First O/T point:
You impugn my integrity. I admit to being unclear about this when you asked, because I would look at the whole temperature record, the known non-CO2 variations, etc. And to make a good answer i need to look MYSELF at all the scientific evidence. A full-time job.TallDave wrote:The fact apparently nothing would falsify AGW for you tends to prove my point global warming is more of a pseudo-religious belief than a scientific proposition. You also don't seem to see any problem with believing AGW is simultaneously too uncertain to be falsifiable in any reasonable time frame and 90% certain. Ah, the marvel of human rationalizations.
My current understanding (since I prefer to trust Hansen/GISS rather than random blogs, in absence of other evidence) is this:
(1) ENSO/PDO - currently cold. Can't predict certainly how effect of this will change since La Nina/El Nino etc events chaotic and cold/hot depends on which happens but current anomaly is -0.7C and very likely to change back to more + in next 12 months. Compare this with 0.2C/decade average increase from CO2.
(3) solar irradiance - currently at 50 year low. Not likely to get lower than at present. Whether it will increase again or stay low depends on whether sunspot cycle restarts as normal. Just suppose it does not, then effect is -0.2W/m^2 forcing (difference between max & min in solar cycle). This is equivalent to 0.15C.
So the current negative temp is result of -0.075C (solar) and -0.7C La Nina/El Nino events which themselves are influenced by ENSO/PDO. (PDO is broadly but not completely effect of ENSO).
Let me put this the other way around. How many more decades of increasing temperatures would you need to convince you that GW is happenning? Or would you just disbelieve the figures?