Search This Blog

Sunday, April 29, 2012

The lies and denial of evolution remind me of the lies and denial of global climate alarmists!

I am not close to the computer where my comments arrive and may not see many of them until Monday evening.    Therefore I am flying a bit blind, but I cannot imagine any Darwinists have thought up a good answer to the Carbon-14 problem in the last two days as they have not done in in the last several decades, so no worries there.   Anyway, all Darwinist dating methods suffer the fatal flaw of failure to account for the Flood and will always be way-way off.   Denial is pretty common amongst Darwinists, just as are lies.  If you doubt that, let me just say "Haeckel" or "Huxley" or "Gingrich" and know I could keep going!

Not that being wrong is any problem for Darwinists and Naturalists.   Pretty much every basic assertion made by Charles Darwin has proven to be false.   He could not help that, being a 19th Century English gentleman with no concept of nature and complexity of the cell, the existence of DNA and myriad other aspects of living organisms that would have been absolutely astounding to him.   I wonder if he would have been willing to be wrong in order to know truth?   I get the feeling that, even though Darwin decided to press forward with his hypothesis of evolution before he had a means by which it was accomplished (he considered Larmarkism and other concepts before Blyth's natural selection concept caught his attention), he would have abandoned it had he any idea of the remarkable complexity of organisms and the sheer bulk of information within them and the marks of design everywhere.   Darwin thought cells were blobs of protoplasm and that soon a continuum of transitional fossils would be found to fit his ideas.  Sorry, Charlie!

So many naturalistic materialists refuse to be wrong no matter how wrong they are.   For instance, when evidence from sea drones and satellites and other sources showed that global warming was not happening and the faked hockey stick graph was exposed and all the emails from the CRU in which the climate alarmists admitted to changing and hiding and faking evidence, did they admit to it?   No, they changed Global Warming to Climate Change and kept on sounding the alarm!!!   I have to tell you, if you investigate you will discover that there actually was a conspiracy, an unholy alliance between radical green nuts and businessmen/politicians who saw a way to make a boatload of easy cash.  Not so, you say, no way is there any kind of big conspiracy going on in the world of science?   Uhm, besides the CRU and the UN and all that faked evidence...

Climate stations all over North America were changed to produce artificially high temperatures.   Yes, temperature recording instruments were put on the top of asphalt-roofed buildings in the middle of cities or right in front of the exhaust end of air conditioners or right beside airport runways (jet engines, anyone?) and other violations of the regulations for weather stations.   You will find that I have written a lot on that subject so, rather than point to my posts I will simply remind you that going to Watt's Up With That will allow you to research Climategate and the weather station alterations.

Here is Anthony Watt's first venture into the weather station scandal.   After five years, extreme offenders have been identified and some of the worst ones changed...a few.   But men with millions of dollars, men like Al Gore, had invested heavily in carbon offset companies.   The scam was that companies which could not meet the enviromental requrements could pay a carbon offset company to go plant trees somewhere and no fines from the government would ensue.   It was a perfect scam, guys like Gore had lots of political insiders and legislators on his buddy list to make sure the government came down on "offenders" while Gore himself made a wildly inaccurate and buffoonish movie entitled "The Inconvenient Truth."   Now it takes a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ong web post to publish the 35 major Inconvenient lies and errors in Gore's movie!!!

So here is the start of it all when 1) Anhony decided to just check out the weather stations of North Amrica just to see if things were being done right...then 2) the state of the weather stations today!

1)  My summer project – a national weather station audit

ssorg_logo.png
You may remember a couple of weeks ago I got sideswiped by Ms, Sherri Quammen, who in a letter to the editor called me a “weapon of mass destruction” because I’m actively involved in climate change issues locally. While funny, it did give me the impetus (aka kick in the pants) I needed to get very busy and serious about a project I had been contemplating for some time:

A national repository of weather station site surveys.

ZZZZ Snore, ho hum you say? I’d normally agree, as the subject matter is the stuff of sleep inducers. But there’s a hitch. It seems that the folks at the top of the food chain in climate research didn’t do their homework at the base level, and didn’t bother to do a quality control check on the many weather stations used in the climate records and the computer models used to predict our climate future.

I remember a talk in the spring where Jim Price of CSU had to interrupt (at the behest of a couple of folks that felt a comment about the sun’s role in climate change studies was being ignored was “biased”) the Chico observatory series, Cosmic Hike to give us all a tongue lashing on why Global Warming is “good science”. I asked him a question in front of everybody about how well biases in measurements at weather stations had been accounted for (Jim’s on the IPCC committee) and he said that they had been “carefully accounted for and considered”. I didn’t believe him then, even less now.

