The End Of Matter?

[longview]

I'll keep this simple for the non-scientists here. Photons are not particles. They are a wave of energy that can act like particles under some conditions. IE; If you own an older tube type TV you see how the photon of energy works in the presence of a strong magnetic force. We also see its effect when in the presence of a strong gravitational force in what is called a gravitational lense.

SEE https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyZEr7tVxFsAitAnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Gravitational+Lense&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

At the very least, the wiki indicated that the photon consists of more than one component and is theoretically subject to decay.

[longview]

I'll keep this simple for the non-scientists here. Photons are not particles. They are a wave of energy that can act like particles under some conditions. IE; If you own an older tube type TV you see how the photon of energy works in the presence of a strong magnetic force. We also see its effect when in the presence of a strong gravitational force in what is called a gravitational lense.

SEE https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyZEr7tVxFsAitAnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Gravitational+Lense&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

You misunderstand the old cathode ray tube TV with its phosphorus screen.  In the back of the tube was one electron gun (in the case of black/white TV) or three electron guns (in the case of color TV, red/green/blue).  The gun(s) were surrounded by magnets for focusing and deflection of electron beams.  The beams strike the layer of phosphorus in the front of the tube creating images.  The photons that you see conveying the images are actually emitted from the layer of energized phosphorus.

 

It is not economically feasible to build magnets to direct a beam of photons.  It is a LOT easier and cheaper (and less power intensive) to build magnets to direct a beam of electrons.  You are correct that massive bodies, such as our Sun or galaxies, do bend the path of photons.  But it is much harder to control the path of photons with our crude instruments except with lens and prisms.

 

You claim to be a scientist (or a lover of science) but have not done your homework.  Please re-read post # 124 more carefully (better yet, read the wiki on the photon).  It does not do to confuse our non-scientific friends.  You cannot so easily dismiss my conjecture of the limited lifespan of the photon with its steady "red-shifting" resulting in our being unable to "see" the Universe beyond the boundary of the CMB.  As I keep trying to explain, you may have your "facts" but you cannot deny there can be more than one possible "interpretations."

[thesometimesaint]

The TV works because there is a cathode ray gun that emits the free electrons and an anode plate that absorbs nearly all the free electrons. Those free electrons hit the phosphors in the screen absorbing them and making them glow.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray

 

If you want to get insulting I can go there. However you won't like the results.

Edited August 1, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[longview]

The TV works because there is a cathode ray gun that emits the free electrons and an anode plate that absorbs nearly all the free electrons. Those free electrons hit the phosphors in the screen absorbing them and making them glow.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray

 

If you want to get insulting I can go there. However you won't like the results.

Well, let me see.  You have restated my correction of your misconception.  Which is fine by me.  However, I do apologize for being insulting.  I only wanted to do so with mildness.  

[stephenpurdy]

Now that we've processed some QM...

IF Joseph was right - that matter cannot be created.

And

IF we understand him correctly as meaning not just that gods can't create matter, but that matter is such a thing that there cannot become more of it.

THEN, by definition, there is a finite amount of matter

And

Given enough time there will not be any more matter to produce another generation.

There are other implications but this is the most straightforward.

So, yes, it will eventually be the end of matter.

Does anyone have a good way to avoid this?

 

The question, as I understand it, is this: 

 

"Will God run out of "intelligences" and matter in order to create spiritual and physical children?"

 

I cannot imagine for this to be the case.

 

The "pure principles of element" are eternal.  It may not be what we consider to be "matter" that is eternal (atoms, molecules, etc), but the "principles" of element are eternal.  This may include different kinds of energy, etc.

 

If it can be proposed by mainstream Christianity that a God, "Infinite and Eternal", simply exists, then we can claim that non-divine realities which are also infinite and eternal also exist.

 

-Stephen

Edited August 2, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[thesometimesaint]

Well, let me see.  You have restated my correction of your misconception.  Which is fine by me.  However, I do apologize for being insulting.  I only wanted to do so with mildness.  

 

Photons are not electrons. Electrons are very small but still have mass. Photons are a unit of energy. At least in theory you can have a pound of electrons. You can't have a pound of photons. As I already said photons can act like a particle. However they will never be a particle.

 

Apology accepted.

[longview]

- - -

You can't have a pound of photons.

