********************************EXCERPT********************************************
Jeff Id says:
I think that this sentence from the abstract is important:
Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.
The atmosphere has such low thermal mass that changes in heating from seasonal CO2 level, should be detectable. I havent read the paper and dont have time but if that is the point of it, it should be pretty interesting.
**********************************EXCERPT****************************************
Rob Z says:
Hmmm, seems suspicious to me. You may not know it but all the current weather forecasting models for local weather now have an input for CO2 concentration. Weve had particulate counts for some time and we now have CO2 counts. Warm humid air masses have little impact on local weather. ONLY the CO2 emmitted by the local power plant is important. Why just the other day I heard this weather forecast: The CO2 concentration rose by a 1ppm last night in AZ due to all the coal being burned and massive heat waves are expected in the form of snow in Phoenix and record cold across the sunny southwest. CO2 concentrations across the Himalayas are up 2ppm, expect continued drought across Australia in the form of standing water. CO2 continues to cause little weather change across the Hawaiian Island chain as temperatures remain moderate.
*******************************EXCERPT************************************
Benjamin Franz says:
What a strange journal.
This is in fact only the third volume ever published by the International Journal of Geosciences which published its first volume in Nov. 2010 (just two months ago).
The publisher, SciRP, has an interesting history.
At some point, you can’t just go on trying to base national policy on bullshit. I mean, you’d think there would have to come a point at which even the demoKKKrat congressmen would start to fear that their people were going to start to comprehend this stuff.