Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA

refute something that NASA says is a fact: Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

I refute it all as fact. I don't doubt they believe that and can manipulate all of the data to support their position. But the fact is, CO2 was in the thousand PPM area before humans existed. Fact, sea level hasn't risen, look at the beaches of the Hawaiian Islands, the islands in the Carribean, I see no panic.

Where is the panic on those islands? Temperature increases, come now, that's been discussed on here for years, reconstructed datasets. that isn't fact. Again, it may be to them, but not to me. You can't do any better than that eh?

Oh I know, post that picture of Venice with the streets flooded from 2012 sixth highest, because of a storm. still like that today? Hmm, the water receded because it was ....due to a storm and not sea level rise. my Gawd.

So you think NASA is manipulating data because they have staked out a position ahead of time? What effing position?

NASA says

"Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4"

You say things like "look at the beaches" or " it's cold today, so the planet can't have warmed"

news flash: even your buddies in the led GOP Senate agree
Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change Is Real And Not A Hoax ThinkProgress​

BTW, I believe that climate changes. I believe that climate changes in cycles and daily. Not sure what you're after. What can I do for you that you haven't gotten out of the last couple of posts?

the world climate changes daily? how the eff do you know that?

Oh, you must be talking about your local weather

Ah, I see you don't know the difference do you? You should edumicate yourself.

Did you go to school with Special Ed Baiamonte ???

 

[IanC]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

 

[jc456]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

uh-oh, watch out you're going to get it from Dante now.

 

[Crick]

You reject "can be associated with"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

done some research. all of these are facts.

most scientists agree that climate change is human-made source 1 and source 2

there are no current scientific bodies of national or international standing (most if not all credible scientific bodies fall under here) that disagree with this source 1 and source 2

this is causing glaciers to retreat earlier and faster than they typically do and causes our oceans to gradually become more acidic source 1 and source 2

particulates in the air cause the stratosphere to become colder while making surface air hotter. this difference results in depletion of the ozone layer

warming causes food growth to slow or stop in the lower hemisphere source 1 and source 2

Nice to see your sources are all pro-AGW sites and most of the papers have been shown lacking in scientific fact. You use a lot of the SkS' boys laughable crap as fact.. John Cook is not a reliable person and neither is his site. The food growth one was funny as hell and has no basis in fact. You really should broaden your view and get it out of the cult faithful sites...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then can you provide some papers or studies from scientists or reputable weather groups that state it's man-caused? Or not man caused I'd love to read them either way so I can form an opinion.

Lets take this one at face value.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim a runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

That is Empirical evidence using the IPCC's own goal posts. By their own rules CAGW does not exist, CO2 attribution does not exist, the alarmist world comes crashing down. And now we have 18 years and 4 months of a zero trend or 12 years 4 months of a cooling trend all the while CO2 continues to show it is not coupled with temperature in any way.

The Null Hypothesis lays the premise waste..

proposing an idea and playing devils advocate here.

what if we were in an ice age currently, and it's simply supposed to be getting colder but GHG are keeping it at a level temperature? I don't know the answer to this so I'm just throwing it out there.

The problem is, were not going into a warmer climactic time. According to history we are at the end of the current warm period called the Holocene. when we drop into the next glacial cycle we will not be prepared because of the alarmists.

View attachment 39986
View attachment 39987

A drop of 6-10 deg C in just 20-50 years will be abrupt and no one unprepared will be spared.. even those prepared will take heavy losses.

Wonderful graphs. From the same guy that stated the water molecule is ten time bigger than the carbon dioxide molecule. 96 picometers for water, 235 pc for carbon dioxide. Billy Boob will post or state whatever lie he can to support his twisted views. He has zero credibility. And never posts links to check on the lying graphs he put up. Here is the real temps for the immediate past from many sources.
AOL Search

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperaturereconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicateuncertainty.

Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothemreconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average ofHadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).

Old Crock shows why he is NOT a good source for anything truthful.

 

[IanC]

Crick- I think your thinking has a lot in common with one of the methods used by BEST. They take thousands of temperature station records of unknown reliability, 2/3 up 1/3 down. They then rank the reliability on their expectation and weight the results on a scale from 2 to 1/13. Cooling is unexpected and therefore discounted. Warming is expected and heavily weighted. After 10 to 60 interations of adjustments they come to the conclusion that every station is warming.

You do the same thing with climate evidence. Anything that doesn't meet your expectations is discounted, anything that supports your point no matter how absurd is taken at face value. Hell, you won't even read contrary interpretations of the evidence so you don't even know there is another side.

I have never gotten a straight answer out of you on Mann's use of the upsidedown Tiljander cores. Is today the day?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

Wow! You're smatah than NASA?

cool

 

[IanC]

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

Wow! You're smatah than NASA?

cool

Did your broker talk you into buying subprime mortgage instruments back in the 2000's or did your BS detector go off?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

jc456
who are you asking this of? Non scientists?

well omfg! call the Pseudo-Scientific PC Police.

that isn't a very smaht thing to be banging your head against a wall over, but then again neither are you -- smaht

I'm asking those who tell me there are a thousand experiments that prove that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperatures. You know them right?

NASA: refute them Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence

go ahead. we all know you can do it.

refute what NASA says are facts

Wow!!! I hadn't realized how deeply NASA had drunk the koolaid. None of those factoids are uncontested science. Even the IPCC doesn't agree that extreme weather events can be associated with AGW.

Wow! You're smatah than NASA?

cool

Did your broker talk you into buying subprime mortgage instruments back in the 2000's or did your BS detector go off?

I was hounded by folks who wanted to help me buy a home with no income requirement, no money down, no questions asked..."Housing never goes down"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus is not a scientific word, only Cults use it

- said the blind man

no, the one who actually understands science.

says the idiot who mistakes idiocy for genius

and yet you can't point to any document that puts the word consensus with scientific definition. Provide one. All you have is climate inspired idots that think they know all of which they know nothing.