You have a tendency to oversimplify things. You made the mistake of stating that the gun in cathode ray tubes were shooting photon beams when you really should have said electron beams (you probably already knew that).  We agree that photons and Quantum Mechanics are complex subjects. You need to respond to this particular snippet among several that I included in my post # 124:

         Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted,

         the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h/λ, making them

         full-fledged particles. This photon momentum was observed

         experimentally[43] by Arthur Compton

 

As I already said photons can act like a particle. However they will never be a particle.

Even while photons carry momentum? Even when they are classified as Gauge Bosons? When their paths are bent by large gravity wells?  You need to re-read the article in  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Edited August 3, 2015 by longview

[thesometimesaint]

You have a tendency to oversimplify things. You made the mistake of stating that the gun in cathode ray tubes were shooting photon beams when you really should have said electron beams (you probably already knew that).  We agree that photons and Quantum Mechanics are complex subjects. You need to respond to this particular snippet among several that I included in my post # 124:

         Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted,

         the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h/λ, making them

         full-fledged particles. This photon momentum was observed

         experimentally[43] by Arthur Compton

 

Even while photons carry momentum? Even when they are classified as Guage Bosons? When their paths are bent by large gravity wells?  You need to re-read the article in  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

I didn't say that I said "The TV works because there is a cathode ray gun that emits the free electrons and an anode plate that absorbs nearly all the free electrons. Those free electrons hit the phosphors in the screen absorbing them and making them glow".

SEE https://en.wikipedia...iki/Cathode_ray

 

Here is what most likely to happen over the long haul of time in our universe.

SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo.DeeL5VdDsA4RIsnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBzNDdwamg0BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDNTk-?p=How+the+Universe+Works%2Fthe+End+of+the+Universe&vid=4b195ab218198bc87fb02bdf99c6bad1&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.aHIMGrfFws527A4qQXirGg%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D162%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBx6VUi0L9wk&***=How+The+Universe+Works+End+of+The+Universe+Season+3+Episode+2+Full+Documentary&c=58&h=162&w=300&l=2521&sigr=11bjuokcq&sigt=12e1ghu4j&sigi=12l8tt5tp&age=1429437579&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

Edited August 2, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Electrons are very small but still have mass.

I had no clue they were Catholic.

[longview]

I didn't say that I said "The TV works because there is a cathode ray gun that emits the free electrons and an anode plate that absorbs nearly all the free electrons. Those free electrons hit the phosphors in the screen absorbing them and making them glow".

SEE https://en.wikipedia...iki/Cathode_ray

- - -

In your post # 125 you said:  "IE; If you own an older tube type TV you see how the photon of energy works in the presence of a strong magnetic force."  It is NOT the strong magnetic force that is acting on photons, it is acting on a beam of electrons.

 

Which you clarified in your post # 128.  However, the electrons do NOT absorb the phosphors.  It is the phosphors that do the absorbing, become excited, and GLOW!

 

There are too many people drifting into junk science if they are not careful.  This is especially the case with global warming hysteria.  For example, I have NOT seen a good explanation for why CO2 would transfer its heat content from the atmosphere into the ocean.  Just another lame attempt to explain away the cooling that has been occurring in the last 20 years.

[thesometimesaint]

The electron beam excites the phosphors to make them glow which is what we see. The magnets direct that beam of electrons to the anode and then onto the phosphors. Without the phosphors we wouldn't have TV.

SEE https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bending-light-with-a-magnet.282656/

Edited August 3, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

In your post # 125 you said:  "IE; If you own an older tube type TV you see how the photon of energy works in the presence of a strong magnetic force."  It is NOT the strong magnetic force that is acting on photons, it is acting on a beam of electrons.

 

Which you clarified in your post # 128.  However, the electrons do NOT absorb the phosphors.  It is the phosphors that do the absorbing, become excited, and GLOW!

 

There are too many people drifting into junk science if they are not careful.  This is especially the case with global warming hysteria.  For example, I have NOT seen a good explanation for why CO2 would transfer its heat content from the atmosphere into the ocean.  Just another lame attempt to explain away the cooling that has been occurring in the last 20 years.

Here is how the oceans absorb the heat.

SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

 

Oceans absorb about 50% of the C02 that is produced by man.

SEE http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

 

The earth has been warming for the while.

