Message to the Media – HOW DARE YOU-Naomi Seibt


Naomi’s YouTube Channel

117 thoughts on “Message to the Media – HOW DARE YOU-Naomi Seibt

  1. Wow, excellent, and what a charming and thoughtful young woman. I will use your links to see what else she has to say and put a few things aside for the occasional addlepated adolescent I try to help…most are not very help friendly though I have to say, and for those I get out the big stick if they are mouthing off and give them a lesson in humiliation by fact, hoping that this will at least go some way to de-militarizing them for fear of setting off further incendiaries that blow back in their faces. This is another way of inserting a question mark in their fact free heads.
    Thank you all for your excellent and amusing comments and articles guys….where would we be without you? I’m in Sydney now and we are having a significant weather event right now, I can see a startled looking possum on the deck handrail right now hoping for some food…so will away to fulfill my ecological obligations.

  2. It would be nice if it ever skeptic realised that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect.
    No such thing as back-radiation from the cold air heating the ground.
    No such thing as dangerous industrial carbon dioxide emissions.
    And above all there is no man-made climate crisis.

    There are however many real environmental problems to address, all of which require cheap, abundant and easily transportable energy to solve.

    Comparative Planetology: Establishing the Role of Meteorology in the Science of Climate.

      • “Everything above 0 K radiates.”

        Straw man.

        Philip Mulholland neither stated the opposite nor implied it.

          • “In fact he did.”

            But you failed to say where. You also fail to know the difference between radiation and heat.

          • Indeed. He seems to be one of those radiative flat-earthers who thinks photons have to apply for an entry visa for where they are going before they leave home.

            “There are however many real environmental problems to address, all of which require cheap, abundant and easily transportable energy to solve.”

            Very good bottom line. But sadly when you start your argument with a scientifically ignorant statement that just about no one on the planet agrees with, you’ve lost any chance of gaining traction the “real environmental problems “.

          • Paraphrasing a bit, Philip wrote that cold air cannot radiatively heat the ground –“ground” meaning the warm surface of Earth. That seems pretty uncontroversial.

            When criticizing, including the complete context is analytically critical and an ethical requirement.

          • The statement was intellectually dishonest or confused. A cold object which is less cold, will have less of a radiative cooling effect. Think of cold clouds preventing surface cooling at night, leading to a warmer surface than a cloudless night.

          • mario lento. Don’t know who you are replying to but the earth’s surface emits far infrared radiation. Clouds made are made of water droplets do no absorb far infrared radiation.

            That’s why clouds slow down the escape of heat from the earth’s surface.

          • clouds made up of ice crystals so you got that wrong. The rest of what you wrote contradicts your premise.

            Clouds are cold, but less cold than a clear sky as far as radiative transfer. Hence, there is an effect of less cooling of the surface when clouds are present.

          • mario lento. I was talking about low clouds which are mainly made up of water droplets.

            Otherwise, I’ll stick to the rest of my explanation.

            “Clouds are cold, but less cold than a clear sky as far as radiative transfer. Hence, there is an effect of less cooling of the surface when clouds are present.”

            So because clouds are not as cold as a clear sky there is less cooling?

            What radiative transfer? By water droplets in clouds that do not absorb far infrared radiation?

            Did you just make this up?

          • Pat, it’s only uncontroversial if you know nothing about how radiance and conductance works.
            Anything above absolute zero radiates. Whatever that radiation hits will be warmer than it would have been absent that radiation.
            Basic physics.

          • “Leitmotif: Stop reframing. You’re confused, which is understandable.”

            That quote is from the sophistry handbook, isn’t it?

          • “Leitmotif: Stop reframing. You’re confused, which is understandable.”

            That quote is from the sophistry handbook, isn’t it?

            Leitmotif: You’re again reframing away from the subject matter. You’re not going to gain intellect until you’re willing to stay focused. My assessment is that you do not understand clouds, or the difference between heat, radiation, or basic principles of physics. But you are very good at wasting time.

            I come here to learn by others who posit well formed thoughts. You seemingly have not yet tried that approach.

          • “He made the claim that it’s impossible for radiation to warm something.”

            He said nothing of the sort.

            He said, “No such thing as back-radiation from the cold air heating the ground.”

            He was talking about heat not radiation. A block of ice will radiate towards you but it won’t heat you.

            If you don’t know the difference then you shouldn’t be criticising those who do.

