Global average near surface temperature is a seriously flawed statistic. No one lives in a global average region. Look out of the window and you see weather – nothing unusual in the context of the current 12,000 year old interglacial. We have ‘records’ because ‘records’ are short.

Maximum temperatures in Perth averaged at 25.3C, making 2010 the hottest year since records began in 1897.

Meanwhile, Perth recorded just 503mm of rain this year, well below the average 868.3mm, making it the second driest year on record.
The issue is called “GLOBAL” warming, not look outside my window and it’s cold so global warming must be a myth.
Secondly, no competent scientist denies that the planet has gone through warming periods in the past. The question is whether or not human activity will cause this warming period to be far greater, with more severe impact, than in the past.
We are coming out of a sun-spot minimum, which should have resulted in cooling, when in fact, it has not. That should have the alarm bells going off. The reality is that by ignoring or denying the issue, if in fact humans are causing warming, results in millions of deaths, extinctions, wars over water resources, etc. If warming scientists are wrong, or if the planet adapts to the human actions and corrects the warming trend, then all that is lost are tax dollars.
August West, Chaoticist

What happens is that the center of the CO2 bands (Gaussian/Lorentzian in shape) are saturated (in Earths atmosphere), but with increasing concentration the _width_ of the absorbing CO2 bands increases, with the edges of the band rising – hence more IR is returned to the surface.

As a mental picture, think of a Gaussian clipped to a maximum value. With each doubling of the Gaussian, the clipped/blocked section gets wider and wider.

Is that information correct?

Long over due.

Its a pity that Ggovermment agencies world wide responsible for producing national records didnt attach this caveat to their own products…same goes for the WMO as well.

Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?

Answer: Infinitesimal

Discussion: The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It’s no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann’s Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