Ok back to my summer project. Thanks to Quammen’s inspiration, I got busy putting together a website called www.surfacestations.org for the purpose of doing a nationwide, and hopefully a worldwide audit on the viability of the weather stations used in climate research.

To seed the effort, I’ve been driving around Northern California photographing and logging weather stations, and blogger Russ Steele from Grass Valley has been helping do surveys too. You’ve seen some of them in my blog posts titled: How not to measure temperature.

Some, like Marysville, are just unbelievably badly biased, and to be blunt, the data they produce is simply useless. Yet, they are part of our “official” climate temperature record, and the data is in fact used in the computer models.

So Monday, I go live with the www.surfacestations.org website showcasing some of the US Historical Climate Record sites which is the major framework that global warming science is built upon.

The reaction was immediate and visceral in the science blogosphere. I’d hit a nerve. Some posters called for my “removal”, not knowing that I’m not funded by grants, nor employed by a government agency. I’m funding all this myself, out of my own pocket. I had to chuckle. Some called me an amateur, others said I would taint the outcome, some just ranted (I think maybe Tasker joined in). Many questioned why such an effort was needed at all. The reaction to taking photographs of weather stations to document their conditions raised a stink I never could have predicted. Why? How can something so simple raise so many hackles? Aren’t many climate scientists saying “case closed” and “no more debate”? How could a few pictures threaten this established science?

Well here’s why: Lets use the weather station in Willows at the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority as an example. Its a lights=0 station. A what? Lights=0 means it has no lights around it. Ok so what does that have to do with climate change and temperature measurement? Well, it turns out that Dr. James Hansen of NASA, in creating his USHCN database didn’t actually visit the weather stations to see if they were working well and bias free, but rather conducted an armchair survey where he used nighttime Department of Defense satellite photos to evaluate the potential heat bias from growth around the stations. He figured counting streetlights in a radius would be a good indicator. For stations like Willows, out at the end of Hwy162, yes it works. It also works for out of the way stations like Lake Spaulding, except that the armchair light counting survey didn’t catch the fact the temperature sensor is parked over an aluminum boat next to a building, on a steel tower over a rocky surface. How hot could that be? I presume the boat is there for a fast getaway in case of catastrophic sea level rise.

But this armchair survey didn’t catch things like air conditioners blowing hot exhaust air on sensors, or the Marysville Fire Department parking their vehicles within 6 feet of the sensor, or the fact that Tahoe City had a new tennis court put up 25 feet away and a trash burn barrel located next to the station. And when the really embarrassingly bad weather stations Russ and I documented started showing up, the pro warming folks had to do something because it challenged the very data itself.

The www.surfacestations.org site has been up two days now, and I’m getting hundreds of registrations across the country from people wanting to get involved in the grass roots effort to photograph, measure, catalog and contribute to the database of weather stations. I’m getting inquires from Congress, Policy think tanks, and bloggers worldwide. I even had a mom who’s driving cross country with her daughter contact me to ask how she could participate.

BTW you can sign up to help, its free, easy, and fun too. Find the stations can be a bit of a puzzle, like GPS caching.

I’ve been invited to submit a research paper, and I’m having a lot of fun too. Now I know why I lost the school board election, it was to give me time to do this. Everything happens for a reason...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2)  NEWS Updated 11/04/2011 from Surface Stations

NEWS Updated 11/04/2011  After months of work, our paper has been accepted, read summaries on the paper at these locations:
Dr. Roger Pielke Senior's website here
Dr. John Neilsen-Gammon's website here
Anthony Watts website here
Media Resource - download PDF here
Link to the paper (final print quality), Fall et al 2011 here (updated)
Fall et all 2011 supplementary information here

Surfacestations project reaches 82.5% of the network surveyed. 1007 of 1221 stations have been examined in the USHCN network. The Google Earth map below shows current coverage.
USHCN surveyed 7-14-09

crn_ratings
Reference for site ratings: NOAA's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook Section 2.2.1
Sincere thanks to Gary Boden and Barry Wise for this contribution!
SurfaceStationsReportCoverMid term census report of the Surface Stations Project: Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? - click cover image at left to download a PDF document. Now at 80%, and with a majority sample that is spatially well distributed, a full analysis will be coming in the next few months. We will however continue to survey stations in the hope of locating more CRN1 and CRN2 stations due to their rarity.
The upcoming papers will feature statistical analysis of the nationwide USHCN network in the context of siting.

