philosophy

Genesis creation reconciled to an old earth

kaykiser

Creation Story reconciled to an old earth and scientific evidence:

The only disagreements between scientific truth and the Genesis account are based onmichelangelo-sistine-chapel-adam certain assumptions that everything, including the earth itself was created in the seven literal days described in the first chapter of Genesis. However, the first day of creation starts with Genesis 1:3.  According to Old Earth, Gap or Restoration creationists the entire history of the creation of the universe is contained in the Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” This reconciles the Genesis account with the scientific record, whether the seven days after that are assumed to be 24 hour days or longer periods of time. The original word “Yom” means both a single day and a longer time, as in “…in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, …”  – Genesis 2:4

“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” –Genesis 1:1

In old earth creationism, this includes the whole history of the creation and formation of the universe, the galaxy, the solar system and the earth in the ages before the seven days’ account. It includes the entire fossil and stratified mineral record of the earth.  According to ruin and restoration creationism, as our story opens, the earth has been devastated, wiping out most or all life.

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” – Genesis 1:2

This could describe a ruined planet, not necessarily a new planet without a history.   Picture, for example, a planet after an asteroid impact that raised so much dust, ash, water and smoke into the air that the light from the sun was blotted out.  We are not told most of the details, whether it is in this period or the seven days period.  Genesis describes what happened, not the details of how it happened.

“And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightening fall from heaven.” –Luke 10:18

In this quote from Jesus, it is possible that Satan, after his expulsion from heaven, kept distorting God’s creation causing God to erase it and start over; or maybe it was just a stage in the long process of preparing the earth for us with fertile soils, minerals and metals, an atmosphere with the right mix of gases, moisture and temperatures, and oceans with the right mineral content to sustain life.

God valued freedom of will so much that even Satan was allowed freedom of action, but could only distort, not create anything.  After his expulsion from heaven, Satan’s goal has been to spoil everything God does or loves.

What about the common belief that death only entered when man fell?

“But of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” – Genesis 2:17

Since Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they disobeyed, what that meant was obviously spiritual death, not physical death, which would come much later. Death was known to Adam or the words would have had no meaning to him.  However, after the fall, it was necessary to remove their access to the Tree of Life to keep Adam and Eve from living forever in their sinful state.  This is probably why Adam and several generations after him lived so long (until the effects of the Tree of Life had diminished).  Outside the garden, life was already a battle for existence, so that their expulsion from the garden thrust them into a daily struggle for food and other necessities.  God created plants as the ultimate source of food, but also created predators and other carnivores that ate herbivores, which used plants for food.

Let’s look at the seven days in this scenario of a ruined earth being reborn

Day 1 – LIGHT

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” – Genesis 1: 3-5

This could have been that the dust settled enough to allow filtered light through the cloud cover distinguishing night from day.

Day 2 – ATMOSPHERE

“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” – Genesis 1: 6-8

Clouds, rain and seas appear as the air clears further.

Day 3 – DRY LAND; PLANTS

“And God said let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear; and it was so.” Genesis 1:9-10

Seas, streams and dry ground appeared as the constant rain abated.

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth ; and it was so.” – Genesis 1:11-13.

As soon as dry ground appeared, plants began growing.

Day 4 – SUN, MOON AND STARS

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.” – Genesis 1:14-19

The only way this makes any sense, logically, is if the sun, moon and stars were already there, but had been hidden behind thick clouds.  Since plants grew and there was light before this, it doesn’t make any sense for the sun not to be created until the fourth day.  It can only mean that the air cleared enough so that the heavenly bodies became visible on earth at that time.

Day 5 – SEA CREATURES AND BIRDS

“And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” – Genesis 1: 20-22.

Animal life in the seas and the air appeared.

Day 6 – LAND ANIMALS AND HUMANS

“And God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” – Genesis 1:24-25.

Animals on the land appeared.

“And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1: 25-27.

Men and women were created.

