Let's take a step back here, I just want to make a quick comment of relativity. This might help put things in perspective.
Per the models, after the paper Mann signed, we are left with the potential of 1.1wm^2 of increased warming for a doubling of CO2 from the 1850's.
That is from 275ppm, to 550ppm. Let's assume that is fine.
At 400ppm, we are looking at 25% of that 1.1wm^2 - so, about .25wm^2. If the forcing was in play, that would be about .75wm^2, total input from 1850.
This fluctuates a bit here and there, SOON et al 2015 shows a very robust suggestion of up to 5wm^2 change (and the paper is open source, so
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
That is 1357wm^2 to about 1365wm^2, or maybe less.
Now, looking at the basic equation, what is there as a potential for a small change .5wm^2 or even 1.5wm^2 - so we can say the AGW element w/o forcing would be 33% of the total warming, or up to 60% of the warming if the forcing was part of it.
On the high side for TSI variation, at 5 or 6 wm^2 then you are looking at only being about 5% to 15% for the AGW element with or without forcing.
If we get to 550ppm, if we use the low TSI variable: then we are adding 1wm^2 to .5wm^2 output, a significant amount. If the forcing was in effect - that is a huge deal!
Where as, if we are adding 1.1wm^2 to 5wm^2, then we still are dealing with nearly 20% of the effect being from human production. Which is still significant, but one is scary and the other is dealable.
So I hardly think ignoring the CO2 output is stupid - we just have to see and study the TSI and related data far better so we can get a grasp on the true baselines.
As much as people are saying I am anti-science, the truth is I think the science is still rather poor. The US Government has spent billions on Climate - But very little on actually advancing the science. The IPCC is focused on what could be the damage of AGW. The US Gov has spend a lot of solar panels, carbon capture, batteries, and various related project, to the tune of over $80B.
But the dataset GHCN is fairly weak, the Surface Stations are fairly poorly sited, and we still have some big unknowns.
First we need to figure out a lot of variables. A LOT. We need models that track reality. We need a comprehensive surface station database. We need at least a second satellite.
I am very science on this. Lets science the shit out of this.