Direct link to PDF of the report is here

HELP NEEDED FOR SURVEYS IN THE FOLLOWING STATES:
Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, Texas.
Excerpt graphics from the report are below:
 

Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:
Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 (CRN2) - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."



 


Get Involved! help us document weather stations in the USA and the world.
Odd and irregular observing Sites looking at some of these observing sites you have to wonder: "what were they thinking"?
Resources links to useful and pertinent documents, images, drawings, specifications, and web sites.
Visit the blog to see highlighted examples of poorly sited stations in the "How Not to measure Temperature" series.

Site launched on 06/04/07
Progress as of 11/04/2011
USHCN Sites surveyed so far:
1068
USHCN Sites rated so far:
1007
USHCN Sites remaining:
214 

"This is a very important need for the climate science community, and you are encouraged to obtain this photographic documentation if you can, and also share with the new website under development by Anthony Watts"
- Roger Pielke Sr., University of Colorado, June 1st, 2007

Other news:
Florida Completed!
Nevada USHCN surveys completed
California USHCN surveys completed! See all California stations here
Louisiana has only three stations left, Franklin, Lafayette, and Plain Dealing Any takers?
A look at how changes in paint on Stevenson Screens may have affected temperature measurement.
Now Online: Conference presentation given at CIRES/UCAR on 8/29/07 describing this project and the methods used to assign station site quality ratings, along with examples of many site issues seen thus far. Click to view slideshow
Special recognition to five volunteers; Bob Thompson, Eric Gamberg, Russ Steele, David Smith, and Don Kostuch, who turned summer travels into survey expeditions. Don Kostuch has surveyed more stations, and covered a broader geographic area than any other surveyor. Thanks to all!


Here is a well maintained and well sited USHCN station:
 
Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
Click pictures for complete site surveys of these stations
Here is a not-so-well maintained or well sited USHCN station:

Graph is from NASA GISS - see it full size
This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but
has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.

What you'll find here

  • Site surveys of USHCN, GHCN, CWO, and other weather station networks
  • Photographic views and sketches of instrumental sitings
  • Historical notes on each station when available
  • Survey notes about nearby objects, surfaces, and sensor placement
  • Supplemental notes and photographs when applicable
I actually love the odd sites link...

Then there are the Darwinist geologists who KNOW that Uniformitarianism is a joke.  The sedimentary rock layers (this should have been obvious?) were formed catastrophically.   Can anyone say, "Flood?"  So (and I cannot make this stuff up) these geologists have termed their assumptions "Actualism!"    I had to laugh.   I mean, really, you are that bad off that you have to completely cover your arguments with bull manure?   This development will absolutely deserve it's own blogpost before long.   Let me show you a couple of actual weather stations being used by climate alarmists to try to make you think the Earth is in trouble and we need to help it. 

Forest Grove

Roseburg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just for fun, since we will go back to dating and Flood evidence next...

The Titanic illustrates Noah’s Flood

Titanic’s last hours from collision at 11:40 pm until sinking at 2:20 am. (from Titanic sinking animation by Prioryman on Wikipedia)
This year marks one hundred years since the Titanic sank, with tragic loss of life. A few years ago my wife and I visited a cemetery in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where some of those who perished were laid to rest. The images (above) illustrate its last two hours and forty minutes following its collision with the iceberg, at 11:40 pm on Sunday 14 April 1912.

A catastrophe involving such a large object takes time to unfold. After the Titanic struck the iceberg, water gushed into the starboard side of the ship near its prow. Although the flow of water was large, it took a couple of hours to cause the ship to sink because of its enormous size. As it filled, the prow slowly sank into the ocean, raising the stern. At around 2:18 am the ship suddenly broke in two. The forward section sank to the bottom of the ocean, while the aft section floated vertically briefly before disappearing beneath the waves and following the prow to the bottom.

When the Titanic collided with the iceberg, it set in train a sequence of events that continued for more than two hours until the ship reached a new equilibrium on the ocean bottom. This process can be used as an illustration of the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood, which engulfed our globe.

The Flood began, according to the Bible with a breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, and the opening of the windows of heaven (Genesis 7:11). The Flood involved a train of events that followed a logical sequence of cause and effect, until the earth reached a new equilibrium. Because the earth is so much larger than the Titanic, the catastrophe of the Flood took much longer to unfold. The Bible records it lasted for just over 12 months. Ongoing climatic effects continued for hundreds of years.

