With this issue of SCC we finish the 3rd year for this journal. Our goal was to produce quarterly issues. A special issue with proceedings from the Copenhagen Climate Conference in September 2023 was published in the first part of December 2023 as volume 3.4. To our surprise we had interesting papers to fill another issue – which then became this volume 3.5. For the Editorial Board this is important because the Chief Editor has served his term, and we are uncertain when a new Chief-Editor and Editorial Board will take over.
The first article in this issue is written by Roy Clark who points out that the climate modelers have forgotten what Joseph Fourier wrote already in 1825 in his theory of heat: that we have seasonal delays between peak solar flux and the subsurface temperature response. This is clear evidence of a non-equilibrium thermal response, while the models assume thermal equilibrium.
Michael Schnell and Hermann Harde presents a Model-Experiment which shows that the temperature off a heated body depends on the infrared radiation of its colder surrounding, and that this does not contradict physical laws.
The statement in the latest IPCC-reports that all increased carbon in the atmosphere is due to anthropogenic emission, is challenged by Antero Ollila, who shows that this cannot be true, in particular if we study the13 C/12 C ratio.
The question of origin of the increase of atmospheric CO 2 is also discussed by Eike Roth, who argues, based on elementary physics and logic, that the increase in CO 2 is most likely is due to emissions from natural sources with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic sources.
Finally, the importance of CO 2 for the life on Earth is demonstrated by Forrest Frantz, who shows as an example, that the increase in CO 2 has resulted in a 13% increase in the leaf-index for the Scandinavian Peninsula the last 23 years. This has resulted in increased greening, increased crops and cooling the ground in the summer. For a healthy planet we need more CO 2 in the atmosphere – not less!
Another eye-opener is the essay by Richard Mackey who compares the difficulties for the scientific community to accept the theory of continental drift with the extraordinary antiscientific attitude shown by a large number of established scientists supporting the IPCC doctrine.
We are pleased to realize one of our goals which is to provide good science which challenge the established views. This is what brings science forward. We welcome contributors to a lively debate in future issues under a new editor.
The Editorial Board consists of Stein Storlie Bergsmark, Ole Henrik Ellestad, Hermann
Harde, Martin Hovland, Ole Humlum and Jan- Erik Solheim.