[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the comments:

********************************EXCERPT********************************************

Jeff Id says:

January 1, 2011 at 10:27 am

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 haven’t read the paper and don’t have time but if that is the point of it, it should be pretty interesting.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More:

************************************EXCERPT******************************************

mike sphar says:

January 1, 2011 at 10:30 am

Don’t ya just hate it when that sort of anti-correlation thing happens ? Must be all that climate disruption warmth causing cold this winter.

[palmer]

The atmosphere has such low thermal mass that changes in heating from seasonal CO2 level, should be detectable.

There's no way to show that. For one thing the solar input increase from summer to winter (at perihelion we are closer to the sun) dwarfs the decrease in CO2 forcing. Second, the seasonal change is altered by the large ratio of land in the NH to SH.

Bottom line is there won't any trace of a seasonal CO2 signal in climate. Seasonal analysis is a black hole for climate attribution studies.

[palmer]

The atmosphere has such low thermal mass that changes in heating from seasonal CO2 level, should be detectable.

There's no way to show that. For one thing the solar input increase from summer to winter (at perihelion we are closer to the sun) dwarfs the decrease in CO2 forcing. Second, the seasonal change is altered by the large ratio of land in the NH to SH.

Bottom line is there won't any trace of a seasonal CO2 signal in climate. Seasonal analysis is a black hole for climate attribution studies.