During Noah’s Flood, vast quantities of water moved over the surface of the earth, eroding the landscape and depositing sediment in enormous sedimentary basins. This redistribution of mass caused movement of the earth’s plates. This in turn generated huge volumes of molten magma, the movement of which further redistributed mass on the globe—laterally and radially. The cooling of the magma also affected the movement of plates and ocean levels. Through the process some parts of the earth’s crust gradually sank lower and others rose, until the earth eventually reached a new equilibrium, which we enjoy today.

Geological history is often presented as a list of disconnected events. We read about sedimentation, erosion, mountain building, volcanic eruptions, and ice ages, each separated from the other by tens of millions of years. With so much time between events they seem to be unrelated. However, by looking at geology as the unfolding of one huge catastrophe that overtook our globe, we can begin to connect the dots.

Authored by Tas Walker

 


9 comments:

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"I cannot imagine any Darwinists have thought up a good answer to the Carbon-14 problem in the last two days as they have not done in in the last several decades, so no worries there."

Contamination and background would be the current explanation for C-14 dating not being effective when it comes to the far end (i.e. very low levels) of that range. This is not a problem (or even interesting) for mainstream science, as there are other (calibrated) methods for measuring ages that go beyond what is suitable for C-14 dating.

Creationists might reply (with no actual basis, from what I can see) that it's not just contamination and background - but then they'll have to demonstrate that this isn't so. FInd a way to eliminate contamination and background, then stick in an ancient sample and see if you get no carbon-14.

Until then, maybe you can think of a way to address the fact that C-14 dating also happens to have eliminated any possibility of an Earth younger than 6,000 years, a fact that must drive people like you nuts.

Is there a plausible way to calibrate this dating method that makes it line up with data from other sources... and that gets you to a young Earth? So far YECs have failed to do so.

So where is this calibration? It's just like the fossil record: YEC can't come up with any explanation of the sequence of the fossils, and so they have to come up with distractions.

"Anyway, all Darwinist dating methods suffer the fatal flaw of failure to account for the Flood and will always be way-way off."

Since these are scientific dating methods, there is no need to include ancient religious texts in the evidence. They may be of some historical interest There is no scientific evidence for a global flood. If a global flood had occurred 4,000 years ago, there would be a lot of evidence for it.

"Pretty much every basic assertion made by Charles Darwin has proven to be false."

Such as?

"Darwin thought [...] that soon a continuum of transitional fossils would be found to fit his ideas. Sorry, Charlie!"

Sorry, Radar! Those transitional fossils have been found in abundance. You've fallen for the old creationist line that the theory of evolution says we should find half a wing or something like that - which of course the theory of evolution would not predict.

"For instance, when evidence from sea drones and satellites and other sources showed that global warming was not happening and the faked hockey stick graph was exposed and all the emails from the CRU in which the climate alarmists admitted to changing and hiding and faking evidence, did they admit to it?"

You mean did they admit to the fraud that numerous investigations concluded didn't occur?

What evidence do you think was faked? Be specific if you can. And you do know that "hide the decline" doesn't refer to a decline in temperatures, right?

BTW, I find the investigation of weather stations interesting, but you don't do yourself any favors when you throw such items together with so many untruths.

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

Oops, forgot to finish a sentence earlier on.

Ancient religious texts may be of some historic significance when they refer to contemporary events, but why would a creation myth of all things count as scientific evidence?

Anonymous said...

Um, exactly how does the Titanic illustrate Noah's Flood?

radar said...

HLH, it has been demonstrated to you emphatically that everywhere we measure C-14, we get measurements of the presence of some remainder in the fossil being measured. Contamination is not causing these readings, great care has been taken to see if contamination is happening and it is not. That is simply a lame excuse to ignore the fact that C-14 is in all organic remains and all rock levels and layers no matter how old they are supposed to be, which means that life on Earth has only been around for thousands rather than millions of years.

Darwinism has caused a massive error cascade which has simply added to the ignorance of mankind. The Moon cannot have been around for billions of years, we know this by measurement. The magnetic field could only be, at most, 25,000 years old based on the current strength of the system (which is the longest running measurement we have in science).

Also, with no calibration whatever the Carbon-14 measurements indicate that life on Earth is less than 100,000 years old and, if calibrated in the context of the Flood, less than 10,000 years old. Helium atoms remaining in granitic zircons indicate an Earth of around 6-7,000 years old.