          • “Back radiation is still radiation.”

            You said, “He made the claim that it’s impossible for radiation to warm something.”

            He did not. Where did he say that? Stop making stuff up.

          • leitmotif
            A block of ice will radiate towards you but it won’t heat you.

            So igloos don’t work? Except they do.


            You know what that is? That’s Stephan Boltzmann Law. Not only does everything over 0 deg K radiate energy, we can calculate exactly how much and have verified it by experiment, to several decimal places. That energy has to go someplace, and to argue that it cannot increase the temperature of something that it hits is absurd. The argument that this means you can heat your house with ice cubes is equally absurd and suggests a complete misunderstanding of how SB Law works. The question is not if heat from the ice cubes warms your house, the question is how much they warm your house compared to something either colder or hotter than the ice. Something colder, obviously less than the ice, something hotter obviously more than the ice, and only something hot enough to off set the cooling of the house (which is in turn dependent on what is outside the house and its relative temperature compared to the house) can warm it over and above the temperature of the environment it is in.

            Similarly, i can pick up a sweater at room temperature, 20 deg F less than my body temperature, and in a few minutes the sweater has made me warmer.

            But I’ve gotten involved in enough of these idiot discussions over the years at WUWT to know that the sky dragon cult suffers from the same affliction that the alarmist cult does. They believe what they want to believe, and no amount of logic or explanation of the physics will appease them.

            Mosher’s response may be snide and unconstructive, but I predict it will have as much influence on the sky dragon arguments as mine. Having the facts when dealing with both alarmists and sky dragons is futile, and I’m not sure why I bothered to type this reply.

        • Philip

          According to Greg you are a radiative flat-earther who doesn’t believe that photons from the cold air can heat the warmer planet surface.

          It’s cold where I am now so I”ll go outside and see if the cold air can heat me.

          No. Didn’t work. I’m even colder now. 🙁

          • If you think that’s a valid experiment, no wonder you have come to believe that radiation can’t warm.

          • Philip define “heat”. This is a fundamental issue with most CAGW arguments. What is meant by “warming”. Making the temperature go higher? Or making transferring energy from one place to another? I can “heat” ice water with a bunsen burner and the temperature won’t change but I have transferred energy to it.
            So, based on your above statement that heat is not temperature, I would add that temperature is not a measurement of energy either.
            So if you are claiming it does not “heat”(get energy) because the temperature does not rise you are wrong. If you are claiming it does not “heat”(temperature rise) you are correct.

          • “Define “heat””

            I have already defined heat for MarkW @ February 9, 2020 at 9:36 am, but he did not get it.
            So for the benefit of the tape. Heat as in heat engine.
            The atmosphere is a heat engine.
            A heat engine can only function if there is a difference in temperature between source and sink.
            So heat is difference in temperature.

          • Yep somehow my wall of my super insulated house, were radiating something when the outside air was -30 F and it certainty was not heat. The simply fact you are leaving out the flow it normally from hot to cold not the other way around, in the real world the objects will get to equilibrium, and the original hot one will never be hotter than it started out.

          • And a thing that radiates cools itself. Warmer things radiate more energy than cooler things. Now do the math.

          • Then you have to consider the whole system: the warmer ground also radiates towards the ice cube (or colder air as you wish) and cools off during this process. In the end, the cold air gets more warmth from the warm ground than vice-versa. Heat always goes spontaneously from the warm source to the cold sink. If you want it the other way around, you need to apply work (2nd law of Thermodynamics).

          • You don’t think something can radiate cold. You certainly did not grow up in a climate that get cold and I mean cold you know around where the C and F scale meet, not where water freezes. Cold water does not warm my hand, it cools it, the cold water does radiate but the heat flow the opposite direction the warm object get colder and the cold object get warmer.

          • “If it radiates, then it warms. That’s what radiation does.”

            Lol. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

            I’m going to fill my house with huge ice cubes and save on heating bills!

            “It’s getting cold, dear, bring in another ice cube!”

          • MarkL, now think to yourself, does your heater have to work harder when the outside is -30F or when it’s -20F. Both cases, the outside air is colder than the inside air.

          • Since the rate at which energy is being added to the system remains constant, then anything that reduces the net outflow of energy will cause the system to warm.
            Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere, even though it is still colder than the ground, will cause the ground to be warmer than it otherwise would have been.

