ohleary Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is global warming over for the next century due to the solar cycle (beginning in 1997)? Will we see cooling or just a balance between global warming and the cooling due to the solar cycle? Or is this hogwash and will warming continue? Discuss. http://www.dailymail...zing-again.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php #5 & #9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is global warming over for the next century due to the solar cycle (beginning in 1997)? Will we see cooling or just a balance between global warming and the cooling due to the solar cycle? Or is this hogwash and will warming continue? Discuss. http://www.dailymail...zing-again.html Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1l6DIYvD0 Solar forcing since 1750 = 0.12W/m^2 Forcing from a doubling of CO2 = 3.7W/m^2 (pre-industrial 280ppm to 560ppm mid 21 century) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Here is the link to the actual UK Met Office paper - Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research An exerpt: It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC's B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). So - if the paper is correct, thanks to lower solar activity, by 2100 Earth will warm by merely 2.42 degrees C instead of a fiery 2.50 degrees C. Well, I'll sleep better knowing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is global warming over for the next century due to the solar cycle (beginning in 1997)? Will we see cooling or just a balance between global warming and the cooling due to the solar cycle? Or is this hogwash and will warming continue? Discuss. http://www.dailymail...zing-again.html I can see that you have participated in this board longer than I, and that you claim to be a meteorologist. My question then is to ask why you would ask a question to which you must have known the answer to prior to posting? You have to be aware that it will be answered simply by directing others to the Skeptical Science sight that debunked the assertion back when it was new, so what is the up side? Throwing new arguments into the mix to attempt to muddy the waters might possibly be thought of as productive to a denier, but a stale old already debunked myth can do nothing but to further erode any credibility that you might hope to attain. What is the upside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I can see that you have participated in this board longer than I, and that you claim to be a meteorologist. My question then is to ask why you would ask a question to which you must have known the answer to prior to posting? You have to be aware that it will be answered simply by directing others to the Skeptical Science sight that debunked the assertion back when it was new, so what is the up side? Throwing new arguments into the mix to attempt to muddy the waters might possibly be thought of as productive to a denier, but a stale old already debunked myth can do nothing but to further erode any credibility that you might hope to attain. What is the upside? Remember, he is only a meteorologist and most likely doesn't have any "real" education in the climate sciences. With this in mind, please excuse all input from him, as he is probably not as smart as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I think it's fair to ask why someone with a red tag would start a thread on something so easily debunked (as was quickly done here). I have noticed that being a trained Met (with honorable exceptions, such as yourself, Don S. and a number of others) seems to offer little protection against the loss of perspective that goes with "skepticism" re the scale and importance of obvious AGW consequences. Funny thing, that. I admit I see it in biomedical research often enough too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I think it's fair to ask why someone with a red tag would start a thread on something so easily debunked (as was quickly done here). Maybe because most Mets have little different knowledge of climate forcing than any other scientifically trained person commenting on an area outside their area of expertise. There is reason to expect more relevant substance from a specialist than from just anybody working in a seemingly related field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Maybe because most Mets have little different knowledge of climate forcing than any other scientifically trained person commenting on an area outside their area of expertise. There is reason to expect more relevant substance from a specialist than from just anybody working in a seemingly related field. It's funny...I agree with you, to a point, however.... Having a "tag" means something different, at different times to those firmly subscribing to the alarmism state of AGW....Sometimes (when convenient) we are artificially elevated in stature for the sole pupose of "crashing harder"...ie "as a met we should 'know better'...., or we are artificially lowered in stature (when convenient) as to not having the 'inherent knowledge' of the climate system necessary to convey an opinion worthy of THEIR consideration. In the end, all we have on this board is a group of people with: A.) Varying degrees of knowledge on the subject, B.) Varying degrees of ability to converse coherently about the subject, C.) Various degrees of biases (politically, ideologically, or knoweldge based), and D.) Varying perceptions as to how science is progressing at the various levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Remember, he is only a meteorologist and most likely doesn't have any "real" education in the climate sciences. With this in mind, please excuse all input from him, as he is probably not as smart as you. I wasn't making a frivolous argument, and frankly, have seen you participate in a similar vein. I am both bemused by the tactic as well as repulsed, failing to see the upside of postulating tired arguments that are obviously going to be shot down almost immediately by well crafted rebuttals. Those lacking sufficient intellectual resources typically cling to the last argument that they can comprehend and repeat this ad nauseam. This seems different although there is I suppose some chance that this what we are experiencing. Is it some form of debating tactic in which one side, by putting out arguments so obviously without merit, attempts to win pity from the crowd? Is it an attempt to show blind devotion to an ideology even in the face of overwhelming evidence and thus cast yourself in the light of a noble, though mistaken zealot, thus gaining followers by means of intellectual martyrdom? I've been at least lurking here long enough to be able to distinguish between those that are new to the subject matter, those that occasionally proffer new insights and those that only rehash matters that they are aware are long since resolved. It's only the latter whose motives frankly baffle me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 It's funny...I agree with you, to a point, however.... Having a "tag" means something different, at different times to those firmly subscribing to the alarmism state of AGW....Sometimes (when convenient) we are artificially elevated in stature for the sole pupose of "crashing harder"...ie "as a met we should 'know better'...., or we