Cold Facts on Global Warming: Global temperature caused by doubling atmospheric CO2 is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade

{The article below supports the observation that Anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide are not significantly affecting either global warming or climate change. These man made sources of CO2 are calculated and documented in Global Warming or global fraud? This is an abridged version of the original T. J. Nelson piece, still quite lengthy but well worth the read. It is reprinted by permission of the author. The complete article is available here. - Ed. }

Photo above: Absorption of ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation by various gases in the atmosphere. Most of the ultraviolet light (below 0.3 microns) is absorbed by ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2). Carbon dioxide has three large absorption bands in the infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. Water has several absorption bands in the infrared, and even has some absorption well into the microwave region. {Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate, Springer, 1992, p. 118.}



by T. J. Nelson

What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. In this article, we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high.

There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some extent by atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often called a "greenhouse effect". The Earth absorbs enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature by 0.5 degrees per day, but is theoretically capable of emitting sufficient long-wave radiation to cool itself by 5 times this amount. The Earth maintains its energy balance in part by absorption of the outgoing longwave radiation in the atmosphere, which causes warming.

On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming is on the order of 33 degrees C. That is to say, in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it is today, or about 255 K (-0.4° F). Of these greenhouse gases, water is by far the most important. Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, most sources place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or about 30-31 of the 33 degrees. Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents, or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect.

The 33 degree increase in temperature is not caused simply by absorption of radiation but mostly by the Earth's adaptation to higher temperatures, which includes secondary effects such as increased water vapor, cloud formation, and changes in albedo or surface reflectivity caused by melting and aging of snow and ice. Accurately calculating the relative contribution of each of these components presents major difficulties.

Traditionally, greenhouse gas levels are presented as dimensionless numbers representing parts per billion (ppb) multiplied by a scaling factor (global warming potential- GWP) that allows their relative efficiency of producing global temperature increases to be compared. For carbon dioxide, this scaling factor is 1.0. The factors for methane and nitrous oxide are 21 and 310, respectively, while sulfur hexafluoride is 23,900 times more effective than carbon dioxide. The GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its absorption bands in the critical longwave infrared region at 2, 3, 5, and 13-17 micrometers.

Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and other miscellaneous gases absorb radiation even more efficiently than carbon dioxide, but are also present at much lower concentrations. Their high GWP results from their molecular structure which makes them absorb strongly and at different wavelengths from water vapor and carbon dioxide. For example, although ozone is usually thought of as an absorber of ultraviolet radiation, it also absorbs longwave infrared at 9.6 micrometers. These gases account for another 1.3% of the natural greenhouse gas effect. The increase in the global energy balance caused by greenhouse gases is called "radiative forcing".

The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from 1 kg of the gas in question compared to 1 kg of carbon dioxide. These GWP values are calculated over a 100 year time horizon and take into consideration not only the absorption of radiation at different wavelengths, but also the different atmospheric lifetimes of each gas and secondary effects such as effects on water vapor. For some gases, the GWP is too complex to calculate because the gas participates in complex chemical reactions. Most researchers use the GWPs compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Even though most of the so-called greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, about 1-2 degrees of our current empirically-measured temperature of roughly 288 K (59° F) can be attributed to carbon dioxide. Water vapor is at least 99.99% of 'natural' origin, which is to say that no amount of deindustrialization could ever significantly change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Thus, climatologists have concentrated mostly on carbon dioxide and methane.

Figures from the U.S. Department of Energy show that the pre-industrial baseline of carbon dioxide is 288,000 ppb. The total current carbon dioxide is 368,400 parts per billion, or 0.0368% of the atmosphere. The ocean and biosphere possess a large buffering capacity, mainly because of carbon dioxide's large solubility in water. Because of this, it's safe to conclude that the anthropogenic component of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will continue to remain roughly proportional to the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and therefore is in no danger of being saturated, which would allow all the emitted carbon dioxide to go into the atmosphere.

Of course, climate, like weather, is complex, nonlinear, and perhaps even chaotic. Increased solar irradiation can lower the albedo, which would amplify any effect caused by changes in solar flux, making the relation between radiation and temperature greater than linear.

Increased temperatures also cause increased evaporation of sea water, which can cause warming because of water's greenhouse effect, and also can affect the radiation flux by creating additional clouds.

