What a dishonest assertion. warmair, you know very well that Nature will continue to produce CO2 and you want to pretend that human emissions will add 3% a year to a quantity of CO2 which will remain static except for the addition of human emissions. I say you are dishonest, because you would have to be as stupid as ant, to believe what you are saying. Come back when you have some science. You have contributed enough nonsense. Goodbye, warmair.

Leo
I have no idea why you should wish to deny facts. Co2 levels have risen by over 40% since 1850. If you want dispute some aspect of climate science, there are plenty of topics you could discuss, but disputing simple observations is ridiculous.

You might like to have a look at the Siberian Times ,Leo. Temperatures are up; but weather patterns are extremely variable. These out of kilter weather patterns are happening around the globe.

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/features/weather-goes-crazy-in-siberia-with-record-high-temperatures-then-july-snow/

Usually methane is measured in parts per billion; but, methane sitting in the base of a blowout in Siberia; previously referenced, has been measured at 9.6% of the air at the base of one of the craters.

http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

To just write this off as fraud Leo, you need your brain firmly placed up your fundamental orifice.
Scientists are in the process of trying to work out the mechanism for these blow outs.

"But Plekhanov and his team believe that it is linked to the abnormally hot Yamal summers of 2012 and 2013, which were warmer than usual by an average of about 5°C." from Nature article above.

The nonsense about CO2 has been obvious since the inception of the climate fraud, with the assertion that CO2 was the cause of global warming, when it has been obvious that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere followed global warming, and did not precede it. The recent increase in CO2 should have caused warming, if the fraud-backers were right, instead of which we have seen a halt in warming, which the climate liars refer to as a “pause”.
Murray Salby makes sense of it all, with his finding that the temperature governs the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The CO2 content, as has now been abundantly observed, does not govern the temperature. The climate frauds have no science to counter this, but members of the fraud-promoting Climate Commission are part of Macquarie University, which has treated Salby disgracefully, for daring to produce valid science, exposing the climate fraud, and the ridiculous demonizing of CO2.
Any chance of you acknowledging the science, warmair? No chance of ant, she does not even understand the question, or she would not continue to post irrelevant nonsense,

Leo, once again you claim fraud has taken place without any evidence.
You know better than NASA what is happening in relation to CO2, and scientists from a number of august scientific bodies believe the same in relation to the impact of CO2.
Please give the names of scientists who have been found guilty of fraud in relation to their climate change science.

Your suggestion that fraud has taken place would need to have charges laid against the Royal Society of Science and the apex science group of pretty well every nation ( NASA lists 197 scientific bodies who support the notion of anthropogenic climate change).
Objective persons only make charges of fraud when those charges have been proven beyond doubt.

Please show how we should not be concerned about the methane blow holes, Leo.
In pre-industrial times methane measured around 700 ppb; methane levels have been recorded at around 1950 ppb lately; yet, in one of the blow holes it has been recorded at 9.6% of the air volume.

Leo
Acknowledging the science.

The first question that science has to answer to answer is this
Why is the average surface global temperature about 15 Deg C, but when if we look down on the earth from space and measure the global temperature with an infrared thermometer does it read as minus 18 deg C?

Basic science tells us that everything that is above absolute zero is emitting radiation, which in turn causes the object to cool. It also tells us that if you double the temperature the object emits 16 times as much radiation

The question above is very interesting, because it indicates something in the atmosphere is severally restricting the flow of radiation to space, and that something accounts for the 33 deg C difference we observe between the surface temperature, and the global temperature observed from space. We know from experiments that water Co2 and other GHGs absorb certain types of radiation, which accounts for the large chunk of the radiation that one would expect should escape to space, but never makes it. It should be obvious that adding more CO2 and GHGs will further restrict outgoing radiation and thus raise surface temperatures.