“And God blessed them and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” – Genesis 1:28

God instructs men to multiply and replenish the earth.   This is a hint that the earth was formerly inhabited before the devastation occurred, whether by humans or only animals is not clear.  In some translations, the word is translated as “fill.” The other occurrences of the word in the Bible clearly mean to replenish or replace what was lost, not just to fill[1].   The verses that follow imply a vegetarian diet, but don’t explicitly say none of the animals would eat meat.

This description of the creation of humans has been debated by theologians for centuries. Is this separate from Adam and Eve? Were there other humans on the earth when Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden? Since Adam and Eve did not have children in the garden and were not told to replenish the earth, I would like to suggest that, after the six days of creation when man was first created, Satan again entered and distorted the creation, including man, into a wild, savage state. Whether Adam was included in this creation of man or was specially created later, is the only point debated. Most theologians today assume that this account is an alternate description of the creation of Adam as the first man.  However, in keeping with the text, it is possible that, after a day of rest, God created a special undefiled man (Adam) and placed him in a specially planted garden for his protection.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” – Genesis 2:7-8.

Note that Adam was made before he was placed in the garden. This implies that Adam experienced the savage, spoiled world before entering the garden.  The verses just before this say that there was no one to till the soil.  So if other men existed, they must have been hunter-gatherers or shepherds, not farmers. We are also not told how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before they aspired to be like God and fell from grace through willful disobedience.

Conclusions:  As you can see, it is fairly easy to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with known scientific facts.  God invented science, and He created an ordered and intelligible universe that man can study to learn its secrets.  Science is based on the assumption that the universal laws are the same everywhere and at any time in the past, present or future.  God, having created a logical world, doesn’t have to break these laws to accomplish His ends. God can use them to create, destroy or modify anything for His purposes.  Miracles, while outside our understanding, don’t necessarily have to break God’s laws either, only use them in unique ways we don’t understand.

To insist that the seven days described in Genesis 1:3-2:4 describe creation from nothing (ex nihilo) in contradiction to scientific facts, is at best naïve or traditional and at worst delusional. God didn’t ask us to suspend reason to believe in Him.  Nor is He a deceiver.  Young Earth beliefs are harmful because they ask Christians to reject science, make it difficult for thinking people to embrace Christianity and give our atheist, materialist enemies ammunition to discredit ALL of our beliefs, even a belief in the existence of God or any spiritual realm.

That is why our enemies would prefer us to reject science and insist on a seven literal days of creation from nothing, which was a straw man argument when presented by Darwin et al.  When we embrace science and reconcile it to the Bible, most of their arguments disappear.  In an effort to discredit the political arguments for Darwinian Evolution,  many Christians have fallen into the trap of embracing the straw man presented by our enemies instead of reasonably trying to reconcile science and the Bible.

[1] Isaiah 2:6; Jeremiah 31:25; Ezekiel 26:2

Darwin, Pangenesis & Acquired Characteristics

kaykiser

Darwin’s Claims

Worker ants of various castes and two large queens
Leaf Cutter Ants – Worker ants of various castes and two large queens

Darwin thought cells were simple bags of gel.  He knew nothing of DNA or any other cellular structures.  He believed that inheritance was through “Gemmules” that each cell shed and that traveled to the gametes (sperm and egg).  Since each cell “voted” it was called pangenesis. He believed that the life experiences of the parents were passed on to their offspring in this way. He believed evolutionary incremental changes occurred by passing these life experiences on to subsequent generations.

Darwin’s Dilemma

Colony insects were a problem for Darwin.  If life experiences were passed on, how does a queen ant, who has never experienced foraging for food, pass on the behavior of the worker ants who hunt for food and bring it back to the colony?

His theory of evolution taught that use and disuse along with adaptation to environmental changes experienced by parents were passed on and were responsible for the changes seen between species by gradual changes over time, coupled with natural selection aka survival of the fittest.  How is this any different from J-B Lamarck’s theory of acquired characteristics, which was discredited as having no foundation?  Did acceptance for Darwin’s theory and not Lamarck’s have more to do with politics and marketing than science?