SEE http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/04/new-video-there-is-no-pause-in-global-warming/

 

SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9fikL9VUxwAM5QsnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=Bad+Badder+Best&vid=18bf3b64d954e48db8951e125d7f0a2f&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.fVHIK4AKR2lZIRyXGvn7Kw%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D166%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx2qigs5&***=Bad%2C+Badder%2C+BEST&c=0&h=166&w=300&l=447&sigr=11821r659&sigt=10ha5qmo2&sigi=12ljnip7t&age=1431906866&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

Edited August 3, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

Here is how the

 

thesometimesaint, 

 

My good response was deleted 

[ERayR]

thesometimesaint, 

 

My good response was deleted 

 

nevermind

Edited August 3, 2015 by ERayR

[stephenpurdy]

You have a tendency to oversimplify things. You made the mistake of stating that the gun in cathode ray tubes were shooting photon beams when you really should have said electron beams (you probably already knew that).  We agree that photons and Quantum Mechanics are complex subjects. You need to respond to this particular snippet among several that I included in my post # 124:

         Einstein showed that, if Planck's law of black-body radiation is accepted,

         the energy quanta must also carry momentum p = h/λ, making them

         full-fledged particles. This photon momentum was observed

         experimentally[43] by Arthur Compton

 

Even while photons carry momentum? Even when they are classified as Gauge Bosons? When their paths are bent by large gravity wells?  You need to re-read the article in  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

 

Light is just very weird.  Sometimes it acts like a particle, and sometimes it acts like a wave.  You cannot say that it is only one or the other.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

Light is just very weird.  Sometimes it acts like a particle, and sometimes it acts like a wave.  You cannot say that it is only one or the other.

 

-Stephen

Sounds like it should get an academy award for best actor.

Ah yes, the certainties of Uncertainty.

[longview]

I do not what to derail this thread by having another long drawn out argument on global warming.  Because I will reiterate my point about junk science (found in many fields), I will respond here.  But our discussion must return to the topic of this thread which is "End of Matter" and its related concept of "Photon Decay."  I will NOT respond to any further AGW posts except in appropriately titled threads.

 

Here is how the oceans absorb the heat.
SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
 
Oceans absorb about 50% of the C02 that is produced by man.
SEE http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html
 
The earth has been warming for the while.
SEE http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/04/new-video-there-is-no-pause-in-global-warming/
 
SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9fikL9VUxwAM5QsnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=Bad+Badder+Best&vid=18bf3b64d954e48db8951e125d7f0a2f&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.fVHIK4AKR2lZIRyXGvn7Kw%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D166%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx2qigs5&***=Bad%2C+Badder%2C+BEST&c=0&h=166&w=300&l=447&sigr=11821r659&sigt=10ha5qmo2&sigi=12ljnip7t&age=1431906866&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

1- http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

 

This is a shockingly BAD website.  Very unprofessional and full of junk science.  Here are the snippets with my comments in red:

"Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. Once heated, the ocean surface becomes warmer than the atmosphere above, and because of this heat flows from the warm ocean to the cool atmosphere above.

This beginning statement looks reasonable.  BUT this article says NOTHING about transferring CO2 heat accumulation from the atmosphere into the ocean.  This atmospheric heat accumulation is supposed to be increasing catastrophically (regardless of what is occurring on the ocean surface) but nothing of the sort is happening!

Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans.

A very thin membrane trapping heat over the ocean?  Extremely implausible!  Resist breakage from wave action and churning?  Ridiculous!   Supposedly this "THIN" membrane is what's keeping heat from transferring from warm ocean into cool atmosphere.

. . . therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by way of conduction.

Water molecules forced together?  Total b#LLcr@p.  The entire statement sounds schizophrenic.

The warming of the oceans by sunlight, makes the daytime surface waters more bouyant than the cooler waters below and this leads to stratification - a situation where the warmer water floats atop cooler waters underneath, and is less inclined to mix. At night much of the heat accumulated during the day is lost back to the atmosphere (the overling air still being cooler than the ocean),

I could go along with that.

and this cooling leads to the stratified surface layers sinking and mixing with lower layers. This allows the remaining heat to be transported down deeper into the ocean, causing an increase in ocean heat content over the long-term.

Sounds like the author is straining at a gnat.  Not plausible AT ALL.