The arithmetic of absorption of infrared radiation also works to decrease the linearity. Absorption of light follows a logarithmic curve -->

Figure 1: Transmitted light is a logarithmic function of concentration. This curve is the familiar Beer's Law.

as the amount of absorbing substance increases. It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb almost all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of only a few km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.

What does saturation mean?

The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics. Beer's law has not been repealed. CO2 is very nearly homogeneous throughout the atmosphere, so its concentration (as a percentage of the total) is about the same at all altitudes.

The presence or absence of water vapor has no bearing on whether radiation is absorbed by CO2. Water vapor is a red herring: it has essentially no effect on what CO2 does. Where water vapor becomes important is in the earth's response to CO2.

Saturation does not tell us whether CO2 can raise the atmospheric temperature, but it gives us a powerful clue about the shape of the curve of temperature vs. concentration.

Linear Climate projections:

The linear projection shown here, while obviously simplistic, is a more straightforward argument than those used in climate models, because it does not treat the radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide separately from the planet's adaptation to it. In other words, we did not just build a model and add carbon dioxide, but instead took numbers that are based on empirical measurements and extended them by a small percentage.

Figure 2: Estimated greenhouse gas-induced global warming plotted against greenhouse gas concentrations expressed as a percentage of current-day values. The black curve is a linear extrapolation calculated from the DOE estimates of total current greenhouse gases. The sharp jump at the right is the data point from one computer model that predicts a nine degree increase from doubling current levels of carbon dioxide.

From the numbers, it is easy to calculate, assuming a linear dependence of temperature on greenhouse gas concentrations, that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide

would produce an additional warming of (0.042 to 0.084) x 33 = 1.38 to 2.77 degrees centigrade.

Our calculation also assumes that the increase in temperature is linearly proportional to the greenhouse gas levels. However, as indicated above, the relationship is not linear, but logarithmic. A plot of temperature vs. gas concentration (expressed as a percentage of current-day levels) would be a convex curve, something like the blue curve in Figure 2. Thus, 1.4-2.7 degrees is an upper bound, and depending on the exact shape of the blue curve, could be an overestimate of the warming effect.

This 1.4-2.7 degree estimate is comparable to the estimate of 1.4 degrees associated with the "empiricist" school of the University of Delaware, University of Virginia, and Arizona State University. An increase of 1.4 degrees was also predicted by P.J. Michaels and R.C. Balling using the NCAR Community Climate Model 3 model, after the large increases in projected carbon dioxide in the original paper in which the model was described were replaced with more realistic ones.

Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:

This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification. These estimates assume that the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide is causal in nature. Therefore, the 1.85 degree estimate should also be regarded as an upper limit.

Figure 3: Calculated Temperature rise as a function of CO2 concentration.

It goes without saying that the results shown here depend on the accuracy of the original 33 degree estimate and the validity of extrapolating the existing curve out by an additional small increment. However, we can check the plausibility of the IPCC's result by asking the following question: Instead of 33 degrees, what number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?

Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking.

What about secondary effects, such as ice melting, changes in albedo, and so forth? Doesn't this increase the predicted temperature beyond the 1.39 to 1.76 degree estimate? In short, no. Because these calculations are based on observed measurements, they automatically take into account all of the earth's responses. Whatever way the climate adapted to past CO2 increases, whether through melting, changes in albedo, or other effects, is already reflected in the measured temperature.

Some climatologists, making assumptions about ever increasing rates of carbon dioxide production, assert that the doubling will occur within a few decades instead of a few centuries. However, they are doing sociology, not climatology. The only honest way to estimate the change of CO2 levels is by using a simple linear extrapolation; otherwise, we are merely indulging in speculation about future social trends. At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255.

Conclusions:

Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media.

The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.


{T. J. Nelson is a practicing research scientist at a non-profit institute affiliated with a large University. - Ed.}


Fibonacci's Golden Mean…Evidence of Design or Evolution?

by Allen Williams


We have often heard from evolutionists that those holding the view that life is a product of Intelligent Design are ‘Creobots’ or ‘ID’iots, as if there was nothing more than one’s emotions or a less evolved intellect in order to consider the possibility of design rather than natural selection.

Evolutionist, Richard Dawkins claims, that the ‘God delusion’ is behind the notion of design and purpose to mankind and its surroundings. Is this true? The field of mathematics is a highly structured and orderly application of human reason and logic, which did not evolve but was developed through incisive thought and mathematical tests.