Modern Evolutionary Biologists’ Dilemma

Obviously, modern evolutionary biologists found pangenesis and inheritance of acquired traits embarrassing, so, in the early 20th century they changed the theory to include genetics with an emphasis on natural selection and called it Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis. Later, they included DNA and an unsupported assumption that mutations over time gradually built up structures well before they were functional.  Although Darwin is still revered as if he had everything right, this form of Evolutionary theory is grossly different from the original Darwinian theory except for the assumption of natural selection and unlimited gradual changes producing new species over time.

 

AGW Claims vs. Truth – Claim 10: World governments must take drastic action now to prevent catastrophic consequences.

kaykiser

Claim 10:  World governments must take drastic action now to prevent further warming and catastrophic consequences.

Truth:  The jury is still out as to whether warming is a good thing or a bad thing. More people die from cold weather-related events than from heat. Warming periods in the past such as the Medieval Warm Period were times of increased prosperity and peace. There is no indication that any sort of a tipping point is approaching that would cause the predicted catastrophic consequences. There has been no warming since 1998 and a possible cooling since 2005.

         It is not even certain that government action could have any effect on warming. If carbon dioxide is not the main cause of warming, then regulating it might be a fool’s errand. (See Claim 2.) Developed nations might curtail use of fossil fuels, but treaties proposed like Kyoto and Rio exempt developing countries. This includes China, India, and Mexico, among the largest and most industrialized developing countries in the world. Their output of carbon dioxide and pollutants from power plants and industry more than overpowers any gains from developed countries’ gains in efficiency or a change to “renewable” and “sustainable” solar and wind energy.

       Additionally, the money collected by the UN through these treaties is designated only for such unreliable energy development, not for improving the lives of impoverished peoples.  Improving the lives of these people would go much farther to protect the environment than any of these things. (Meanwhile, the development of over 200 hydroelectric dams in Africa have been prevented by activists within and outside the UN.)  People who have to worry about eating and feeding their families have no incentive to care for the environment.  Higher standards of living lead to more caring for the environment.

Global coal consumption

 

Bring back DDT – Save Africa and other impoverished areas

kaykiser3 Comments

Bring back DDT – Save Africa and other impoverished areasmosquite-feeding

Over 80% of infectious diseases are caused by insects and other arthropods. DDT is desperately needed in impoverished countries where insect borne diseases kill and sicken millions every year, cutting lifespans and productivity.  Africa, India and South-Central Americas are most affected. This unpardonable crime amounts to continuing genocide of brown races by western powers.

Without these insect borne diseases, populations may increase at first, but better health will facilitate the building of infrastructure and industry that can raise millions out of poverty, ignorance and hopelessness.

“How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.”            — Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography, Dr. Albert Schweitzer (translated from Ma Vie et Ma Pensee)

DDT worked so well that malaria and similar diseases were eradicated in most developed countries and were near eradication in poorer countries before DDT was banned in 1972 by EPA in spite of failure to find any harm to humans or the environment by an overwhelming body of research.

“To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase in agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably, perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable. Abandonment of this valuable insecticide should be undertaken only at such time and in such places as it is evident that the prospective gain to humanity exceeds the consequent losses. At this writing, all available substitutes for DDT are both more expensive per crop-year and decidedly more hazardous.”

— National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy, The Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs, The World of Biological Research, Requirements for the Future (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1970), 432.                             (Emphasis added)

Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, was filled with lies, half-truths, misinterpretation of research results and wild speculations.  Rather than being an attempt to protect humans and the environment as stated, it was really part of an effort to stop population increases in Africa, India and other impoverished countries.

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

                          —Alexander King, cofounder of the Club of Rome, 1990

Population Bomb by Paul Erilich (1968) was a another book based on Malthusian, eugenicist, racist lies, aka propaganda.