            You need to spend a little more time studying thermodynamics.

          • Leitmotif, would your house be colder if you filled it with ice cubes or dry ice?

            Once again, you demonstrate that you are incapable of actually studying the science involved.

          • “Once again, you demonstrate that you are incapable of actually studying the science involved.”

            Precious! That’s a keeper. :-DDDD

            “I think that last block of ice made the room too warm, dear.”

          • What is it about sky dragons and their unwillingness to understand even basic science.

            To go with your absurd analogy, the correct question is, would your house be warmer if it was full of ice, or dry ice.

          • MarkW wrote: “If it radiates, then it warms.” That is not technically correct.

            Radiation is a transfer of energy, so any radiating object can transfer energy to any other object.

            However, “warming” is more complex, and it means “getting hotter”, which is not the same as “getting cold more slowly”. A colder object cannot make a warmer object *even warmer*, by itself. (Absent any other elements in the system.) That’s the 2LoT for you.

            But the system in discussion here has at least 3 objects in it: A, B, and C, where A is the sun (very hot), B is the earth (medium hot), and C is the atmosphere (cold). The presence of C can certainly reduce the rate at which B loses the heat it is gaining from A, much like a blanket. That makes B warmer than it otherwise would be in the absence of C (but not because C is “warming up” B by transferring energy to it by radiation).

            And none of this is related to the argument about whether an atmosphere in a gravitational field will exhibit a thermal gradient at equilibrium, which is the sky dragon argument. That’s a whole other discussion, which the radiationists lost.

            Can we put this to rest now? (not that I expect the argument to follow the 1st law of motion and remain at rest once put there)

          • Steve, one minor note “warming” is used to mean temperature rising when it supports CAGW and it is used to mean energy transfer when it supports the CAGW argument.
            I.E. the planet is still “warming” because the heat is going into the oceans where we can’t measure it.
            Which is why I would encourage MarkW and others to define “warms” before having a radiation discussion.

    • In your article, you wrote: ‘The official definition that climate is the average of 30-years of weather…’ Who has officially defined climate this way? It’s not the dictionary definition, and a quick search turned up no definition in these terms?

      As for ‘No such thing as dangerous industrial carbon dioxide emissions’, can you explain why the industrial burning of tens of millions of years of accumulated biomass, compressed and accumulated as coal, in just 150 years (and exponentially during that time) has had no impact, dangerous or otherwise, on the atmosphere, oceans and climate of the world?

      • WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals.

        “The general recommendation was to use 30-year periods of reference. The 30-year period of reference was set as a standard mainly because only 30 years of data were available for summarization when the recommendation was first made.”

        “As for ‘No such thing as dangerous industrial carbon dioxide emissions’, can you explain why the industrial burning of tens of millions of years of accumulated biomass, compressed and accumulated as coal, in just 150 years (and exponentially during that time) has had no impact, dangerous or otherwise, on the atmosphere, oceans and climate of the world?”

        So what impact do you think it has had? Or better, still show us what impact it has had.

      • The definition of climate
        Comes from Latin word klinein to lean.

        The 30 years is not a fixed definition, but the most generally used period. My father used to say 40 years, so I guess that if you do not mention a time frame, then 30 years is implied these days.

        To you other question about fast burning of long term stored energy/biomass, this has been a discussion since late 1960’s. For sure it will have some influence, but until now there has been no evidence of noticeably practical effect, apart from some greening of the planet.
        As Naomi may very well say, look at the actual data from reliable sources and use common sense, the world is a big place.

      • Carbon does not “burn” – it gets released and redistributed. The CO2 released was always part of Earth’s atmosphere/biosphere/crust system. Releasing CO2 to the atmosphere results in its availability to feed green plants via photosynthesis, and to feed marine organisms to allow them to build carbon-based hard skeletons, where eventually the carbon returns to the crust, and to feed all green plants that are the basis for our entire planetary ecosystem.

        The amount of carbon in gigatons mass that is released via combustion is infinitesimally small and insignificant compared to the mass of carbon now residing in the oceans, crust, and living things alive today.

        Releasing carbon is no more “destroying the planet” than is you yourself taking your next breath … or a polar bear or a parakeet taking their next breaths … or a forest of trees or a cornfield or a flower garden inhaling the very same carbon to feed themselves and grow and reproduce.