The principles of mathematics developed through observation and the desire to quantify what was observed. It’s definitions, identities, and axioms define an absolute truth, which is unerring and undeviating, and is the basis that establishes the theorems of application. The foundation of Mathematics rests on logic and is a "deductive study of numbers, geometry and various abstract constructs". - Columbia Encyclopedia, 1991. So, how is the mental reasoning that allows truth to be discovered in the world of numbers, suddenly flawed when it comes to discovering the truth of an Intelligent Designer?

One evolutionist claims that "Real life is not binary, it uses real numbers (I’m not saying that binary numbers aren’t real, but that real life can use rational and irrational numbers). At the core, proofs in biology are not different from proofs in mathematics. "

Really? Well, then if real life can use irrational numbers to represent physical phenomena then it can equally utilize binary numbers, i.e. ‘0, 1’ to describe the state of certain life conditions. After all, what is life or death but a binary function? You’re either alive or dead, there isn’t any in-between. Now according to this evolutionist’s statement, if numbers in life forms can be shown to be real and part of a family, then that would constitute evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer as it would for the existence and validity of a mathematical theorem.

In Fermat’s Last Theorem, where equations of the form xn +yn = zn, have been shown to be irreducible and modular, therefore part of a family of elliptic curves. So, is there any biological evidence of some common mathematical relationship in living plants and animals? If not, then this would tend to support evolution’s notion of randomness in creating life but if so, then design is inferred.

An Italian mathematician by the name of Leonardo Fibonacci or more properly, Leonardo da Pisa brought the modern decimal numbering system to Europe in 1200 AD. His travels as a merchant throughout Algeria, Syria, Greece, etc., brought him into contact with the Arabian number or 10 based number system. He is best known for a simple mathematical series introduced in his publication, Liber Abaci, named as Fibonacci numbers in his honor. The series begins with zero and each successive number is the sum of the last two, i.e. 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2, etc. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3 , 5 , 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and so on defines the series.

A unique attribute of the series is that dividing a number by the preceding smaller one yields a ratio called the ‘golden mean’ or ‘divine number’, as it is called. It’s the ratio of the current number in the Fibonacci series, i.e. x(n+1) divided by the previous number x(n), i.e. 55/34 = 1.6176. This number series can be visualized as a group of boxes or rectangles as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Fibonacci Blocks

Now, consider the line segment, 'ac'


               a                                                b                                                         c


If we postulate that there exists an optimum ratio, i.e. height to width, which may be represented by the line segment above. We can pick an arbitrary point along the line to represent this optimum, called 'b', then: ab/bc = bc/ac

An optimum ratio is an ideal length relationship between line segments. Such a relationship might be expected to be more than simply an interesting intellectual exercise. The line segment ratio in our example is the length of bc to ab. Now if we set ab = 1 and let x represent the segment bc, we have:

1/x = x/(1+x)

(1 + x) = x2. This can be put into standard quadratic form as:

x2 – x –1 = 0 with a root of 1 + Sqrt(5)/2 = 1.618, or the golden ratio. The equation may also be expressed in terns of its coefficients:

x2 - (b/a)x – 1 = 0 where a = 1 and b= x.

The term (b/a) approaches a finite limit for the series as the Fibonacci ratio approaches infinity:

LIM [(b/a)] -> µ = 1.618. This relationship is also found to exist in angle groups as well as lines.

This remarkable property is by no means restricted to the series developed by Leonardo Fibonacci but occurs in limitless mathematical sequences. For example take the polar coordinate axes, 0, Pi/6, Pi/4, Pi/3, Pi/2, 2Pi/3, 3Pi/4, 5Pi/6, Pi, 7Pi/6, 5Pi/4, and so on. A Fibonacci series can be created from the polar axes themselves by adding together the last two numbers to get the next one in the sequence, which are: 0.79, 0.79, 1.84, 2.63, 4.47, 7.10, 11.57, 18.67, 30.24, 48.91, 79.15, and so on. A plot of the sequence is shown in Figure 2. 

This length to width relationship produces what is referred to as the ‘golden rectangle.’ It occurs time and again throughout nature, in the human body, as well as the animal and plant world. Note its similarity to both the Fibonacci spiral and the seashell of Figures 5 & 6 respectively.

"Phideas, the Greek sculptor and many others in Greece and Egypt used this relationship in creating their works of art and architecture.