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate…”                              — Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968

Population control groups such as the Club of Rome, supported by charitable foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation, continue to spread the myth of overpopulation.  Many rural areas have too few healthy people to build roads, other infrastructure and industry.

In 1972 DDT was banned by US EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence presented at hearings that refuted claims of harm by activist groups such as Environmental Defense Fund and Audubon Society.

“DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife…and…there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.”                — EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney, after months of hearings, “In the Matter of Stevens Industries, Inc., et al., L.F. & R. Docket Nos. 63, et al.). Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Findings, Conclusions, and Orders, April 1972.” (40 CFR 164.32). (Consolidated DDT Hearings)  As summarized in Barrons, May 1, 1972

Beginning the 1970’s, US AID, UN WHO, UNESCO and the World Bank have pressured leaders of poor countries to discontinue DDT as a prerequisite to receiving essential aid. This continues to the present with exception of recently allowing limited spraying of interior wall in selected areas.

Although DDT is the most studied pesticide on the planet, it is still listed as an environmental toxin and possible carcinogen because the EPA listing has not changed, in spite of all of the studies that failed to find harmful effects on humans or the environment. It is much safer and more economical than any of the proposed replacements.

Verifying the Claims of Silent Spring

None of Rachel Carson’s “facts” about environmental and human harm were true. Most of the facts below, except where noted, are from “DDT: A Study in Scientific Fraud,” by J. Gordon Edwards, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004. (See link below)

Dr. Edwards examined each of Silent Spring’s claims and found them wrong and possibly fraudulent.

Not one person has been harmed or died from DDT.

  • The only death associated with DDT was a 3 yr. old child that drank a solution of DDT in kerosene, which is a hydrocarbon known to be toxic.
  • J. Gordon Edwards was a Ph.D. entomologist who sometimes ate a spoonful of DDT powder at his lectures as a demonstration of its safety. He suffered no significant ill effects and died of a heart attack at age 84 while hiking in the Rockies.

DDT is not carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic

  • “Workers in the Montrose Chemical Company had 1,300 man-years of exposure, and there was never any case of cancer during 19 years of continuous exposure to about 17mg/man/day.”
  • “Concerns were sometimes raised about possible carcinogenic effects of DDT, but instead its metabolites were often found to be anti-carcinogenic, significantly reducing tumors in rats.”
  • Expected rise in leukemia in children and breast cancer years later in girls exposed during puberty never happened.

Bird deaths, thin egg shells and buildup in the environment have proven to be false.

  • Bird deaths at the University of Michigan, cited by Carson, were not from DDT, but were probably from soil fungicide containing mercury. In later tests, mercury was found in the soil and earthworms there. Other areas did not experience bird deaths from spraying of DDT. Carson’s Source was: Bird Mortality in the Dutch elm disease program in Michigan, Bulletin 41, Cranebrook Institute of Science by George John Wallace; Walter P Nickell; Richard F Bernard
  • According to Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts, bird populations actually increased during the thirty years of DDT use. Numbers rose from 90 birds seen per observer in 1941 to 971 birds seen per observer in 1960.
  • The eggshell thinning studies cited by Carson could not be replicated and had actually reduced dietary calcium, needed to build egg shells, of experimental birds to get that result.
  • Museum specimens compared to wild population eggs may have led to false claims of thinning because the museums used the best specimens available; natural variability in the wild may have been interpreted as thinning. “the whole idea that pesticides are concentrated as one moves up the food chain, which is crucial to Carson’s arguments about distant and delayed effects, has become increasingly dubious in the years that followed” (Fleming, New Conservation Movement, 31). Source: Reading Rachel Carson by Charles T. Rubin
  • DDT is not metabolized by birds and is rapidly excreted in their droppings.
  • “The counts of raptorial birds migrating over Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania, indicated that there were many more hawks there during the “DDT years” than previously. The numbers counted there increased from 9,291 in 1946 (before much DDT was used) to 13,616 in 1963 and 29,765 in 1968, after 15 years of heavy DDT use.”

