If you can show me real evidence (which I'm sure you can), that's fine. But most evidence I see via mainstream media, I'm sure is not any kind of real evidence.
Most people doing the talking don't much more of an understanding then I do... which isn't much.
Your problem is as much in terminology as anything else.
AGW
influences the weather and atmosphere/ocean/ice for the whole planet with the northern regions showing the most dramatic shifts.
You need a more global picture...yes Ontario has been record cold, but yes Alaska has record warmth and the US is the sixth warmest winter on record.
One of the marked aspects of AGW is increased extreme weather events.
For you to understand the connection between a warmer Arctic Ocean, the jet stream waver, Arctic dipole and then how it connects to a mild El Nino pattern in the Pacific that breeds warm streams of air up the east coast colliding with the Polar Vortex bringing record snow to Boston......that is a lot of dot connecting.
It is also an emerging field in that climate scientists cannot say the outcomes for regional impacts.
We are globally moving into climate/CO2 regime not seen for millions of years...we are only at the edge and already some of consequences are both astonishing and some unexpected.
More snow and more extreme snow storms are two different things regionally.
We hear about the extremes...so do the insurance companies.
An area might be getting less overall snow for a winter while getting more extreme snow storms.
The weather events are influenced by the changed energy balance due to AGW.
How those influences play out are many times unpredictable in the specific but not unexpected given changed conditions.
For instance two severe cyclones hit Australia last weak.
The one in the tropical north was typical tho stronger than average, AGWs role would be minor - perhaps the hotter ocean turning a Cat 3 to a Cat 4.
But the Category 5 that hit way south of normal....that spun up in mere hours from a tropical storm to an extreme cyclone in an area not prone to such storms.
The ocean in some regions is 5C+ above long term averages....threatening reef structures with severe loss AND providing fuel for heat engine cyclonic storms.
Did AGW CAUSE the cyclone, no, but it set the conditions where what would be a normal tropical storm for area could become a destructive monster in 48 hours.
It's something too many in your shoes overlook in concentrating on the atmosphere records and events.
The 900 lb gorilla in all this is the ocean heat ...both in the Arctic and in the Pacific.
Scientists continue to learn and explore how the movement of increased heat between the ocean and atmosphere ( and ocean and glaciers ) plays out
In general, what they learn is not particularly good news ( ie the Ridiculous Resilient Ridge is not good for California and the US Southwest at all).
Only you can decide to take the time to learn to connect the extreme weather dots the media love to the changes AGW is engendering in various regions.
And understand that in many cases it's not clear to the climate scientists themselves how long term decadal patterns like PDA, NAO and more frequent events of ENSO ( el Nino/La Nina ) interact with the changing energy balance.
In general....Here be Dragons ...is a good watch phrase for those interactions.
It's fascinating, scary and under it....despite the howls and clamour...it's getting warmer, we're responsible primarily due to burning of fossil fuels.
To mitigate those extremes for the future - we need to get to carbon neutral.....a very difficult and long term task.
Even given that....we HAVE already altered the climate for the future and are dealing with the consequences right now.
We're not in Kansas any more Toto....
.
