Precipitation

Areas like deserts rarely have rain though condensation of water from wet air onto a cold surface at night can produce water droplets. Sand is not a good medium to produce water in this way and as a consequence cold air does not produce water in a desert under normal conditions.

Desert
Location

Any moisture in the night or dawn air is quickly lost when the heating by sunlight begins and the air turns dry and a warm, wet atmosphere can support a great deal more water than a cold one. Around 71% of the Earth's surface is sea and constant warming during the day causes a vast amount of evaporation.

The location of these deserts does not intuitively suggest the connection between them, yet there is such a connection and it pertains to the axial tilt of the Earth. Not what it is today, but must have been a very long time ago and be this millions or billions of just a few thousands of years can never be known with any certainty however much the science community would like it.

• The creationist argument invokes religion and the evolution argument requires the longest time that is speculatively 'acceptable'. The debate between creationism and evolution may well rage on, but actually goes nowhere. It will just descend into more polarised argument with each defending its own. Establishing truth will inevitably be totally impractical if not impossible.

What is not contentious is that evaporation leads to eventual precipitation in some form: rain or snow depends on location temperature and local atmospherics (wind force, pressure). This is cyclical and water will continue to rise and fall endlessly. Until its gets locked up in cement or concrete. Forever. Never to be freed. The irony being that the most essential of essentials for life is systematically being destroyed by those that rely on it. It's not really irony, but simply crass stupidity. Even the greedy need water to survive, though are blinded by their greed. Lethal stupidity.

Another irony exists with the destruction of oil: production of volatile petrol and diesel that produces water as a biproduct along with carbon dioxide upon combustion. The two constituents that would be necessary to produce the oil from carboniferous sources in the first place.

Unusual conditions, attributed to climate change, create the illusion of too much water. A river bursts its banks in one specific region and this can then be 'cherry-picked' as an example to fuel the entire global argument. An argument that is based more in finance than accuracy.

Polar Ice

The effect of melting ice is to cool the liquid within which it floats. Or conversely argued, the ice melts because the liquid is warming up. The latent heat of fusion represents the amount of heat absorbed (endothermic) to raise the temperature of ice and change its physical state from a solid to liquid water. Melting solid ice into liquid water at the same temperature. The same phase transition principle applies when liquid water becomes a vapour (steam): the latent heat of vapourisation (boiling point). Energy is required. The reverse process produces heat (exothermic): steam condensing into liquid water or liquid water into solid ice (freezing or melting point).

Imagine a drink without ice: it warms up on a hot day and may become unpleasant. So it is with the global seas. To maintain an even temperature (homeostasis), Arctic or Antarctic ice melts and this could be considered the purpose of the ice fields or rather how the Earth systems developed. As the surface area of a particular lump of ice reduces by melting, the (relatively) unchanged heat released from the medium causes an acceleration of the melt process. Very poor coverage promotes the acceleration that is expected as the ice volume (for whatever reason) reduces. The volume gets smaller and the rate of reduction then only appears to increase. This is a classic example of what appears to be deliberate misrepresentation. Consequently, the apparent rate of loss of ice by melting appears to speed up. An illusion. The rate remains the same, but the surface area continues to decline. Another way of looking at this is to envisage a room being heated by a fire. If the same fire were used to heat a smaller room then the atmosphere in the room would get much hotter. Same fire, smaller room.

When eventual re-freezing occurs, the rate of ice formation will begin at a fast rate and gradually slow as the surface area increases.

The polar bear species has been swimming to ice rafts over possibly thousands of millennia and will continue to do so in the future. (This does not take into account the evolutionary theory that the brown bear adapted into the polar bear for survival. Before any human activity.) It is highly emotive, though realistic. Images such as these will inevitably catch the human conscience and feed the guilt promoted by the climate change school. Polar bears and other cold water life have been around for a long time. The real threat to the continued existence of the polar bear is the human species. And not through any human-induced change in climate. That is a naturally occurring cycle that the polar bear has been exposed to (and survived) for those thousands of millennia.

The cyclical warming/cooling caused by the precession of the equinoxes (axial precession) will inevitably lead to global cooling eventually. It should be recognised, however, that carbon dioxide production doesn't help. Neither does a growing population that respires this toxic (to mammals) gas. Increasing numbers of livestock that is used to feed the human population, also generates increasing volumes of methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas generated from peat bogs and similar sources (Earth fart) than carbon dioxide. By about 20 times.

Methane is eventually oxidised to carbon dioxide and water and has a half-life of around seven years.

Summers should gradually become hotter
Winters generally colder

But the model here does not even begin to touch on the complexity of the many interactions between factors and this is generally ignored by the climate change advocates. Day-to-day or even year-to-year change could never be predicted in any detail. The butterfly effect (chaos theory) partially demonstrates the enormous complexity of the entire issue. The 'extremes' of temperature should eventually actually move (very gradually) to earlier values ('extremes').

• Those before any taxation was applied as the magic answer to all the 'problems'.

Create the 'PROBLEM' and provide the 'SOLUTION'

Copyright Notice

All the entries in the three journals published here (Comment, Philosophical and Science) are protected by copyright. As the owner of this site (www.creativeacre.co.uk), I am entirely responsible for all the text and implications of what is written. However, the proviso is described in the journal introduction that disavows all unauthorised comments or additions.

The maintenance of complete control does have its limits.

All fictional content is authored under the name: Louis Brothnias

Accreditation is clearly noted if originality cannot be claimed.