Aquatic life has not been harmed by DDT; it is practically insoluble in water, with only 1.2 parts per billion at saturation.

  • A study cited by Carson claimed 500 ppb DDT in seawater inhibited photosynthesis and killed algae. The problem with this study is that alcohol was added to the tank to dissolve the DDT in the water. Alcohol alone would do that.
  • The assumption of persistence of DDT in seawater for decades was also challenged. Tests showed DDT and its metabolites disappeared in as few as 38 days.

References:

See “DDT: A Study in Scientific Fraud,” by J. Gordon Edwards, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004. On the web at:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

See also “The Truth about DDT and Silent Spring” by Robert Zubrin, adapted from Robert Zubrin’s Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, published in 2012, in New Atlantis Books series. On the web at:

www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring

To the Student who dreams of a Carbon free life

kaykiser

To the Student who is dreaming of a Carbon free life

  • First, sell your car, bicycle or other means of transportation – they were made using carbon based fuels, cars use fossil fuels and even crude handmade carts drawn by animals use and emit carbon (fodder – excrement & CO2). Even electric cars were made with carbon based fuels and use electricity from fossil fueled power plants.
  • Never buy or use solar panels or wind generators – they were produced using carbon based fuels and require fossil fueled power plants as back-up when sun and wind are absent.
  • Sell your house or give up your apartment – it was made by using carbon based fuels, uses fossil fuels to heat and cool, whether with carbon based electricity or directly from oil, gas, coal, wood. Never shelter from weather or use any heat in cold weather.
  • Sell your household goods – Chairs, tables, beds, sheets, towels, etc. – all were made using fossil fuels.
  • Sell your appliances and electronic gadgets – they were made using carbon based fuels and get their electricity from fossil fueled power plants.
  • Never drink purified water from a water system – pumps and purification all run on and were made using fossil fuels. Drink only “natural” water from streams, complete with parasites, bacteria and viruses.
  • Never buy or use any paper, plastic, cloth, wood, metal or glass products, including books and paper money, pens, pencils, dishes, pans, etc. –all are produced by using fossil fuels.
  • Never use any cleaning products, soap, cosmetics or shaving or hair care materials or implements – they were all made from and with carbon based fuels.
  • Remove and give away all of your clothes and shoes – they were made using fossil fuels, use water, detergents and electricity for cleaning and ironing.
  • Don’t buy food from stores – it was transported, processed and kept fresh using fossil fuels.
  • Never cook your food – it takes heat ultimately produced by carbon based fuels.
  • Stop eating – you are using carbon based foods and excrete carbon pollutants.
  • Stop breathing – you are emitting CO2.
  • Your short, miserable life is now over and your dead body is now polluting the planet.

Dreaming of Carbon Free Living?

kaykiser

To the Student who is dreaming of a Carbon free life

  • First, sell your car, bicycle or other means of transportation – they were made using carbon based fuels, cars use fossil fuels and even crude handmade carts drawn by animals use and emit carbon (fodder – excrement & CO2). Even electric cars were made with carbon based fuels and use electricity from fossil fueled power plants.
  • Never buy or use solar panels or wind generators – they were produced using carbon based fuels and require fossil fueled power plants as back-up when sun and wind are absent.
  • Sell your house or give up your apartment – it was made by using carbon based fuels, uses fossil fuels to heat and cool, whether with carbon based electricity or directly from oil, gas, coal, wood. Never shelter from weather or use any heat in cold weather.
  • Sell your household goods – Chairs, tables, beds, sheets, towels, etc. – all were made using fossil fuels.
  • Sell your appliances and electronic gadgets – they were made using carbon based fuels and get their electricity from fossil fueled power plants.
  • Never drink purified water from a water system – pumps and purification all run on and were made using fossil fuels. Drink only “natural” water from streams, complete with parasites, bacteria and viruses.
  • Never buy or use any paper, plastic, cloth, wood, metal or glass products, including books and paper money, pens, pencils, dishes, pans, etc. –all are produced by using fossil fuels.
  • Never use any cleaning products, soap, cosmetics or shaving or hair care materials or implements – they were all made from and with carbon based fuels.
  • Remove and give away all of your clothes and shoes – they were made using fossil fuels, use water, detergents and electricity for cleaning and ironing.
  • Don’t buy food from stores – it was transported, processed and kept fresh using fossil fuels.
  • Never cook your food – it takes heat ultimately produced by carbon based fuels.
  • Stop eating – you are using carbon based foods and excrete carbon pollutants.
  • Stop breathing – you are emitting CO2.
  • Your short, miserable life is now over and your dead body is now polluting the planet.