Then comes the reader's comments:
Paul D at 23:28 PM on 18 October, 2011
Logically wave energy should be small since it is third hand solar energy (Solar -> Wind -> Wave). Then you have the issue of how far it penetrates and causes any heating.

Junk science on top of junk science on top of junk science!

2- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

A greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide traps solar heat in Earth's atmosphere. The gas is known as the biggest contributor to global warming of the planet.

Blatantly FALSE!  Water vapor is a FAR more powerful heat trapper than CO2 (molecule to molecule).  Even climate scientists agree.  CO2 is a "trace" element in the atmosphere (only .000384), water vapor is FAR more prevalent.  Yet everything is cycling like it always has.  Earth has a powerful regulator.  The SUN is the major cause of warming/cooling.  When the sun is heating the Earth, we see global warming on EVERY planet!  The same is true when the sun is cooling.

3- http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/04/new-video-there-is-no-pause-in-global-warming/
Nothing but blather.

4- Not useful.

[TheSkepticChristian]

This is a shockingly BAD website.  Very unprofessional and full of junk science.  Here are the snippets with my comments in red:\

 

so does that mean you read the scientific literature?

 

 

This beginning statement looks reasonable.  BUT this article says NOTHING about transferring CO2 heat accumulation from the atmosphere into the ocean.  This atmospheric heat accumulation is supposed to be increasing catastrophically (regardless of what is occurring on the ocean surface) but nothing of the sort is happening!

 

Read the entire article.

 

 

cool atmosphere.

 

The planet was supposed to be getting colder (many reasons), but it is not. 2014, 2010, 2013, and 2005 were the hottest years, there are many reasons no climate researcher in the world thinks the Earth is cooling. There are far more record highs than record lows too. 

 

It is true the warming as slowed down for the air surface, but it is still happening (that is why there are more (about 2x) record highs than record lows), and the so-called hiatus is over anyways. 2015 will certainly be the warmest year. 

 

 

Blatantly FALSE!  Water vapor is a FAR more powerful heat trapper than CO2 (molecule to molecule). 

 

No junk science at all, CO2 warming causes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming, but water vapor is relatively short-lived. 

 

 

You started talking about AGW (it is somehow "political") so please stop talking about it. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

Light is just very weird.  Sometimes it acts like a particle, and sometimes it acts like a wave.  You cannot say that it is only one or the other.

 

-Stephen

 

It is really weird. Light exists as a wave, but when we go to measure its position the wave function collapses and it acts like a particle.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

[thesometimesaint]

I do not what to derail this thread by having another long drawn out argument on global warming.  Because I will reiterate my point about junk science (found in many fields), I will respond here.  But our discussion must return to the topic of this thread which is "End of Matter" and its related concept of "Photon Decay."  I will NOT respond to any further AGW posts except in appropriately titled threads.

 

1- http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

 

This is a shockingly BAD website.  Very unprofessional and full of junk science.  Here are the snippets with my comments in red:

"Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. Once heated, the ocean surface becomes warmer than the atmosphere above, and because of this heat flows from the warm ocean to the cool atmosphere above.

This beginning statement looks reasonable.  BUT this article says NOTHING about transferring CO2 heat accumulation from the atmosphere into the ocean.  This atmospheric heat accumulation is supposed to be increasing catastrophically (regardless of what is occurring on the ocean surface) but nothing of the sort is happening!

Despite being only 0.1 to 1mm thick on average, this skin layer is the major player in the long-term warming of the oceans.

A very thin membrane trapping heat over the ocean?  Extremely implausible!  Resist breakage from wave action and churning?  Ridiculous!   Supposedly this "THIN" membrane is what's keeping heat from transferring from warm ocean into cool atmosphere.

. . . therefore turbulence (the transfer of energy/heat via large-scale motion) falls away as it approaches this boundary. No longer free to jiggle around and transfer heat via this large scale motion, water molecules in the layer are forced together and heat is only able to travel through the skin layer by way of conduction.

Water molecules forced together?  Total b#LLcr@p.  The entire statement sounds schizophrenic.