Furthermore the ratio and the golden spiral are ubiquitous throughout creation", so says Frederick A. Willson in "Ubiquity of the Divine" (Golden) Ratio and Fibonacci Numbers Throughout the Heavens and Earth." See also: http://plus.maths.org/issue3/fibonacci

Figure 3 shows the plot of progressive (b/a) calculations of the polar axes as determined from the polar series of Figure 2. Note that this series limit is the predicted 1.618, the same ratio as our line segment, 'a-c' above demonstrates.

"The Golden Mean or Phi occurs frequently in nature and it may be that humans are genetically programmed to recognize the ratio as being pleasing. Studies of top fashion models revealed that their faces have an abundance of the 1.618 ratio." – Frederick A. Willson in "Ubiquity of the Divine." See: Fibonacci Numbers in nature

Human DNA

Human DNA exhibits this same divine number or golden mean. The double helix structure of DNA shown in Figure 4, measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle. So, 34/21 = 1.619. The length between major and minor grooves, the blue and yellow line), exhibits this same 1.618 ideal ratio.

Human DNA: http://goldennumber.net/dna.htm

Figure 4. – Human DNA
(Photo: Double Helix)

Francis Crick, the discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA has calculated the probability that such a complicated molecular string could have formed on its own as essentially zero. The biological code written into the human cell would fill 1,600 pages.

There is as much information in the cell as is contained in 600 encyclopedias. Cell mechanics are also extremely complex: "Life at the molecular level is composed of tiny machinesThere are more machines inside the human body than all the combined factories of the world… There are 2 trillion chemical processes that take place in the human cell." - Michael Behe, ‘Darwin's Black Box’.

Genetics has shown that mankind is all ONE blood (Acts 17:26) requiring no more than a 0.012% variation in DNA to account for all the outward physical characteristics, including skin color.

It seems a stretch to the logical mind that evolution not only produces life by random acts of chance but has also produced it in an optimal aspect ratio of length to width, i.e. 1.618: 1. In one case, natural selection's chance combinations purportedly create life through confusion, while on the other hand, we have evidence of Intelligent Design as noted in I Corinthians 14:33, which states that "For God is not the author of confusion.."

Intelligent Design’s ‘Anthropic Principle’ suggests that there are a series of optimum constants necessary to support life, one of which is the spiral galaxy. There are three basic galactic forms, elliptical, irregular and spiral. However, only spiral galaxies have a near round orbit capable of supporting life.

Figure 5 – Spiral Galaxy
(Photo: Ursa Major)

The golden mean in spiral galaxies: http://www.wisdomportal.com/Geometry/SpiralPage.html

Many plants exhibit the Fibonacci series in petals, leaves, sections and seeds: http://goldennumber.net/plants.htm Fibonacci numbers are also found in living organisms including the cochlea of the human ear: http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_17.htm

Figure 6 - Fibonacci Spiral
(Photo: Nautilus Construct)

Using the blocks of Figure 1, we may construct an idealized spiral by drawing a series of lines through the diagonals of each of the Fibonacci squares and then connecting them with a series of smooth curves or chords as shown in Figure 5.

The resulting figure looks remarkably like the Nautilus seashell of Figure 7. 

Figure 7: Nautilus Shell (Photo: http://www.sacredarch.com/sacred_geo_exer_shell.htm )


Matter, Chance and Time are the trinity of evolution. And so, unique mathematical relationships conflict with material science’s assertion that there are no absolute truths. The fact that a unique aspect ratio is so pervasive through out nature is strong evidence of intentional design rather than chance combinations in matter as evolutionist’s have asserted.




Evolution's Better Arguments…but are they?

by Allen Williams


Evolutionists regularly invent new fantasy stories to account for the material existence of the universe. Often these stories are discontinuous threads looking at one segment of the universe while ignoring all others. Evolution's explanations seek to satisfy any immediate threats to the theory rather than to meet the overall system constraints which limit it.

The evolutionary mindset is entrenched, often fanatical in its denial of any possibility of Intelligent Design having created the universe despite the mental gymnastics that have to be performed to deny the obvious. The Anthropic principle states among other things that free bodies in space must conserve angular momentum, i.e. when a body breaks apart, the fragments spin in the same direction as the parent. Evolutionists disagree claiming:

"As for the angular momentum problem, that only deals with how the solar system formed. A lot has happened in the last few billion years. In the case of Earth, it was smashed by a proto-planet the size of Mars that gouged out enough material to make the moon. Something similar happened to Venus, except in Venus’s case it was a glancing blow near one of the poles that caused the planet to flip over, making it seem to turn the other way. It is actually still turning the same way, it is just the axis of rotation has flipped. Something similar happened to Uranus, which is now laying on its side (90 degree flip). And let me ask you, why would a creator decide to randomly flip some arbitrary planet over? What possible purpose could that serve?">

Be sure and remember angular momentum only deals with how the universe was formed the next time you inadvertently step in front of a bus. If the moon, with a mass one fourth that of the earth, were torn away in a planetary collision how are both objects relatively round given the vacuum of space? And only one heavenly body rotates and only one has an atmosphere after the collision?