 

AGW Claims vs Truth: Claim 9 Oceans are more acidic due to increased CO2

kaykiser

Ocean_park_wikiClaim 9: The oceans are becoming more acidic due to the increased CO2 and erosion of carbonate rocks by acidified rain, so that corals and other animals are being harmed or killed.

Truth: This is partially true, but not to the extent that is claimed. The oceans are naturally alkaline (non-acidic) and are buffered by minerals and by the activities of biological systems. (See below for explanations of pH and buffering.) The normal pH of the oceans is in the range of 8.1. Like the manmade global warming hypothesis and the progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis, (see Claim 2b), the ocean acidification hypothesis is a model scenario based on theory, not real experimental data. The models in the IPCC reports project a maximum reduction in pH of 0.3 by 2100. They also claim that a reduction of pH will slow the growth rate of coral or worse. So, are the corals and shelled creatures in danger? Hardly.

These models use a purely geochemical approach and do not take into account the effect of living systems on pH. For example, photosynthesis is known to increase pH. Increased algae growth rate from increased CO2 can offset any drop in pH.  There is a temporary seasonal variation in pH from such processes that is greater than the projected pH changes from CO2[1]. Real experiments by bubbled CO2 through ocean water don’t result in the same pH changes projected by the models. In these experiments, no net negative effect on coral growth is seen even with actual acidification by adding hydrochloric acid. As a matter of fact, in these experiments a slight reduction in pH may have been beneficial.

As stated in Claim 2, item d, CO2 is less soluble in warmer water so temperature also affects pH. Warmer water means less CO2 is dissolved in it by giving off more CO2 to the atmosphere. A lower concentration of CO2 with warming should, if anything, raise the pH (less acid) not lower it (more acid). However, due to buffering, no net change in overall pH has been found other than temporary localized variations from other processes like photosynthesis and agricultural run-off.

CO2 becomes carbonic acid (HCO3– and H2CO3) in water. H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, a very weak acid, some of which splits to form HCO3– ions and H+. The free H+ is what erodes carbonate (CO3=) rocks. For example,  insoluble CaCO3 + H+ = Ca++ + HCO3– (both soluble).

 Understanding pH:

pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration in a water solution. The more hydrogen ions there are the more acid the solution is.  However, pH is the negative log of hydrogen ion concentration, so that the higher the concentration, the lower the pH number. For example, a pH of 5 is a hydrogen ion concentration of 10-5. A pH of 8 is a hydrogen ion concentration of 10-8. With less hydrogen ions, the hydroxyl ions from water make the solution “basic” or alkaline. 10-5 = 0.00001 or 0.001 percent. 10-8 = 0.00000001 or 0.000001 percent. So pH 5 is 1000 times the hydrogen ion concentration of pH 8. Neutral water is pH 7 with equal amounts of hydrogen ions and hydroxyl ions.

Understanding buffering:

When water is buffered, it has at least two related molecules or ions in balance that resist changes in pH of the solution by changing their ionic state when acids or bases are added or when diluted. Any added hydrogen ions from a more acidic solution causes a change in the ratio of the two buffer species offsetting any tendency to change pH. Water exposed to the atmospheric carbon dioxide is never neutral pH 7. It is in the range of pH 5.4. Oceans are in the range of pH 8 so it is obvious that the oceans are “buffered” against changes in pH by rain that is naturally more acidic. Biological systems and a complex mixture of buffering molecules/ions contribute to the buffering of oceans and other bodies of water, so that pH remains relatively steady over long periods of time under various stresses from sources ranging from acid rain to volcanoes.