        Every single thing man does is natural and part of an integrated and extremely complex Earthian-astrophysical system.

      • ***can you explain why the industrial burning of tens of millions of years of accumulated biomass, compressed and accumulated as coal, in just 150 years (and exponentially during that time) has had no impact, dangerous or otherwise, on the atmosphere, oceans and climate of the world?***

        Read the following with respect to CO2. David is not the originator. This is also on a NASA site but the CAGW types prefer to ignore it. Their excuse is that there are feed backs which cause warming. However, NOBODY has measured positive or negative feed backs, only theorized about them. IPCC prefers to talk only about positive feed backs.
        So you will note that MOST of the effect of CO2 is in the first 20 ppm. So a doubling from 400 ppm will have a very minor effect and it could easily be masked by positive OR negative effects. For example, one claim is that warming will add more moisture. Maybe, but this will likely cause more cloud which will reflect solar radiation, negating the heating and re balancing the earths temperature. Read some of Willis Eschenbach’s posts.

        David Archibald shows how the effect of increasing CO2 decreases logarithmically as CO2 increases in the following:
        There is also another article on the Logarithmic heating effect of CO2:
        An important item to note is that the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.

        • Gerald

          There an essential element missing from your otherwise good description which is that the concentration of all GHG’s tends to zero, the temperature of the atmosphere rises due to heating by the (now naked) surface, which heats an atmosphere that has nearly no ability to cool radiatively. This is simple enough physics for everyone to understand.

          The temperature of a no-GHG atmosphere say, 1 km above the ground would be over 100 due to the lack of a cooling ability. GHG’s cool by radiation. Absent that capacity, it can’t cool, yet surface heating by convection heat transfer would continue each day. This is is not a trivial effect

    • the cold air above ,prevent surface heat from leaving as fast as a vacuum would..
      consider the fast hear loss in the highlands of earth… a thinner atmosphere allows
      more heat to escape to space ..

    • Phillip:

      Carbon Bigfoot posted
      February 7, 2020 at 2:27 pm
      The problem still remains CO2 has no influence on temperature–sorry to burst you balloon. If anything CO2 is a refrigerant as we used it last century (and continue to use it) and will never influence global warming.
      Beating that dead horse is why we never made any progress with the public or the Politicos and the beat goes on.

      Robert of Texas posted February 7, 2020 at 3:07 pm Trying to understand your point of view…
      CO2 has “no effect” on temperature? Or CO2 actually cools the atmosphere (through some sort of heat transport)?
      My Reply
      Carbon Bigfoot

      February 8, 2020 at 4:27 am
      Some articles in these pages and other blogs suggest that CO2 imparts cooling and/or heating. None of this can be substantiated.
      The latter is over empathized because of the glass-enclosed greenhouse effect (closed system).
      Those of us who studied and apply thermodynamics, unit operations and reaction kinetics (real science ) scoff at the ridiculousness of 400 ppm of an open, chaotic system having any impact on heating or cooling—the Emperor’s New Clothes.
      The reference to refrigeration is to suggest the heat transfer capabilities of carbon dioxide– not its back-radiation intellectual masturbation espoused by misinformed scientists cultivating grant money handouts (sic):

      I’m trying Phillip

    • Total strawman.
      When it comes to radiation, temperature is irrelevant. If it radiates, it warms. Period.

      • If it radiates, it loses energy. If a mass loses energy, it either cools/drops temperature, or it has an energy source to maintain its heat/temperature.

        We have a prediction of a tropospheric hotspot. This is required as a “hot body” source of radiation, a fraction of which is supposed to return to the surface to cause surface warming. But only a fraction of that radiation returns to the surface, so there must be an energy source for the hotspot with greater power than the upward radiation from the surface.

        Question: What is the heating source for the hotspot giving it enough power to warm the surface?

    • Philip Mulholland your understanding of physics is unfortunately lacking.

      Maybe an explanation of why you think gasses are special and don’t have to behave the same as the rest of matter is in order?

      • “Philip Mulholland your understanding of physics is unfortunately lacking.”

        But you don’t say why?

        “Maybe an explanation of why you think gasses are special and don’t have to behave the same as the rest of matter is in order?”

        Totally incomprehensible.

    • Just an observation. It seems the best way to avoid dealing with the real issue of Governments using propaganda to scare the people into turning over individual liberties to government authoritarianism is misdirection. Its the “how” to the magic trick.

