The Science of Martinis and Climate Change

You might be wondering what connection to science a martini could have.  Surprisingly, quite a lot.  Every aspect of our lives is governed by and reliant upon science, even religion.  "Give us this day our daily bread". This simple phrase involves astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics.  If you take the time to think about it, you will begin to see the science behind everything.

Several years ago, I went through a martini phase. When I began making martinis for my friends, I set out to create the perfect martini.  I'm not talking about the concoctions that are poured in a martini glass and called something pretentious:  chocolatini, melontini, cocktail weinietini, whatever.  I'm talking about the basic gin (although I prefer vodka, gin makes me angry) and vermouth with an olive, and shaken, not stirred.  The secret involves "old ice".

Old ice is ice that has been frozen for at least 24 hours. This is important because water turns to ice at 32° F (0° C).  Until the water is completely frozen, the ice remains at 32 or 0°, depending on your temperature scale.  However, your freezer is probably closer to 0° F (about -18° C). Now for the tricky math stuff, this will all be in metric units because I'm too lazy to do conversions today.  To lower the temperature of 1 gram of water 1° C requires 1 calorie of heat be removed. To change 1 gram of water at 0° C to ice requires 80 calories be removed. To lower the temperature of ice requires 2 calories per gram.

If you don't use old ice (and follow the other instructions at the end of this entry) when you begin to mix your martini, the ice will start to melt and instead of vodka (or gin) and vermouth you have vodka (or gin), vermouth and water.

But what does this all have to do with climate change?  Perhaps you recall last years news about extreme melting of the polar ice caps, or more recent news about the melting of Antarctic ice. You probably also noticed a rather prolonged, cold and snowy winter, and you might be thinking this solved the problem.  But it didn't, and the reason is "old ice".

The ice caps act as shock absorbers for our weather. If the ice cap is too small, then we can expect to see large changes in temperature.  In a normal, balanced system, the ice caps shrink and grow and change in size gradually.  When the temperature rises they help slow down the rise, because it takes twice as much heat to raise the temperature of ice, and 80 times as much to melt ice as it does to raise the temperature of water. When temperatures drop, it slows down the drop, for the same reason.

Without the old ice, the size of the polar cap can fluctuate much more, removing or adding much more heat. This leads to extreme weather. Besides the flooding we have been warned about (and the warnings are now 40 years old), we can expect more and stronger storms, tornadoes and hurricanes, we can expect drought, excessive snowfall, extreme high and low temperatures and unseasonal weather, and we can expect the trend to accelerate.

There is some good news.  It is clear no one is going to make a real effort to deal with the changing climate, but don't despair.  The problem will correct itself. Quite a few of us won't survive the correction, but eventually it will work itself out. Once the population stabilizes at a much lower level, the weather will begin to moderate.

Now, you probably need a martini.  Here is my not very secret recipe.  First, store your vodka (or gin) in the freezer, it won't freeze.  If it does freeze, then someone is drinking your vodka and replacing it with water. Store your vermouth in the refrigerator. It's also a good idea to keep your drink shaker in the freezer (and martini glasses if you have the room.  Fill your shaker with old ice, then add vodka and vermouth (I prefer 3 parts vodka to 1 part vermouth, vary the mix to suit your taste), shake and pour into your chilled martini glass.  Garnish with a stuffed olive and/or a cocktail onion.  Enjoy.

Why Couldn't Evolution Be the Work of God?

Unless this is your first visit, you probably realize you're not going to find a simple answer, or an answer you can agree with, and probably not an answer that makes any sense at all.  But, before we get to the confusion, a brief explanation of why I'm asking this question.

My Facebook page is set up so that, not only can I see anything posted or shared by my slowly diminishing list of friends, but I can also see anything you comment on or like.  Late last night this came across my newsfeed, because a friend had commented on it.  Curious, I took the time to glance through some of the comments on the "Evolution and Creationism - Open Debate" page.  As is so often the case with open debates, most of the comments were either insults or attempts to debate whether or not an insult was an actual insult. My sadistic side reveled in this discovery, watching others inflict meaningless pain is so rewarding. Not to be left out, my masochistic side chose to write my thoughts on the subject.

If you can find a copy, I highly recommend "Experiment in Autobiography" by H.G. Wells.  Not only is it an incredible account of the life of a very interesting man, it also paints a vivid picture of life in the late 19th and early 20th century.  One tidbit from this book is, shortly after Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" set the scientific community afire, the church (I'm assuming he means the Church of England) agreed that creationism and evolution fit together just fine. Problem solved, class dismissed, our work here is complete. Add in 150 years of research, that continues to prove the reality of evolution, and it is clear, evolution is real. So why is this still an issue.  The answer is "Symbols".

Communication is the exchange of symbols, just as commerce is an exchange of values.  For either to exist there must be a consensus on the values and the symbols.  If I agree that a loaf of bread is worth one dollar and the grocery store agrees one dollar is worth a loaf of bread, I can buy and they can sell the loaf of bread. If we can not agree, they are stuck with moldy bread and I'm spreading peanut butter and jelly across George Washington's face.

Why can't "Why Couldn't Evolution Be the Work of God?" be debated rationally?  Because the symbol God is undefined.  In the equation 8 + y = x, if I ask you to give me x number of dollars, what do you do?  X could be anything, because y could be anything.  Similarly, if I ask you "What is God?", how do you answer in a way that makes sense?  There is nothing you can point to and say "This is God".  To illustrate, I am going to play Borat for a few moments.

I have just asked you "What is a dog? I have never heard of such a thing.  Can you tell me?"  You might tell me a dog is a pet, but so is a goldfish.  You might say a dog is a pet with 4 legs and a tail, which could be a turtle. You might even show me a picture of a dog.  But still I am confused.  You showed me a German Shepard, someone else showed me a Pomeranian and a third person showed me a Saint Bernard.  When you think of dogs, you probably think of a specific dog, and the same is true when you think of God.  Not to be insulting, but to some people, God is a Poodle and to others God is a Pitbull.

This confusion over the symbol "God" is increased by the one source of all things pertaining to "God". The source varies depending on your religion, for most people around here, that source is the "Holy Bible". If you do some reading you will find that God is benevolent and God is vindictive.  God is loving and God is jealous.  God wants peace and God wants war.  God loves children and God kills children.  The contradictions go on and on.  Most people deal with the contradictions with a simple "We can't understand the mind of God".

Fortunately, I believe I've found a way to cut through the confusion that accomplishes nothing. This makes it equally acceptable by all sides.  Quoting the Bible, John 1-1:  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not."  When combined with the creation story in Genesis this leads me to assume that the entire universe is, not only the creation of God, but is in fact God. If I can say "God is the universe" and you can agree "the universe is God", we now have a symbol we can agree upon.

I realize, half my readers left after the Poodle comment, for the other three, I'll wrap this up soon.  Whether you attribute your triumphs and defeats to the glorious, but inscrutable will of God, or you chalk them up to the perversity of the universe, when it comes to science, the answers found are more important than the questions asked. Evolution is a fact.  The evidence supporting evolution boggles the mind. Imagine forcing 5 billion people to ingest a fatal dosage of poison just to prove poison can be deadly and you begin to grasp the magnitude of proof supporting evolution.

Evolution is the work of God and evolution is a natural and expected result based upon the laws of the universe.  To quote a former President, "What is, is."

If anyone has a dollar I'll make you the last peanut butter and jelly sandwich you'll ever want to eat.