Example: CO2 combines with water to form one of three forms of carbonate/-ic depending on the direction the pH is being pushed. These reactions can go back and forth between species as needed to maintain a constant pH.

CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 <=>  H+ + HCO3_ < => CO3= + 2H+

carbonic acid      bicarbonate ion      carbonate ion

The CO2 to carbonate series is one of the most important buffer systems in the oceans and is supplemented by carbonate in its various forms from erosion of rock. This example is simplified for clarity by leaving out other ions that affect pH such as Calcium, Magnesium, sodium, chlorine and sulfite (Ca++, Mg++, Na+, Cl–, SO3=). Chemicals produced by living organisms also affect buffering and overall pH.

[1] “Marine Photosynthesis and Oceanic pH,” Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, CO2 Science (online journal), Volume 10, Number 34: 22 August 2007 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N34/EDIT.php Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

 

Unbelievable? Science supports the Christian view

kaykiser

AGW Claims vs Truth – Claim 8: The world is in danger of catastrophic consequences – sea level rise, polar ice and glaciers melting, growing deserts, worse storms, droughts and floods

kaykiser

Claim 8: The world is in danger of catastrophic consequences of global warming such as sea level rise, polar ice and glaciers melting, growing deserts, worse storms, droughts and floods.

 Truth: a.) Sea levels have been rising along with warming since the Little Ice Age at an average rate of 7 inches per century due to glacier melting and expansion of seawater with warming. This rate has not changed significantly in recent times. To claim that sea levels have risen, the IPCC used a tide gauge in Hong Kong that showed tide levels rising, not because of sea level rising, but because the land is sinking (subsiding).  Those islands that were supposedly in danger of being swamped have had almost no net sea level rise in all the years since the early predictions. Globally, some land has been lost due to sea level rise and subsidence, but more land has been gained by other forces.

Sea Level Rise since the Little Ice Age
Sea Level Rise since the Little Ice Age

Source: “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”[1]  Note that it is not correlated to fossil fuel consumption

b.) Polar ice caps have shrunk and grown in recent years but overall they have remained relatively unchanged since preindustrial times. The media hype is about a theory that the Larsen Ice Shelf (in the more northerly Western Antarctica peninsula) might break away from Antarctica, causing rapid sea level rise of 5 meters (16.4 ft.). Although a part broke away in 1995, most experts say rapid collapse will not happen and any collapse and sea level rise would occur over centuries[2]. Both sea ice and ice cover have grown even more in other, more southerly locations on the continent. This year northern polar sea ice was thicker than usual so that there was some concern that the polar bears might have a harder time finding seals to eat. By the way, polar bear populations have been increasing in recent years.

c.) Glaciers have been receding since the Little Ice Age at a relatively steady pace that, along with water expansion with warming, accounts for much of the sea level rise. Melting of floating sea ice doesn’t cause a rising sea level. It is already displacing its weight in saltwater. Ice expands as it freezes, so that melt water shrinks as it melts, resulting in the release of the same weight of water as was originally displaced. Only land-based glaciers will have any effect on sea level. While most glaciers are receding, there are some that are actually growing.

CO2 Increase since 1950 does not track Glacier Shortening
CO2 Increase since 1950 does not track Glacier Shortening

Source: “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”[3]

d.) Droughts have not increased in recent times. Some years are worse than others, but the overall picture has not changed.