      On comment boards it looks like that which follows, Phillips well intended but technically arguable comment, providing granulated minutiae for alarmists to pick apart. Someone grabs hold of a grain of minutiae, and away we go bickering about the minutiae and the strawman, until it devolves into name calling…your Momma wears combat boots and then finally…oh yea well you watch FOX News so that proves I’m right.

      What I have observed over decades of this “end of days CAGW give us all the power” promotion is this: The more effective the original post, in disarming their Hobgoblins, the more tenaciously argumentative and misdirecting the paid propagandists become. You can directly correlate the two.

      The Heartland Institute and this young Girl are very effective here. And this Naomi Seibt, the Anit-Greta, scares the bejesus out of the trolls. That closing comment was an attention-getter and the propagandists know it.

  3. Ordinary people can intuitively feel that Naomi is authentic, and that her words resonate with truth. Ironically it is the manufactured android called Greta, despite being powered and pushed by the global elites, shown around the world on every occasion, feted and lauded by the media and the celebrity luvvies, it is Greta who plainly lacks authenticity, and the more she is wheeled out like some religious icon, the more obvious that becomes.

    • Clearly some ordinary people intuitively think Greta is authentic. That’s the problem with people, not all ordinary people think alike. As sceptics, we need to be wary of falling into the trap of concluding that the people who think the same way we do are ‘ordinary’ (or the silent majority) and those we disagree with have been conned. After all, the people we disagree with no doubt think we’ve been conned.

    • Greta the Swedish Glove Puppet just parroting the so called facts told to her by the adults around her. As some else stated a box of rocks knows more about the climate than Greta.

      • Now that Thunberg surrounds herself with 7 thugs, aka “security”, there has been a distinctly nasty tone permeating her appearances. These goons are not past assaulting media from the skeptical pro-science side of climate studies. And questions about the financing of this entourage go unanswered, just as any question to Thunberg also goes unanswered.

        Thunberg’s education has been truncated. Her serial absences from anything representing a sound curriculum now manifest themselves in a sullen and defensive charade of avoidance in order to disguise her ignorance. Parroting Al Gore’s tripe is no substitute for thinking for herself or understanding the philosophy of science. Most 17 year olds are way, way ahead of her.

    • Vincent Causey: “[…] it is Greta who plainly lacks authenticity, and the more she is wheeled out like some religious icon, the more obvious that becomes.”

      Yup. On Greta’s Grand Tour of the U.S. her schtick was wearing thin; witness that almost no one from U.S. media showed up to greet Greta’s landing on U.S. shores. It was all the Home Team press that traveled to the U.S. to greet her.

      Oh sure, there was a lot of fawning by celebrities and such, but there was a mountain of criticism and ridicule which Greta did not face on her side of the pond. She held several of her signature Friday school walk-outs, but as I recall, there was little response here in the U.S.

      It’s looking more and more like Greta on has only two or three minutes remaining of her 15-minutes of fame.

  4. Why is it that you appear so much more mature and sensible than even professors from Potsdam Institute. Now that you are affiliated with Heartland Institute, I foresee that you may help an even wider range of people to understand how to be civilized around the climate debate.
    All the best to You Naomi Seibt.

  5. Make no mistake. We are at war. We are at war with the media and the forces of authoritarianism. Freedom is under siege.

    • The war with the media and the forces of authoritarianism on the subject of climate change was lost in the UK 3 or 4 years ago. I’ve not seen a climate change sceptic in that period on either television or radio. At least it is still possible to get air time in the US and Australia.

      The BBC programme, The Big Questions, an audience participation discussion with a few experts on the front row used to have a couple of sceptics on the front row when the Big Question was about climate change. Not any more.

      The subject this morning was “Will capitalism save the planet”. It was mostly populated by socialists and communists with a sprinkle of capitalists but no sceptics – even the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, Gail Bradbrook, had a seat on the front row. In other words, they all believed the planet was in danger, some believed it was in great danger, but argued about which economic and political systems were the best to solve the problem.

      Someone even brought up the #ExxonKnew case but failed to add that Exxon was found not guilty in December. The dozy presenter had not done his homework.

      • ” At least it is still possible to get air time in the US and Australia.”
        I read a lot of newspapers and magazines in America- and watch many TV channels- and you’ll never see a climate skeptic- maybe a few people on the street, but never any of the better known skeptics. Well, at least not in Massachusetts. Maybe other parts of America- but Mass. is extremely politically correct.

