Over at the eternally interesting blog WUWW (What’s Up With Watts?), there is an excellent post about the alleged decline of the Arctic sea ice. It is well worth reading: Steven Goddard is giving the warmofascists a really good bashing. However, when talking about arctic sea ice, people seem to miss the most important point. Fortunately, I'm here to tell you what it is. The most important point is that when ice is melting, and it turns into water that is warmer than the ice was, it is just a matter of transfer of energy from somewhere else. You see, the energy (in the form of heat) that warms the ice and makes it melt does not appear magically - it must come from somewhere else. And that somewhere else gets colder when the energy leaves it. You can observe the same phenomenon by putting ice into a glass of Single Malt. As the ice melts, the Single Malt gets colder. The ice is not melting because the Single Malt is getting warmer - it is the opposite. The Single Malt is actually getting cooler. So the melting of sea ice doesn't mean it is getting warmer, like the ad-hominem-slinging Al Gore Gestapo goon squad wants you to believe. It is only a matter of a redistribution of energy/heat, and that is perfectly natural. Actually, human activities cannot redistribute heat. Such redistribution would be a violation of Maxwell's demon, which is the foundation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In addition, it takes very little energy to melt ice, as it only has to change from -epsilon to +epsilon degrees, where epsilon signifies a very very small number. So very small redistributions of energy can make a lot of ice melt. Like the flutter of the wings of a butterfly on Hawaii. So it is really silly to thinks that it has anything to do with human activities (unless it is butterfly-breeding humans).
If we look at the curve of the extent of the ice, we can see that it resembles what mathematicians call a Sine curve, after the Greek letter Sinulon. Sine curves occur in many situations in nature; for instance, sound waves are made up of Sine curves. And a Sine curve can never reach 0. It is mathematically impossible: the equation sine x = 0 has no solution. This proves mathematically that all ice can never melt, just as clearly as it proves that a sound never can be silent. And non-complete ice melting makes perfect sense: as the ice melts, we get more water, and the more water we get, the more ice can there be. Because – guess what - ice comes from water! Maybe the Dumming-Kruger-afflicted so-called climate scientists at NASA should try to learn some physics and mathematics for once!
In vino veritas!
In addition, it takes very little energy to melt ice, as it only has to change from -epsilon to +epsilon degrees, where epsilon signifies a very very small number. So very small redistributions of energy can make a lot of ice melt. Like the flutter of the wings of a butterfly on Hawaii. So it is really silly to thinks that it has anything to do with human activities (unless it is butterfly-breeding humans).
If we look at the curve of the extent of the ice, we can see that it resembles what mathematicians call a Sine curve, after the Greek letter Sinulon. Sine curves occur in many situations in nature; for instance, sound waves are made up of Sine curves. And a Sine curve can never reach 0. It is mathematically impossible: the equation sine x = 0 has no solution. This proves mathematically that all ice can never melt, just as clearly as it proves that a sound never can be silent. And non-complete ice melting makes perfect sense: as the ice melts, we get more water, and the more water we get, the more ice can there be. Because – guess what - ice comes from water! Maybe the Dumming-Kruger-afflicted so-called climate scientists at NASA should try to learn some physics and mathematics for once!
In vino veritas!
Addendum: As Count Dracula very perceptibly has pointed out, I made a small mistake regarding the sine function. It is actually 0 when x=0. This implies that there was no arctic sea ice when Baby Jesus was born, during the Roman Steaming Period.
This article was published and peer reviewed within two hours. Wouldn’t it be great to see all climate science treated in the same manner whatever its source?
This is indeed the way that we need to peer-review from now on. Not gate-keeping, nor appeals to authority via a self-seeking, peer-review process that claims that only its accredited disciples are competent to judge!
My superior mental processing was laid bare, was replicable and found to be a tiny bit at fault. The self-styled Science of Climate, has been characterized via its most enthusiastic adherents by non-transparency, obfuscation and odorants of deceit. The deceit is still denied by the warmofascist ad-hominem-spitting eco-terrorists!