Global drought monitoring - nature
Global drought monitoring

Global Drought: Fraction of the global land in D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate), D2 (severe), D3 (extreme), and D4 (exceptional) drought condition (Data: Standardized Precipitation Index data derived from MERRA-Land)[4]

e.) Deserts are generally a result of geographic barriers and over grazing. Most of the Sahara Desert was once a grassy plain where livestock were grazed. It is a naturally dry area due to mountains to the west that block much of the moisture from the Atlantic Ocean. Overgrazing and loss of denuded top soil by winds had contributed to its expansion long before the industrial age. In most areas of the world, there has been no marked increase in the rate of desertification in recent times. Instead, deserts are greening as a result of higher CO2 levels that increase growth rates and make plants more tolerant of dry conditions by reducing the leaf pores. See previous post AGW Claims 2b The Benefits of Carbon Dioxide, answer c.

f.) Storms have not gotten worse. The dollar damages in some areas have increased due to increased urbanization, but not the severity of the storms themselves. The number of tornados has actually declined in the United States and their severity has not increased. The same is true of hurricanes and in recent years few have made landfall in the United States.

US Annual Severe Tornados

[1] Review Article: “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Climate Res. 13, 149-164, (1999)

[2] Quote: “More realistically, ice-shelf deterioration is likely to be a rather slow process, and even for a major and sustained warming trend ice-sheet collapse would take several hundred years, with most of the associated rise in sea level occurring during the final century.” From Nature 277, 355 – 358 (01 February 1979); doi:10.1038/277355a0 “Effect of climatic warming on the West Antarctic ice sheet Robert H. Thomas1.), Timothy J. O. Sanderson2.) & Keith E. Rose3.) from 1.) Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine at Orono, Orono, Maine 04469, 2.) British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK, 3.)Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, UK Present address: Department of Geophysics, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, London SW7, UK http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5695/abs/277355a0.html

[3] Reference: ”Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records,” J. Oerlemans, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands. Science 29 April 2005: Vol. 308, 675-677, doi: 10.1126/science.1107046.

[4] “Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system,” Aengchao Hao, Amir AghaKouchak, Navid Nakhjiri, Alireza Farahmand, Nature, Scientific Data 1, Article number 140001 (2914), doi:10,1038/sdata.2014.1

 

 

AGW Claims vs. Truth – Claim 7. Temperatures have risen faster in recent years than ever before

kaykiser

 

082015_1920_1.png
Average Global Temperatures vs Number of Reporting Stations

Truth: Remember that there is no such thing as a global temperature. It is the average of all of the reporting stations all over the world. For example, several years ago Ross McKitrick[1] using CRU data showed that the rapid rise in temperatures in the 1990s directly coincided with a decrease in the number of Siberian weather stations reporting due to the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Additionally, the “hottest year on record,” 1998, was an El Nino year so it was naturally hotter than the years just before and after. Another cause of rising average global temperatures is the urban heat island effect. Cities are hotter than rural areas.

Many of the reporting stations that were once in undeveloped rural areas have experienced either suburban or urban development, or the stations have been moved to more urban settings. It is well documented that some have been, seemingly intentionally, relocated near or at heat sources such as paved parking lots and air conditioners.Urban Heat 1 One reason for relocation near buildings or other structures could be that new automatic-reporting equipment needs to be connected by cable. Rather than dig up parking lots or roads to install units in a grassy or protected area, many have opted to locate them where they can be directly connected without involving costly excavation, although such sites do not meet the stated requirements.

Urban Heat 5
Rating system for locating weather stations

Instead of excluding data from stations that are poorly situated, a convoluted mathematical algorithm (scheme) is used to “correct” it to presumed pre-industrial levels. In spite of all this, it appears that there has been no net warming since the late 1990s and even a slight cooling since 2005. One other problem with the new equipment is that it has a faster response time that records brief, transient signals such as car or plane exhausts that were not picked up by the older equipment. Because the equipment is designed to report maximum and minimum temperatures, this can create a false result.

Urban Heat 6
Urban Locations
Urban Heat 8
Plus Correction Algorithms
100_0070B
“equals” pristine natural setting

 

[1] Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada http://www.rossmckitrick.com