How does something 'seem' to rotate in the opposite direction to the earth? It either does or doesn't. Amazingly, this ‘glancing blow’ collision that causes Venus to 'seem' to rotate in the opposite direction leaves no other indication of its existence, i.e no asteroid fragments or moon to orbit it. It simply disappears into the Sun’s gravity or careens off into deep space. And, this favored collision doesn’t involve conservation of angular momentum because the universe was already formed. How stupid is this!?

Perhaps an ordinary pocket watch holds the secret as to why a Creator might have flipped the rotation of a planet. Just as a watch’s gears turn in opposite directions to track time, so too might the universe be considered a giant clock propelled by gravity.

However, evolution's’ response as to why the earth and moon are round after the collision and earth’s atmosphere is intact is:

"That is because it melted Earth’s crust... I suppose you have never heard of gravity. It is something that causes objects to be attracted towards each other. It also causes objects that are large enough to form into spheres, or roughly spheres, since that shape minimizes the distance of any point from the center. Our atmosphere also has much less Nitrogen than the other planets. It seems like some huge catastrophe came along and stripped it all away... Of course water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen were trapped underground and escaped over time, but our atmosphere is still completely different than it should be compared to other planets, assuming there wasn’t some massive event that changed it."

Any gravitational force strong enough to ‘round off’ the jagged edges of a collision in the vacuum of free space would be strong enough to hold an atmosphere, yet only the earth has an atmosphere.

So the earth’s crust fused on impact with the ‘proto-sized’ planet right after the moon broke off but none of the life-giving atmosphere was torn away in the process. When one drops something, there is always more than one fragment, how fortuitous for evolution that either all the fragments ‘recombined’ to form the moon or only one piece broke off.

The evolutionist further notes that the atmosphere was all safely 'tucked' under the crust, a crust that fused all around the globe, not just at the point of impact. However, this scenario doesn’t resolve well with the evidence of large meteorites that have struck the earth in the past. They didn’t fuse the earth’s crust at the point of impact, they just created a big hole.

The 'fused crust' then allowed the trapped water and atmosphere to escape millions of years later when either the nitrogen selectively leaked away without any of the water or oxygen along with it. Or, the Nitrogen leaked away during some other future catastrophic event, which also didn’t result in the loss of water or oxygen which violates the known laws of diffusion.

And, of course, the tremendous hydrostatic pressure that would have developed under the earth’s fused crust in the entrapment of atmospheric gases and water not only didn’t split the earth apart but escaped slowly to form the air and sea. And, that collision neither changed earth’s orbit around the sun nor resulted in the heating or cooling of its molten core. And, don't miss the other equally improbable scenario, that molecules of gas 'leaked' out of the rocks over millions of years to slowly form an atmosphere after gravity had 're-rounded' the earth from the departure of the moon. Of course, the nitrogen escaped first because of its lower molecular weight as the earth wasn't fully round yet. {Excuse me while I laugh.}

Interestingly enough, evolutionists concede that green house gases were present in the atmosphere long before the appearance of man. How many years does it take to evolve from an amoeba to homo sapiens? Who was around to record the global warming?

"I should also point out that there are a great many chemical similarities between the Earth and the Moon."

But, the moon didn’t evolve an oxygen containing atmosphere millions of years later as earth did nor did other planets in this solar system. So, what other similarities matter?

Evolutionists regard logic as something true for only a finite portion of time rather than always, a necessary condition to allow the fitting of separate and otherwise incompatible event threads. So, in their world, the ‘null’ hypothesis has no real meaning, i.e. ‘A’ and ‘NOT ‘A’ , nor does the concept of falsification of any hypothesis: "

"Here’s a little experiment to try: Take three bowls of water. Add ice cubes to the first to make it nice and cold. Add some heat to the third to make it nice and warm. Let the second one remain at room temperature. Place your left hand in the first bowl and your right hand in the third, and leave them there for a bit. Say, a minute or so. Then put them both in the middle bowl. Voila! The middle bowl is both hot and cold! If hot is A, then the middle bowl is both A and NOT A!"