        • What? Not even Fox News? Where have you been Joseph? 🙂

          We don’t receive the Fox News channel in the UK anymore but I remember it gave climate alarmists a hard time and still does.

      • I presume you have seen what BoJo did with Brexit – he just now unleashed Green Hell upon the U.K., along with Sir Attenborough.
        So now we have the UK doing exactly what the EU is doing under Van der Leyen, nominally separated, yet joined by green vines.
        How could that happen one might rightly ask?
        The war has long moved, already in 2015, from a “scientific debate” skirmish to the real front – Green Finance.
        Van der Leyen, Lagarde and even BlackRock, echo ex-Bank-of-England Governor Mark Carney’s words to the letter.
        Carney now heads to the UN. Will they get their fervent world-utopian wish?
        Are BoJo’s loyalties only to his old stamping ground – the City of London?

        • Bojo will sell out Brexit to ensure London financiers continue to get their “passports” into the EU financial system.

    • That was dumb to keep out Moore even if the sponsors and most of the attendees won’t like him- just to prove that they’re being open minded. They could then ask him tough questions. Keeping him out really shows their lack of intellectual honesty.

  6. Those are Stasi methods, spying on children, and probably criminal under German law, remember that ZDF is a state owned broadcasting body. A report or complaint to the Presserat (journalism board) and Staatsanwaltschaft (District Attorney) seems the appropriate reaction. Do not mess with Naomi or any other child nor the Heartland institute for that matter I would say.

    • Richtlinie 4.2 (Standard 4.2) of the German Pressecodex (journalism code of ethics) requires reluctance in research involving children and youths, and this rule appears not to have been complied with.

    • The German justice system is completely prone to politically motivated decisions. Whether law is respected or not is secondary. Any legal action against mainstream politics is not only hopeless, but a loss of time and money. It could even induce a shit storm and cause an Antifa mob to come knocking at her door…

  7. For those wondering how far the lunacy of fake man made climate change has got to in the UK, this article in today’s Telegraph will alert you.
    Boris Johnson, I suspect under pressure from his oh so woke green girl friend, who is living with him in Downing St, is pushing for the removal of all gas from domestic use that’s natural gas not petrol, he has already said petrol will be banned from 2035. The banning of gas for heating and cooking in the near future, is probably the most damaging self harm act, any developed economy could do to itself.
    We have to fight this lunacy.
    Full marks to Naomi, a wonderful open personality, someone with brains unlike her over championed opposite number, Great.

    • I thought you Brits left EU so that you didn’t have to deal with politicians telling you how to live your lives. Looks like you just swapped one group of authoritarian fools for another. “Independence day” my ass.

      • We exchanged a bunch of politicians we couldn’t vote out for a bunch that we can. Unfortunately every last one of the blighters is green to the gills.

  8. Antifa is actually profa outside today’s doublespeak. If the progressives are against it, they are actually for it. Welcome to 1984. That’s also why Gore and others fly all over, etc. The little people are supposed to shut up and pretend anything the ruling dictators say is true. Remember, if they are against it, they are for it and vice-versa.

  9. It’s still sad to me that young people, who ought to be spending their time exploring aspects of life that are appropriate for their age and stage of development. are being caught up and consumed in trying to sort out this massive deception.
    These experiences will be with them throughout their adult life and the abuse they’ve been subjected to is inexcusable.

  10. Thank you Naomi!!! Another voice of sanity in a sea of madness! Don’t let them get to you. The world and the freedom of all mankind is at stake from these amoral doomsday prophets.

  11. I’m not surprised the Green Blob sent their spies to “out” her. That’s what they do, that’s how they work. Pathetic, really.

  12. Sorry, the CO2-driven AGW hypothesis is dead and just isn’t buried yet. It’s a fake science hoax, relying on the huge ignorance about thermodynamics by the general population and a large number of scientists.

    What is the killer observation? Zonk! CO2′ absorption/emission wavelength is 15 microns, which has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C (-112F), about the same as dry ice. It therefore can’t melt an ice cube.

    The whole hoax falls on this one big banana peel, sorry. If you think dry ice in the sky can cause global warming, then hurry up and apply for your dry ice-powered flamethrower and send me a copy of the patent 🙂

    The giant U.N. IPCC octopus will keep pushing the hoax until it’s dismantled. It’s up to us to educate the public to wake them up and hasten the happy day that the IPCC is finally kaput.

