Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Nasif Nahle
Recent Activity
-
Nasif commented on the article |
New peer reviewed paper demonstrating that the climate change is natural, not caused by human beings. The solar radiation heats up the sea surface at the SO modifying the effects of ENSO on the Earth's climate:
McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Dear Emily... Again, you are trying to disprove good science through denigrating the person. You are not discussing science.
It's not me who is quarreling over the AGWist flawed thermal properties of carbon dioxide, it is the science itself and honest scientists. The properties of many materials, carbon dioxide among them, have been obtained by observation and experimentation by many physicists through time.
I recommend you to read scientific books on heat transfer, thermodynamics, etc. There you will find real data on the thermophysical properties of carbon dioxide.
It's not me who states it, but nature itself; I support my work on scientific research made by hundreds of scientists, like Hottel, Van Ness, Peixoto, and Modest, for example.
If you have the time, take any book of Heat Transfer Science and answer the next questions:
1. What the climate sensitivity of CO2 is?
2. What is the absorptivity-emissivity of carbon dioxide?
3. Which the Pp of carbon dioxide is?
4. What is the total emittancy of carbon dioxide?
5. What is the heat capacity of carbon dioxide?
6. What is the specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide?
AGW is not science, but politics.
BTW, I am an environmentalist, member of many environmentalist societies; I adhere to science and the theory of truth, nonetheless.
All the best,
Nasif Nahle
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Posted by Emily Gertz on 07/19/2009 @ 07:33PM PT
Actually, that's a pretty weird little site. And the guy who writes it, Nasif Nahle, seems to be a denizen of a number of contrarian and fringe science web boards. It seems to be one person's vanity site devoted to his own unique brand of "science."
In response to this ad hominem arguments, which were what brought me to this blog, I offer you the next article:
http://www.biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html
You say that I am wrong and Schmidt is right. Take the article and tell me, what in my article is wrong?
I have posted a link to the falsification of Schmidt's arguments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/21/gavin-schmidt-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming/
However, you continue reciting your mantra... Gavin Schmidt is right... Gavin Schmidt is right.
Demonstrate that I am wrong in my article on amplitude of TSI and global tropospheric temperature. Point.
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Dear Emily... Don't put in my mouth words that I have not said.
You say: "Nasif responds to these observations, again and again, by saying, effectively, "You're wrong. These leading climate specialists are wrong."
Where did I say that? Yours is a vitriolic argument.
You say: "These leading climate specialists are wrong".
I didn't say that; however, it's not me who disprove the false science of AGW, but science itself. Have you taken a book of Heat Transfer for checking out if my algorithms are wrong? No, you have not.
You use dogmatism when writing once and once again "leading" climate specialists. This is not science. Take examples from nature and consider hundreds of leading climate specialists who disprove AGW idea with observations, experimentation, real nature, etc. Please, stop deceiving your readers. I am sure that your readers are not stupid and are seeing how you are trying to deviate the debate into your field.
I have investigated the correlation between TSI and global climate and found, as many scientists in the world, that the correlation exists. We are on the side of science.
I have given many references to works of solar physicists who have found the correlation, but you have not read a single work because you have an agenda, the same as Al Gore, James Hansen, etc.
Read books, read the articles I have referenced here, take the weapons of science and tell me what, how and why my work is wrong:
Falsification of your hero's, Gavin Schmidt, paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/21/gavin-schmidt-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming/
A peer reviewed paper falsifying climate sensitivity:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
Another peer reviewed paper demonstrating the correlation TSI-global climate written by a prominent Israeli physicist:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
And tell me SPECIFICALLY, what, how and why my work is wrong? :)
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Dear Patrick... I wrote: "I'm sorry if good science motivates you to insult my person, so I have decided not continuing posting here, unless you ask me for any explanation about real science. As you continue having doubts and questioning good science, I continue being here, trying to expose fallacies about climate and science. But it seems my efforts have been useless.
What you profess is a religion or something which is highly dogmatic, antiscientific, pseudoscientific and, unfortunately, irrational because gives no chance to real science, but to solipsism. Science illiteracy is the main cause of hostile reactions from AGWers against real scientists.
When a scientist shows the truth behind climate change, the reaction from AGWers is vitriolic, irrational... Like yours, to be clear. BTW, here another paper which will open your readers' eyes:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
Hasta la vista,
Nasif Nahle
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Another peer reviewed paper demonstrating the correlation TSI-global climate written by a prominent Israeli physicist:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
-
Nasif commented on the article |
A peer reviewed paper falsifying climate sensitivity:
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Falsification of Gavin Schmidt's paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/21/gavin-schmidt-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming/
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Dear Emily... Your arguments are nonsense. Please, demonstrate where and how my algorithms and assessments are wrong. Let the person living in peace.
-
Nasif commented on the article |
Dear Brooks... I did it; I mean, I have proven by scientific methodology that the idea, not the theory because it is not a theory, of AGW is wrong.
I have shown the methods and algorithms and you have not demonstrated what is wrong with them. You are only saying that someone says the contrary, but without scientific basis.
This is not the way the science works. If you find that any of the assertions is wrong, specify which one is wrong and why. I have made many investigations on the issue and found the correlation that Lean and Schmidt, by obscure objectives, denny when their databases on real phenomena are clearly demonstrating the correlation.
The paper of Gavin Schmidt has been falsified entirely by solar physicists. Schmidt's paper does not rely on science, but on ideology.
Regarding peer reviewed papers, another deceiptive argument from AGWers, I have given you many peer reviewed references which demonstrates the correlation between the TSI and the global climate. It is Schmidt alone against hundreds of solar physicists.
The formulas Emily is referring to are well explained in my articles and the procedures are well known among scientists. My paper on Heat Stored is a peer reviewed paper.
I'm sorry for you don't understand good science.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits
Organizations
-
National Parks Conservation Association1 Action 0 Recruits
