume that its mathematical meaning is the same as its English dictionary meaning (i.e, something that is important and meaningful) - it does not. It is true to the original meaning of the Latin word "significare" which means "to signify."

Here are a few tips for Deniers - unless they prefer stupidity (which seems to be the case for many of them):

1) Statistical significance has nothing to do with statistical importance or practical significance.

2) "Significant" does not mean "important" - and "not significant" does not mean "not important."

3) "Significance" means that the statistic is reliable (i.e., the sample population -to some degree of confidence - is an accurate representation of the true population) - it does not mean that the finding is important.

4) A low p-value (aka significance level) tends to weight against the null hypothesis (which is assumed to be true).

5) Although, by convention, a significance level of p=0.05 is frequently used, there is no mathematical requirement or reason for it.

6) A statistically significant finding only means that the null hypothesis is rejected - it does not mean that the "effect" (alternative hypothesis) is important - and it is not a measure of "how important" something is.

Tamino has pegged the new global warming regime as starting in 1975, a little bit before temperatures started rising.

It is possible that natural variation is currently masking global warming from CO2. Thus when the natural variation goes positive, then there will be a sharp uptick in temperatures. The flipside of that is that the the 1975-1998 increase was the high end of CO2 induced warming+natural variation, which means that overall global warming will be much less than the 4-5C being predicted. If we get .7C for 20 years followed by 20 years of 0C, then we are looking at less than 2C per century.

Wstts is a putz and anything coming from WUWT is 99% denier bullsh*t.

CO2 is one of the primary drivers of AGW and it man made contributions really started around the time we started using coal for industry and home heating.

According to NOAA, 2012 was the 10th warmest global temp on record and 2013 was the fourth. There has been no pause in GW

During the entire time humanity has been emiting significant amounts of CO2, there was no warming until 1977, which of course was a result of the PDO phase change. The warming stopped in 2003, which of course was because of the phase change of the PDO. And the warming will likely start again sometime around 2030.

AGW began when humans started burning fossil fuels.

<What really got me is how much man made CO2 we've added into the atmosphere during "The Pause" that alarmists say is not occurring and can also explain exactly why it is occurring.>

How about learning some science? Denialists believe in the gap out of blind faith. Realists will believe in the gap when they see some evidence of it. Don't blame me if I don't see a gap here.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1983...

But when I see some evidence, I have no problem accepting that global warming has slowed down.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001...

But it is explainable

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1964...

<And this is what is causing the pause

<http://phy>/

Congradulations. You posted a scientific link. Learn from it. Unless it is above your comprehension level.

<Alarmists: "Gahhhhhh, FACTS. Stop telling people FACTS.">

Only denialists are afraid of facts. Although they usually completely ignore them or call them lies or post videos of graphs taped to see-saws, or sing the praises of Joseph Goebbels.

If you had any idea of what-on-Earth you were talking about you would look at the actual energy budget, not only the surface measurements. According to you that excess energy miraculously disappears and does not warn the system. And he is using the 1998 El nino and subsequent smaller El Ninos up to the rather extreme La Ninas to make his short term trend. but then again you don;t understand any of this do you?

Good point why did we not have warming in the 60's and 70's, why did we have warming after 1975 which stopped 1999? none of it matches the CO2 curve

Ha! Ha! I asked this question a while back and got no reasonable answer except that of CRs. Which makes little sense.

We should be able to track this time scientifically, if it was true. However, since they can't even come up with a date, which they should be able to if it was true, one must realize that this is a total scam. I'd like them to come up with a definite date. THEN I could PROVE them wrong, according to Al Gore's theory.

With the rantings of the liberal lunatic and fat pig, Al Gore.