    Here’s my free killer essay finishing the hoax off. I’m still waiting for my telegram from Sweden. I’ll take a Nobel in physics, chemistry, peace, or even literature 🙂

  13. Naomi,
    I respect you.
    Keep evaluating what you hear and thinking for yourself.
    I feel sorry for Greta.
    Gunga Din

  14. “Anything above absolute zero radiates. Whatever that radiation hits will be warmer than it would have been absent that radiation.
    Basic physics.”, says one of our posters above.

    “Anything above absolute zero radiates. ” Seems fair to me but ….

    “Whatever that radiation hits will be warmer than it would have been absent that radiation.”

    Can that be true?

    Would hot coals be warmer if you suddenly introduced an radiating iceberg into the scene?

    “Basic physics.” Is it? I hope not.

    Is this really an argument against CAWG ? Seems more like an argument to support runaway global warming.

  15. “Heat – Cannot of itself pass, from a cooler body to a hotter body
    you can try it if you like, but you far better notta ’cause
    the heat won’t pass from the cooler to the hotter
    Flanders and Swan, Laws of Thermodynamics, verse 1

  16. The “media” still propagates the nonsense CO2 traps heat. And the number of people who believe that is astounding.

  17. Mean free path of a photon leaving earth’s surface to be absorbed by a CO2 molecule is 33 metres ( Tha same applies to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule 33 metres up to strike the surface. The photon energy of the returning photon is that of the temperature of the cloud at 33 meters. It is colder and has less energy than surface molecules and will not increase the surface temperature. Since the photon can be emitted up or down (some say six ways) only half (or one sixth) the energy lost by the surface can be back radiated. The rest remains in the cloud and is thermalised. That energy will be presented at the top of the atmosphere through molecular vibration at the speed of sound. It will be radiated to space at the temperature of the cloud at the point in the cloud where the mean free path to space is greater than the thickness of the atmosphere above it
    Photons (all energys) leaving the earths surafce can escape directly to space and do. On cloudy (low altitude) days and nights clouds reflect radiation emitted from the surface back towards the surface from water droplets in the cloud. The photon energy is the same as the surface and will appeaar to retain heat.
    This is reflection not back radiation. Back radiation is where the target molecule absorbs the radiation and then re-emits it.
    There is no heat trapping greenhouse effect in this analysis.
    (PS. I say one sixth as the return path of a photon that is not vertical is longer than the mean free path and will be re absorbed in the atmosphere.)

    • “This is reflection not back radiation”

      Thank you for a very useful contribution, I have not seen this point made before.
      With regards to the 1/2 versus 1/6 redistribution, it has to be 1/2 because all of the other 4 directions are normal to the surface, and while yes the quenching distance is 33 metres all the surrounding absorption points are also located at the same elevation above the surface, so the only two “escape directions” are down and up. There is no asymmetry in radiation so down is just as likely as up.

      The DAET climate model I created for Stephen Wilde has been rejected by the “Slayers”. So, in spite of Mosher’s sky dragon snark, that is not our home. The diabatic form of the DAET model fully replicates the Vacuum Planet equation, and is mathematically unassailable. The model honours the principle of Occam’s razor, namely as simple as possible. It also fully honours the lit hemisphere divide by 2 solar disk flux collection, so there is NO flat Earth divide by 4 weakening of sunlight. Now here is the critical point that everyone seems to miss. The collection of solar energy by the lit hemisphere is NOT a diabatic process.

      Convection is a forced process and this asymmetry of partition at the collection interface means that energy is preferentially carried away from the lit surface by the atmosphere (or is carried pole-ward by ocean currents). The air cools the lit surface and delivers energy to the polar regions, and the night-time hemisphere of energy deficit. No one has ever been able to explain to me how a zonally rotating solid land surface can transport surplus tropical energy to the poles.

  18. @ Naomi Seibt,
    I sure hope you , Naomi Seibt, can attend the conference on climate change on MAY 7-8, 2020
    CAESARS PALACE – LAS VEGAS … If you can’t afford it maybe we at WUWT could help fund your
    expenses, I know I would contribute if put to the task !!! And you could give some remarks, like you did
    in Madrid?


Comments are closed.