All you have is a creationist, a dj, and a loser statistician who doesn't know the first thing about climate science, all of whom are on the dole of the petrochemical indusry. Congratulations.

Poor little left wing commie has his little feelings hurt... How does it feel to be one uped by those people you are trying to impute..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Can you please state the theory of manmade climate change?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Can you please state the theory of manmade climate change?

Ben Dover, you still posting as Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

prove it. That's all I ask, prove it. You can't. You do know that before man existed, there were natural CO2 readings in the thousands? Right? Additionally, CO2 does not cause more warming. so no matter who makes it, it means nothing to global warming other than a conduit to let heat out into space.

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right, and that the models provided fail to track empirical data. period.

you poor little creature, ponder this:

Theory basics
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.

...

The evolution of a scientific theory
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

What is a Scientific Theory Definition of Theory​

Can you please state the theory of manmade climate change?

Ben Dover, you still posting as Frank?

^ how Dante says, "I don't know"

 

[lake avenue]

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

I guess that's true if you're too uneducated to know what radiance actually means.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I can see you demanding Einstein in the 1920s prove his theory

he would've invited it. You should read on who he was.

Climate scientists are constantly testing and challenging the theory. It is their own evidence people like you jump on, misread, and misuse.

you're the modern equivalent of those who attacked Einstein, but you are stuck using Alice's looking glass in place of a critical thinking skill set

gawd, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

my gawd, a theory is an answer to an outcome all I've ever asked for is one test that proves that adding 120 PPM of CO2 adds heat. Show me an experiment. Because the observed temps vs added CO2 in the atmosphere say otherwise.

Better than that, you can do a test yourself and see the results.

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. This shows that greenhouse gases are trapping heat radiation and less leaves. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere.

Graphs with no temperature axis as proof CO2 raises temperature, its a cosmic comedy routine

Channeling Carl Sagan? You truly are a talented man Ben

 

[lake avenue]

done some research. all of these are facts.

most scientists agree that climate change is human-made source 1 and source 2

there are no current scientific bodies of national or international standing (most if not all credible scientific bodies fall under here) that disagree with this source 1 and source 2

this is causing glaciers to retreat earlier and faster than they typically do and causes our oceans to gradually become more acidic source 1 and source 2

particulates in the air cause the stratosphere to become colder while making surface air hotter. this difference results in depletion of the ozone layer

warming causes food growth to slow or stop in the lower hemisphere source 1 and source 2

Nice to see your sources are all pro-AGW sites and most of the papers have been shown lacking in scientific fact. You use a lot of the SkS' boys laughable crap as fact.. John Cook is not a reliable person and neither is his site. The food growth one was funny as hell and has no basis in fact. You really should broaden your view and get it out of the cult faithful sites...

these sites are pro AGW because that's what studies show. I would expect them to be anti AGW if studies showed that. Not sure who 'SkS boys' are but regardless what I've posted is fact.

I assume you think John Cook isn't a reliable person because he believes in the truth; funny enough he's a First Class Honours Major in Physics and he's currently the Climate Change Fellow at the Global Change Institute. He's got pretty much everything you would need to be considered a reliable person in this area.

It's also really easy to say 'has no basis of fact' when it's authored by multiple reputable scientists.

I've really just realized how stubborn and incompetent deniers are. Something is only fact if it goes with whatever you think, regardless if the facts disprove what you think.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

done some research. all of these are facts.

most scientists agree that climate change is human-made source 1 and source 2

there are no current scientific bodies of national or international standing (most if not all credible scientific bodies fall under here) that disagree with this source 1 and source 2

this is causing glaciers to retreat earlier and faster than they typically do and causes our oceans to gradually become more acidic source 1 and source 2

particulates in the air cause the stratosphere to become colder while making surface air hotter. this difference results in depletion of the ozone layer

warming causes food growth to slow or stop in the lower hemisphere source 1 and source 2

Nice to see your sources are all pro-AGW sites and most of the papers have been shown lacking in scientific fact. You use a lot of the SkS' boys laughable crap as fact.. John Cook is not a reliable person and neither is his site. The food growth one was funny as hell and has no basis in fact. You really should broaden your view and get it out of the cult faithful sites...

these sites are pro AGW because that's what studies show. I would expect them to be anti AGW if studies showed that. Not sure who 'SkS boys' are but regardless what I've posted is fact.

I assume you think John Cook isn't a reliable person because he believes in the truth; funny enough he's a First Class Honours Major in Physics and he's currently the Climate Change Fellow at the Global Change Institute. He's got pretty much everything you would need to be considered a reliable person in this area.

It's also really easy to say 'has no basis of fact' when it's authored by multiple reputable scientists.

I've really just realized how stubborn and incompetent deniers are. Something is only fact if it goes with whatever you think, regardless if the facts disprove what you think.

About Skeptical Science

About Skeptical Science
The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.​

 

[lake avenue]

first, we can debate until the end of time that temperatures have gone up in the last 18 years four months.

Funny you say that since some of the hottest years in recorded history have been recorded in that time, the rising since 1998, 2005 and 2014 being the hottest in that time period.

Also, CO2 only holds heat in and does not reflect heat back to earth. That's a farce.

When did I say this?

CO2 has always and will always follow temperatures and why the earth has cycles.

Yeah, and if you've noticed, we're heating up and CO2 is following it.

Interruptions have changed the cycles over the millions upon million years. BTW, more LW is now found in the atmosphere out to space and there is no warming happening. How is that possible? It goes against what you just posted.

It may be because of the headache or the fact that I'm tired, but I don't know what the hell LW even is.