Jesus Loves You

Jesus Loves You
THIS I KNOW Click on videos at bottom of page and watch at the top of page. Blog your comments on articles.

Saturday, April 16, 2011


Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.”

Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption within the greenhouse effect hypothesis.
Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations relating to the combined reactions of certain atmospheric gases to solar radiation in the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”

Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.
In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years.

Global Warming Scare is “Anti-science”

In an astonishing personal U-turn Nahle has taken on the task of demonstrating that the demonization of CO2 was premised on a faulty hypothesis. Nahle completed his controversial study with the assistance of American physicist, Dr. Charles Anderson. Anderson is one of eight coauthors of the controversial book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ that also falsifies the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect. Nasif says, “Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture.”
Nasif says, “To my surprise, I found that the hypothesis was flawed and that the AGW proponents were inventing variables and constants. As I starting to apply the correct data and algorithms, I was realizing that the whole hypothesis was wrong from the physics standpoint."
The 60-year-old’s career is now firmly focused on climate-related research; in 2010 he began working on Climate Change and Biodiversity at the Superior School of Biology, University Juarez of the State of Durango. Nahle is so converted in his thinking that he now calls the greenhouse gas theory, ”antiscience" and "pseudoscience.”
Other science specialists in the fields of atmospheric physics, astrophysics, chemistry and biology as well as mathematicians, have also been looking with a critical eye at the controversies in climate science and publishing papers going against the views of establishment climatology, a science largely comprised of generalists not specialist scientists, according to Canadian climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball. Ball concurs with such skeptic criticisms adding that it "raises questions about who is qualified to provide oversight."
As scepticism about global warming increases I asked Nasif why it has taken so long for more independent scientists to speak out. He replied, “In my experience, other scientists follow the mainstream about the greenhouse effect (GHE) without examining its basis. If they would examine the issue in more depth like I did, they would realize that it is not true; the GHE just doesn't exist.”

Carbon Dioxide Shown to Have no Potential to Trap Heat

Professor Nahle’s paper addresses very technical matters such as “emissivity” and “overlapping absorption bands” within atmospheric gases which many scientists, as well as non-scientists, have little real understanding. So I asked Nasif to give an explanation.
“Emissivity is a coefficient which determines the potential that any thermodynamic system has to emit energy. If the emitted energy is of its own, like the energy emitted by the Sun, the thermodynamic system is a primary source of energy. If not, like the gases in the atmosphere and the materials of the surface, it is not a primary source of energy and only can emit the energy it absorbs.”
Nasif’s study looked at how well gases in our atmosphere convert energy from the sun to raise temperatures on the ground. He went on, “In the case of carbon dioxide, its emissivity consists of its potential to emit the energy absorbed because it is not a primary source of heat.”
Nasif added, “the absorptivity coefficient of the carbon dioxide is equal to its emissivity coefficient, the gas can only absorb a limited amount of the energy received from other sources and then emit a limited amount of the energy absorbed.” In simple terms this means carbon dioxide cannot ‘store’ more energy than it emits.

Poor Climate Calculations Overestimated Warming Effect

This new study, in effect, refutes the claims of climate researchers who say such an overlapping trapping effect ‘enhances’ the emissivity of the carbon dioxide and/or the water vapor in the air (clouds, etc.).
Such energy received is then swiftly lost to where it goes most easily i.e. to the colder regions of the upper atmosphere and then to outer space. This means heat does not get ‘trapped’ in the absorption bands of the gases and the atmosphere cannot thereby act as a ‘blanket’ to keep the earth’s surface warm.
In fact, in total contradiction of global warming orthodoxy, Nahle’s research demonstrates that, under these conditions, a negative emissivity occurs; a self absorption that must be subtracted from the addition of total emissivities of the two, three, four, or more gases. Thus the only effect CO2 can have on global climate is to reduce temperatures, not increase them.


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment