|2012 DNC Convention voice vote preference to leave “God” out of platform||Matthew 10:32-33 — Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.|
|You have a legal right to kill your unborn child. You have an obligation to fund Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars. You have an obligation to fund abortion with your tax dollars, and will be punished if you refuse.||Jeremiah 1:4-5 — The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Genesis 1:26-27 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 9: 5-6 — And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Proverbs 6: 16-19 — There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Deuteronomy 30:19 — This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
|You have a legal right to marry a person of the same gender. Government should pay for sex changes. Children should experiment sexually.||Genesis 5:2 — He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.
Matthew 19:5 — For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
|Your rights come from government.||Galatians 5:1 — It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.|
|Animals and the earth are of greater value than human beings.||Genesis 1:26 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”|
|Man, animals, birds and plants evolved from a lower order, by accident.||Genesis 1:21 — So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
Genesis 1:25 — God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
|Human beings make their own morality.||Romans 1:22 — Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Jeremiah 10:14 — Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. The images he makes are a fraud; they have no breath in them.
|You are not encouraged to work.||2 Thessalonians 3:10 — For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”|
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve … But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
The National Climate Assessment – 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
“As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,”
however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today.
We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.
The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels.
It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.
This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.
NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases”
“The conclusion that human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in these gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate.”
(NCA, Page 23)
Many scientists have provided ample evidence that the government’s finding, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is grossly flawed. In its Endangerment Finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE.
This U.S. Supreme Court Amicus brief contains the details: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo…2.pdf
EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend slope by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected. Below is a graphical comparison of their Hot Spot theory versus reality, where reds denote warming and blues, cooling. Clearly, the government’s understanding of how CO2 gas traps heat is fundamentally flawed.
Models (top) vs. Measured Temperatures Changes (bottom) Latitude
NCA CLAIM #2:
“Second LoE – Unusual Warming in recent decades”
“The second line of evidence is from reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps much longer.”
(NCA, Page 23)
“Global Warming” has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred. For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend (see e.g. NOAA Buoy Data: NINO 3.4, Degrees C, available at http://www.cpc.ncep. noaa.gov/data/indices/ersst3b.nino.mth.81-10.ascii,) and the Antarctic cooled slightly. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the tropics but that ceased over the last 15 years or more. Also, as the figure below shows, over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.
See NOAA NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CTR ., State Climate Extremes Committee, Records, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records (last visited 12/15/ 2013)
If the observed warming over the last half century can anywhere be claimed to be unusual, it would have to be where it was greatest – in the Arctic. Both satellite and surface station data show a warming of about two degrees Celsius since the 1970’s. But the surface station data (see the Figure below) show that warming in context. Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak. This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor. It also points out an essential feature of most credible thermometer records that cover many decades.
Our climate is highly cyclical, driven in fact by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide. Using only the upward trend of the most recent half cycle to suggest relentless warming is very deceptive.
NCA CLAIM #3: Thir LoE – “The Climate Models”
The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate.
(NCA, Page 24)
The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. These
Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics.
The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.
Model Lower Tropospheric Temperature forecasts versus actual
NCA CLAIM #4:
“Extreme Weather – Temperatures” “global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.”
(NCA, Page 8)
“The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. (NCA, Page 8)
RESPONSE: As mentioned in the response to CLAIM #2, most of the warming in the second half of the 20th century occurred north of the tropics. But this warming stopped over 17 years ago. Furthermore, the Hadley Centre (upon which the government and the UN IPCC heavily relied) recently announced a forecast that the GAST trend line will likely remain flat for another five years. See Decadal forecast, METOFFICE, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
As for claims about record setting U.S. temperatures, please see our response to CLAIM #2 above.
See National Space Sci. & Tech.Ctr., North of 20 North Temperature Anomalies UAH Satellite Data: Lower Troposphere Degrees C, available at http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/ t2lt/uahncdc.lt (last visited May 17, 2013).
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was critical of the draft National Climate
Assessment, saying that “An overly narrow focus can encourage one-sided solutions, for instance by giving an impression that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will solve all of the major environmental concerns discussed in this report.” The NAS has also criticized “the lack of explicit discussion about the uncertainties associated with the regional model projections,” saying that “Decision makers need a clear understanding of these uncertainties in order to fairly evaluate the actual utility of using these projections as a basis for planning decisions.”
NCA CLAIM #5 “Extreme Weather – Hurricanes”
“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s.”
(NCA, Page 20)
“Extreme Weather – “Droughts and Floods” “both extreme wetness and extreme dryness are projected to increase in many areas.”
(NCA, Page 33)
According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.
Hurricanes have not increased in the United States in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900. Currently, the U.S. is enjoying a period of over eight years without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane making landfall. Government data also indicate no association between use of fossil fuels and tornado activity. The data on droughts paint a similar picture.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that “Climate change was not a significant part” of the recent drought in Texas. And the IPCC found that “in some regions , droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ….”
The IPCC also states there is “low confidence” in any climate-related trends for flood magnitude or frequency on a global scale.
Still More NCA CLAIMS
All of the other government claims worth discussing have been answered effectively in other commentaries. These include those related to ocean and lake ice levels, sea levels, and ocean alkalinity. Detailed rebuttals of such government claims can be found in reports available from CATO, CEI, Climate Depot, Heritage, ICECAP, TWTW, and WUWT.
The Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment begins with probably their most preposterous claims:
“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.”
(NCA, Page 1)
“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans.”
(NCA, Page 7)
“There is still time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts”
(NCA, Page 2)
This is pure rhetorical nonsense born of a cynical attempt to exploit short-term memories and/or little knowledge of the Earth’s climate history and climate processes.
Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
With the Earth’s vast oceans and atmosphere never in complete equilibrium, our climate will always be changing on time scales from weeks to months to years to decades to centuries and beyond. With a star varying cyclically as our heat source and with an enormous planet like Jupiter tugging on our orbit around the Sun, dramatic climate changes are expected to occur. (See pages 39-50 in USCA, Case #09-1322, Document #1312291, Filed: 06/08/2011.)
However, none of these dramatic climate changes have any connection to our use of fossil fuels. Yet the Obama Administration insists on building a House of Cards predicated on their Three Lines of Evidence as discussed in CLAIMS 1, 2, and 3 above. With all three of their Lines of Evidence shown to be invalid, their entire House of Cards collapses. For example, if increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not yield higher GAST, the claimed CO2 connection to higher sea levels is lost. What about their frequent claims that nearly all scientists agree with their analysis findings? By ignoring and even denouncing growing criticism, they have lost the benefit of crucial scientific debates which are critical to keeping their analyses honest and objective. In fact, as documented above in response to Claims 4 and 5, they are even disregarding their usual allies, the UN IPCC and US National Academy of Sciences, both of whom have been dialing back apocalyptic claims, not amplifying them due at least in part to such critical feedback.
Bottom-Line: This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes. As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. S. Fred Singer Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, U of VA Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University BEE, Ohio State University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Madhav Khandekar Retired Scientist, Environment Canada Expert Reviewer IPCC 2007 Climate Change Documents
George Taylor Certified Consulting Meteorologist President Applied Climate Services Two time President of the American Association of State Climatologists B.A. Mathematics, University of California M.S. Meteorology University of Utah
Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University
Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Clues within Grand Canyon rocks point to catastrophic water deposition. In August of this year, I rafted down the canyon, taking note of four clues that refute a deep-time interpretation of the canyon’s existence.4 I learned that instead of illustrating deep time, the Grand Canyon layers showcase immense catastrophe.
The first clue against “a slow process of formation” is the canyon’s fossils. The Coconino Sandstone, conventionally interpreted as a windblown sand dune deposit, contains fossil trackways likely made by some kind of lizard.5 The footprints preserve claw marks, which is expected if the creature walked in wet sand. Also, fossil shells from extinct sea creatures called nautiloids inhabit the base of the Redwall Limestone.6 These also appear in the same limestone layer far removed from the canyon, implying that one huge underwater
mudflow deposited them all. How could any slow process bury countless strong-swimming nautiloids and orient them to a single flow direction?
The second clue is soft-sediment deformation. Our trip included a guided tour of Carbon Canyon, one of many side canyons. There, we found entire stacks of sandstone layers tightly bent. Clearly, powerful tectonic forces uplifted and warped freshly deposited, soft, moldable land areas. If they had lithified (hardened into rock) over millennia, the brittle rock would have broken and fractured instead of bending under pressure. This incredible clue—as well as the countless fossils—implies unimaginable power that is easy to associate with the Genesis Flood.
Sharp, flat contacts between rock layers provide the third clue that refutes deep time in Grand Canyon. If thousands of years transpired after the completion of one layer and before a different layer was deposited over it, what would we expect to see? The following evidences would surface: a) Chemical weathering on the long-exposed rock, b) semblances of soil profiles that occur on land surfaces today, and c) erosion ruts where thousands of years’ worth of water runoff would have etched grooves and valleys. Imagine the drastic effects of erosion that we should see between each layer if millions of years separate them. No such features present themselves between most layers in the canyon. These strata extend remarkably flat for countless miles, telling of continuous deposition.
The clues so far yield a powerful implication. If watery catastrophe deposited each rock layer and its fossils and if no traces of long ages like erosion ruts lie between the layers, then it appears that a single mega-catastrophe quickly deposited all ten of the Grand Canyon’s remarkably uniform upper strata—thousands of feet thick.7
And what about their uniform thicknesses? Textbooks teach that Earth’s tectonic plates move slowly, at rates comparable to fingernail growth. Textbooks also tell us that sediments drifted down to the bottom of lakes or oceans, accumulating at the rate of one foot per several million years. Rock layers resulting from these two deep-time premises would have varying thicknesses as continents slowly tilted over time. Perhaps they would look like vast wedges. Instead, I saw even strata thicknesses for mile after mile, findings again consistent with the idea that a tremendous watery catastrophe deposited the ten strata in a very short time.
The fourth and final clue showcasing rapid catastrophe comes from “flat gaps,” like the canyon’s angular unconformity.8 This is “an erosion surface which has older strata below, dipping at a different (usually steeper) angle than the younger strata above.”9 For example, in some areas of Grand Canyon, the Tapeats Sandstone overlies a tilted shale layer that, in other places, lies below many tilted intervening layers. Where did the missing layers go?
If those intervening layers were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, then the flat gap represents a many-million-year hiatus. The problem is that no evidence of eons presents itself. The layers lie flat and smooth—without signs of everyday erosion. In other words, if chemical weathering and erosion ruts would form between two layers separated by only hundreds of thousands of years, then how much more would form after hundreds of millions of years? And yet no weathering or everyday erosion appears at the angular unconformity that I saw—just flat, sharp contacts. Although flat gaps represent gaps in rock layers, they do not appear to represent gaps in time.
The magnificent Grand Canyon is filled with prime evidence—fossils, bent strata, sharp contacts, and flat gaps—that its gargantuan rock layers resulted from tremendous catastrophe, not deep time.
- Craig, W. L. 1974. Evangelicals and Evolution: An Analysis of the Debate Between the Creation Research Society and the American Scientific Affiliation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 17 (3): 144.
- Austin, S. A. 1986. Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism. Acts & Facts. 15 (7).
- Berthault, G. 2000. Experiments in Stratification. Acts & Facts. 29 (10).
- Thanks to everyone at Creation Adventures for organizing the trip.
- Morris, J. 2010. The Coconino Sandstone: A Flood or a Desert? Acts & Facts. 39 (7): 15.
- Austin, S. A. 1990. Were Grand Canyon Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? Acts & Facts. 19 (12).
- The formation names are, in ascending order: Tapeats, Bright Angel, Muav, Temple Butte, Redwall, Supai (group), Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap, and Kaibab.
- Morris, J. 2012. Flat Gaps Between Strata. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 15.
- Austin, S. A. 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 239.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Brian Thomas, M.S. 2013. Don’t Grand Canyon Rocks Showcase Deep Time?. Acts & Facts. 42 (10).
Undoubtedly, the concept of a young earth poses a stumbling block to many Christians. Many do not find it hard to reject evolution, particularly with the fossil record showing distinct categories of plants and animals with no hint of any basic category changing into another. God surely created, they say, “but couldn’t He have done it over millions and billions of years?”
Consider, in passing, the fact that the Bible specifically teaches a young earth, making it Biblically and theologically impossible for the earth to be “old.” But if the earth is young, the geologic deposits of the earth’s crust should show that, or at least be compatible with the truth. And, indeed, there is such evidence.
One of my favorite lines of reasoning is that of “soft sediment deformation.” Most geologic rock layers started out as muddy sediments laid down under water, and hardened into rock as the water was squeezed out and the individual grains or molecules pressed together. Frequently, several thousand feet of these compressed rock layers are found stacked on top of one another, such as at the Grand Canyon, where about 5000 feet of horizontally bedded strata can be seen.
According to the old-earth idea, the Tapeats sandstone on the bottom of the Grand Canyon is about 550 million years old, while the Kalbab Limestone at the top is only 200 million years old. These sediments were uplifted to their present high elevation (some 7000 feet at the rim) about seventy million years ago, meaning the Tapeats was already 480 million years old at the time of uplift and “deformation”.
The young-earth creationist interprets these Grand Canyon rocks as having been laid down by the Flood, the Tapeats early in the Flood, and the KaIbab within the next few months. The area was uplifted late in the Flood year, with trapped flood waters carving out the canyon itself while draining off the uplifted continents.
In Grand Canyon Park, most of these sediments, which were laid down horizontally under water, remained horizontal after uplift. But the uplift Beverly deformed these same sediments along the flanks of the plateau, in some areas leaving them in a vertical orientation. In my favorite spot, the Tapeats, which today is an extremely hard rock, was bent from horizontal to vertical in a space of 100 feet or so. The nature of this deformation shows that the sediments were almost certainly still soft when bent. They had not yet had time to turn hard. But it only takes a few hundred years at best for sandy sediments to turn to sandstone in the presence of high overburden pressure and adequate cement. Therefore, we are justified in concluding that the Tapeats was not 480 million years old at the time of uplift. It all happened in a short period of time, while the sediments were still soft.
The old-earth advocates can propose an unlikely scenario of flowage under high confining pressure, but clearly, the evidence better fits the young-earth idea, wiping out 480 million years of supposed earth history.
The best part is, the world is full of such examples, producing much geologic evidence for a young earth.
*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.
Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 1991. Is There Geological Evidence for the Young Earth?. Acts & Facts. 20 (11).