The Sun is a system and it is temporal so we know that it is also running downhill and, from observance of similar stars around the galaxy we can see that the Sun would not have allowed for life even a few million years, the power of a younger Sun would have been too much for any organisms to flourish on Earth.

All this comes together. Once you realize there was a flood and understand the dating methods, Earth's history becomes more coherent and some very difficult questions suddenly get answered.

A designed set of organisms within an ecosystem that allows for great variation within said organisms, only allowed because of the large set of genetic material built into the organisms, all living within a Universe that appears to be designed. The Universe and everything it it appears to be designed because it is. Get used to the idea?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Also, with no calibration whatever the Carbon-14 measurements indicate that life on Earth is less than 100,000 years old and, if calibrated in the context of the Flood, less than 10,000 years old."

Is there a way to calibrate C-14 measurements "in the context of the Flood" that actually fits the available data?

That's the part you keep having to skip over. There is no way to do that, right? Can you just admit that? Or do you refuse to be wrong no matter how wrong you are?

You've read all these creationist websites and magazines. YEC is falsified by radiometric dating (and other dating methods) left and right - unless they completely reinterpret these data. So can they do it or can't they?

For example, we have tree ring records going back about 10,000 years. To squeeze those into the 4,300 years since the alleged flood, you have to speculate that at some point a lot more rings were generated every year - by an entirely unknown and speculative mechanism (call it "poof!"). And we can subject these tree rings to C-14 dating, for "calibration".

So... is there any way to reconcile these data?

Looking forward to your continued evasions and distractions.

YEC = falsified.

Jon Woolf said...

So much sound and fury ... so little signified.

The magnetic field could only be, at most, 25,000 years old based on the current strength of the system (which is the longest running measurement we have in science).

Except that the rock record shows the magnetic field has reversed polarity numerous times, so any simple linear analysis of its dipole strength is worthless.

Oh, and it's far from "the longest running measurement we have in science." Some that would be longer include: the length of the day, month, and year; the solar constant; tidal period and height at various locations; the speed of light; the radius and circumference of the Earth...

As for C14 dating, there are a number of possible reasons for the anomalous results reported by RATE, even if you break with all existing experience and assume that those results are accurate and were accurately reported.

Anonymous said...

"A designed set of organisms within an ecosystem that allows for great variation within said organisms, only allowed because of the large set of genetic material built into the organisms, all living within a Universe that appears to be designed. The Universe and everything it it appears to be designed because it is. Get used to the idea?"

What's clear is that the universe is beyond our understanding. If it's a design, then it's a design beyond our understanding. So either the universe is beyond our understanding or it was designed by a designer who's beyond our understanding. Either way, I don't get what so-called "answers" are supposedly being provided here.

radar said...

The statement that there are "
Sorry, Radar! Those transitional fossils have been found in abundance" is a lie. In fact there may not be even one.

As to "numerous investigations" saying fraud did not occur, you mean when the UN and CRU claimed they did not occur? We have the emails that PROVE fraud occurred and I posted in detail earlier what "hide the decline" meant. It is also true that Mann's hockey stick graph is in itself a fraud. Furthermore the temperatures of the 21st Century represented declines rather than a temperature raise.

The bottom line is that climate alarmists invented a crisis that did not exist for both political and financial reasons. The fact that "Global Warming" has been replaced by "Climate Change" is a clue for you all. The walrus was Paul. So global warming was just as factual as was the death of Paul McCartney in the late 1960's.

In fact, CO2 is plant food. The amount in the atmosphere is too small to have any measurable effect on the temperature, but the more of it present in the atmosphere, the better plants grow. So rather than trying to control it, we should be seeking to emit it so that more crops can grow bigger in more places with less water. Try using a little science for a change instead of folklore.

Which brings us to the magnetic field. Polarity reversals have nothing to do with total strength of the field, which is degrading.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Sorry, Radar! Those transitional fossils have been found in abundance" is a lie. In fact there may not be even one."

Well, Tiktaalik would be one, and here are some more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

"In fact, CO2 is plant food. The amount in the atmosphere is too small to have any measurable effect on the temperature, but the more of it present in the atmosphere, the better plants grow. So rather than trying to control it, we should be seeking to emit it so that more crops can grow bigger in more places with less water. Try using a little science for a change instead of folklore."

Thanks for the tip. So could you show us the science that says that when there is less water, plants can grow better if CO2 in the atmosphere is increased?

And can we add this calibration claim to the many others that you've failed to back up? There is no way to calibrate the data to your liking, is there?