What kind of nonsense is this? Temperature is not measured by sensory perception; it’s measured through bodies in thermal equilibrium according to the Zeroth law of thermodynamics. Ask the Doctor to stick his finger in you rather than using his digital thermometer next time you’re sick. If ‘A’ is true, then ‘Not A’ is always false for the chosen case, not just for a finite period. This is the confusion that the 'no absolute' truth teaching brings to public education.

Next we have evolution's perversion of the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics:

"Or are you misusing the Second Law? That’s usually more typical. Creationists love to ignore the fact that if their "decay of everything" version of the Second Law was true, you couldn’t even grow wheatgrass in a cup, because wheatgrass has, like, information in it. Maybe God has to prop up even wheatgrass development in this whole physics-derived field of Okami evil spirit-like cursed decay."

Energy must be in a form that can be utilized by the recipient; otherwise we could all live on sunlight rather than organic nourishment. While plants do utilize the sun as an energy source, the gases they exchange increases entropy to the surroundings.

There's nothing stated in either the second or third law that says decay prevents growth of living organisms. The only requirement for growth is that the energy input be greater than the energy exhausted to the sink. Entropy is merely an indication of the energy decay experienced by that system, living or not. And, the fact that the sun imparts entropy to its surroundings doesn’t alter the fact that the earth is still decaying.

The best argument came from a response to the second half of the second law of thermodynamics or Nerst’s postulation, governing evolutionary processes, {update 5/2/12 - i.e. 2(b).

"It is the second law of thermodynamics that Creationists do not understand. The third simply states that the other two laws only apply at temperatures above absolute zero. The second law says that total entropy can only go down in a closed system. But the Earth is not a closed system, every tiny drop in entropy here is compensated for many times over by the constant, massive increase in entropy in the sun. You know, it being a massive nuclear fireball and all."

As a matter of fact, '2b' states that "..a system will move in the direction that increases the entropy of the system or the universe." This means that the net change in entropy, ‘Sin – S'out must be greater than or equal to zero. The term 'total' entropy as used by the evolutionist is a deception, inferring that 'Sin – S'out can be less than zero. How is a cooling body a net decease in entropy? And, is not the Sun decaying through its fusion reactions in radiating energy to space?

{update 2/12/09} The evolutionist's 'closed system' term is a misnomer. If entropy could only decrease in closed or ordered systems then how does snow melt? The answer is that the state condition depends on the net change in dS, or Sin – S'out. The evolutionist ignores the enthalpy, 'H' of the surroundings. Evolution requires 'spontaneity' for its abiogenesis changes to take place which can only occur through the generation of new entropy by the system, closed or open. It cannot utilize existing entropy from the environment, i.e. S>0 as it can with enthalpy, 'H' or 'dS' itself must be greater than zero. However, it can acquire necessary reaction energy from its surroundings and be spontaneous if 'H-TS' is an absolute minimum. Spontaneous atmospheric reactions like the open air oxidation (of carbon monoxide, CO to carbon dioxide and acid rain , i.e. 2NO + O2 -> 2NO2 occur because the 'H-TS' change produces a positive entropy, 'dS' as required by the 2nd law. Otherwise, neither would be an environmental problem.

The earth’s rotation has been shown to have slowed, loss in kinetic energy, over the last 6000 years and the atmosphere continues to radiate heat to free space according to the second law relationship, i.e. dq/T. Otherwise, everything would burn up from the accumulated energy input by the sun. Next, the evolutionist states:

"Look around next time it is snowing. Snow is a much lower entropy state for water to be in compared to the water vapor that it started at. Yet snow forms. The same goes for crystals, ice, water, and many other ordered systems that form spontaneously in nature. The same principles that allow these system to reduce their entropy also allows life to reduce its entropy."

The crystalline state of any substance in either a closed or open system doesn’t suspend the second law {2(b)} because  the net change in ‘S’ is simply zero not less than zero. If the net change in were found to be less than zero for a living organism or system then Nerst’s postulate would be invalid. There is no empirical or physical evidence that supports such a claim since the inception of the law. How can one reduce his entropy without bringing about death? Hypothermia certainly zeros out your entropy.

Evolution theory breaks under the sheer weight of its own convoluted arguments.




What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad

by Ted Sampley, {U.S. Veteran Dispatch}


Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.