Carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed around the world. There is a lot more of it in the Northern Hemisphere especially lower in the atmosphere over areas of forested land. These areas are not hotter, quite the opposite. Indeed, the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is not at all straightforward.
And do you know why Northern Hemisphere forests seem to have measurably higher concentrations of carbon dioxide?
We are not told this. And we are not told that the Southern Hemisphere atmosphere has much less carbon dioxide; especially the further south you go.
Rather we are told simply stories with flat Earth physics as promoted by our King and also by the IPCC, and so many scientists who should know better than to be so equivocal and so fashionable. They should speak-up.
With the election of Donald Trump, I’m told by some that ‘climate change’ will become irrelevant, so there is no longer a need for them to speak-up.
Donald Trump will apparently pull out of the Paris Agreement and strip the phrases ‘climate change’, ‘clean energy’ and ‘environmental justice’ from every agency website.
But I know that the issue won't go away.
Across the Atlantic in London, especially at Buckingham Palace, I’m sure they will resist. This is the biggest issue for the King of Australia, and he intends to make it his legacy while not realising his own forests have some of the highest levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth.
Meanwhile, a few of us will continue to work quietly towards the development of a new theory of climate. Because we know that climate change is a natural hazard, and that we need a more reliable framework to be able to forecast weather and also floods and the direction of cyclones.
If you are interested in becoming a part of this resistance, consider subscribing at my weblog and in particular ticking the box that says, ‘New Theory of Climate’. It is here:
https://climatelab.com.au/subscribe/
The following graphic is from a paper in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, by Mohamadou Diallo published in 2016 entitled ‘Global distribution of C02 in the upper troposphere and stratosphere'.
I continue to be grateful to the B.Macfie Family Foundation for all the funding, over all the years.
The Diallo graphs show that CO2 is not a well mixed gas and that is particularly true between the hemispheres. Which is one reason why the claimed seamless blending of Antarctic Southern Hemisphere CO2 data with that from Northern Hemisphere Mauna Loa is yet another data 'blending' (as in Kitchen Blender) exercise. The Antarctic data should have been several ppm less than the Mauna Loa, but they made it the same to suit the story. A fiddle already noticed when the 'adjusted' the Siple ice core data to match exactly Mauna Loa
Some years ago I suggested that most CO2 is above the sun warmed ocean surfaces beneath the subtropical high pressure cells in both hemispheres.
When the general west to east airflow encounters land it slows down and CO2 accumulates.
The densest vegetation is generally in locations beneath those accumulations.
Those ever elusive clouds appear to be on the menu today .... so would you like a peer-review with that .... gee even the ABC are running clouds today, must be something in the air .... but wait there's more 🙂 nobody knows what Albedo is going to do ... oh another day another round of mongering but without that all important and ever reliant peer-review just another day of sensationalism ... lets find Albedo
"
Low-level clouds tend to thrive in a cool and moist lower atmosphere. As the planet’s surface heats up, this can cause them to thin or dissipate entirely, setting up a complicated feedback loop where low clouds are disappearing because of global warming, and their disappearance then drives further warming."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/climate/global-warming-clouds/index.html
An immediate sign today of insecurity requiring self justification is to cast ye old peer-review failure syndrome into the equation. Wonder what so called reviewers would have done if Einstein had diligently submitted his theories for peer-review? One can only image the political and scientific backlash at such obscure thinking going against all the experts!
Peer-reviews in modern society after many years of experimentation are a failure, just some haven't accepted yet how it is degrading the actual science.