The warming of the oceans by sunlight, makes the daytime surface waters more bouyant than the cooler waters below and this leads to stratification - a situation where the warmer water floats atop cooler waters underneath, and is less inclined to mix. At night much of the heat accumulated during the day is lost back to the atmosphere (the overling air still being cooler than the ocean),

I could go along with that.

and this cooling leads to the stratified surface layers sinking and mixing with lower layers. This allows the remaining heat to be transported down deeper into the ocean, causing an increase in ocean heat content over the long-term.

Sounds like the author is straining at a gnat.  Not plausible AT ALL.

Then comes the reader's comments:

Paul D at 23:28 PM on 18 October, 2011

Logically wave energy should be small since it is third hand solar energy (Solar -> Wind -> Wave). Then you have the issue of how far it penetrates and causes any heating.

Junk science on top of junk science on top of junk science!

2- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_oceancarbon.html

A greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide traps solar heat in Earth's atmosphere. The gas is known as the biggest contributor to global warming of the planet.

Blatantly FALSE!  Water vapor is a FAR more powerful heat trapper than CO2 (molecule to molecule).  Even climate scientists agree.  CO2 is a "trace" element in the atmosphere (only .000384), water vapor is FAR more prevalent.  Yet everything is cycling like it always has.  Earth has a powerful regulator.  The SUN is the major cause of warming/cooling.  When the sun is heating the Earth, we see global warming on EVERY planet!  The same is true when the sun is cooling.

3- http://climatecrocks.com/2013/09/04/new-video-there-is-no-pause-in-global-warming/

Nothing but blather.

4- Not useful.

 

List of scientific organizations that support the science behind Global Warming.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

Even the oil companies knew about Global Warming. They are just making a tidy profit  off it.

SEE http://nypost.com/2014/02/01/big-oil-not-only-believes-in-global-warming-theyll-profit-from-it/

[Zakuska]

List of scientific organizations that support the science behind Global Warming.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

Even the oil companies knew about Global Warming. They are just making a tidy profit  off it.

SEE http://nypost.com/2014/02/01/big-oil-not-only-believes-in-global-warming-theyll-profit-from-it/

 

 

List of Scientists who do not support the "science" (*** models ***) behind Global Warming.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

Al Gore and his Cronies Profiting from the Green Agenda

SEE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html

 

And you have just got to love that 25%-33% Increase in ARCTIC sea ice Volume of 2013 and 2014! It will be interesting to see how much it increases in 2015.

http://www.newsquench.com/2015/07/is-arctic-sea-ice-on-the-rebound/

 

Observed Temperature half what Models said...

https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/screen-shot-2013-09-17-at-september-17-12-10-41-am.png

 

Tim Yeo: Climate change might just be a natural cycle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10086694/Tim-Yeo-humans-may-not-be-to-blame-for-global-warming.html

Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

List of Scientists who do not support the "science" (*** models ***) behind Global Warming.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

It is a short list, and it includes death scientists. Thesometimesaint's list of scientific organizations is bigger.

Half of your list only disagrees with the IPCC projections, and most are not from a relevant field.  

 

Please give us a list of climate researchers that disagree with the GW theory.  

 

Edited to add: Your list includes Tim Ball LOL Give me a break!  He is no scientist at all 

 

 

And you have just got to love that 25%-33% Increase in ARCTIC sea ice Volume

 

Listen to an Antartic scientist 

 

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Sounds to me you think size matters.  List Envy.

 

PS> If you had continued reading TSS' list you would have noticed at the Bottom the Inclusion of the graph from my article and a link to my article from his.

 

 

Remember when the... Akedemik Sholalsky got stuck in the ice?!  DOH!  :rofl:

 

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/72433000/jpg/_72433111_72433110.jpg

 

 

PSS> Anartic sea ice extent is at an all time high.

https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_114_1981-2010.png

Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

I will ask you one more time, PLEASE give us a list of climate researchers that disagree with the basics of the GW theory. 

 

Please don't include Tim Ball LOL 

Edited August 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

I will ask you one more time, PLEASE give us a list of climate researchers that disagree with the GW theory. 

 

Please don't include Tim Ball LOL 

Tim Ball is on a list that is linked from TSS.

 

Anartic sea ice volume is at an all time high as of day 114 of 2015.

 

https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2015_day_114_1981-2010.png

 

"Scientists" can spout opinion all they want. It doesn't change the fact that sea ice volume is doing just fine. Worldwide.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Zakuska