are artificially lowered in stature (when convenient) as to not having the 'inherent knowledge' of the climate system necessary to convey an opinion worthy of THEIR consideration. In the end, all we have on this board is a group of people with: A.) Varying degrees of knowledge on the subject, B.) Varying degrees of ability to converse coherently about the subject, C.) Various degrees of biases (politically, ideologically, or knoweldge based), and D.) Varying perceptions as to how science is progressing at the various levels. For those who have made the effort to understand the underlying scientific basis for AGW it is relatively easy to perceive departures from that science in the opinions offered and promoted by those either with less understanding and/or ideological motivation. Opinion derived from faulty premises and suppositions is detectable by those well versed in the science, while the same may go over the heads of the under educated on the particular subject. The daily mail does not premise it's story on consensus science. It begins with the intent of promoting a contrarian viewpoint and elevates the opinion of those outside the scientific mainstream to equal status with the Met Center. This only works on you if you are unfamiliar with this relationship: 0.12W/m^2 versus 3.7W/m^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I wasn't making a frivolous argument, and frankly, have seen you participate in a similar vein. I am both bemused by the tactic as well as repulsed, failing to see the upside of postulating tired arguments that are obviously going to be shot down almost immediately by well crafted rebuttals. Those lacking sufficient intellectual resources typically cling to the last argument that they can comprehend and repeat this ad nauseam. This seems different although there is I suppose some chance that this what we are experiencing. Is it some form of debating tactic in which one side, by putting out arguments so obviously without merit, attempts to win pity from the crowd? Is it an attempt to show blind devotion to an ideology even in the face of overwhelming evidence and thus cast yourself in the light of a noble, though mistaken zealot, thus gaining followers by means of intellectual martyrdom? I've been at least lurking here long enough to be able to distinguish between those that are new to the subject matter, those that occasionally proffer new insights and those that only rehash matters that they are aware are long since resolved. It's only the latter whose motives frankly baffle me. What's the last argument that you cling to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 but you were the one who asserted we should take him seriously as he has a red tag (albeit trying to be sarcastic). are you saying that having a red tag in and of itself does or does not confer additional gravitas on a poster in this subforum? and if it does, how do you account for someone with that presumed additional gravitas who posts stuff that is patently untrue? Depends upon each individual. If you don't know much of the guy/gal, then, IMO, the defaulted merit is that of any new poster....tagged or not. We aren't talking royalty here, we all know that in any profession we have a bell shaped curve of skill sets. I don't make the rules here....I told someone back over at Eastern that I'm a degreed met and voila....I got a tag!!!....whatever rockstar status that is supposed to come with such a label has more value to others than to myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 so when you wrote this: you were being serious? Ummm.....No. because if you weren't being serious you're arguing both sides of the argument--that ohleary should be given deference due to his tag and also that a tag means nothing special in this subforum. Consider it a bit of sarcasm mixed in with enlightenment. as a scientist, shouldn't you also share in the goal of keeping the discussion here based on the facts and not on propagating debunked talking points? I honestly don't understand your responses in this thread. LOL, trying to "share in the goal" was given up by me LONG before you got kicked out of AP and became a semi-regular here at CC. A gatekeeper I am not.....more like a giant squid in a pool of electric eels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why do many mets become mets? cold and snow. These boards exist on the backs of cold and snow. In a hugely dissproportionatte number winter weather lovers come to this forum,.denialist blogs and get what sounds good for their addiction. I was an addict to snow. I remember the weekly rush when a storm was coming. s Sleeping 2-3 hrs a night Searching models anywhere, jma, crass, nogaps, bobs model. The rush of the ups and downs. its more like doctrine than science. Our local blog morethanweatherstl. Is filled with show junkies. I was one of the top ones. I tried the rationalizing game. I could buy solar mins off setting the warming. I couldnt out right deny the warming . Hell my animal instincts and intuition tells me that. Eventually, spending time here the walls fell, my addiction to snow was shattered. I couldnt have something that blinds me from truth. I still love snow. But its not at the cost of my logical pursuit of truth. since then my forecasts, predictions, and views all got much better. I am not sure why this gets swepted under the rug. AGW attacks that ideology of cold and snow head on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 What's the last argument that you cling to? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Good one, LEK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why do many mets become mets? cold and snow. These boards exist on the backs of cold and snow. In a hugely dissproportionatte number winter weather lovers come to this forum,.denialist blogs and get what sounds good for their addiction. I was an addict to snow. I remember the weekly rush when a storm was coming. s Sleeping 2-3 hrs a night Searching models anywhere, jma, crass, nogaps, bobs model. The rush of the ups and downs. its more like doctrine than science. Our local blog morethanweatherstl. Is filled with show junkies. I was one of the top ones. I tried the rationalizing game. I could buy solar mins off setting the warming. I couldnt out right deny the warming . Hell my animal instincts and intuition tells me that. Eventually, spending time here the walls fell, my addiction to snow was shattered. I couldnt have something that blinds me from truth. I still love snow. But its not at the cost of my logical pursuit of truth. since then my forecasts, predictions, and views all got much better. I am not sure why this gets swepted under the rug. AGW attacks that ideology of cold and snow head on. I love snow, snow is fantastic. I don't believe AGW because I love snow so much. I visit this board because snow is really neat stuff. At first I had no idea what the inner workings of snow were and how it was formed. I am not sure why ideas like this get swepted under the rug either, it has to be the denialist sites doing it. I think many of the deniers here are paid by somebody to spew there opinion. I think the sun has through us a cruveball or two when it come to the weather and climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Why do many mets become mets? cold and snow. These boards exist on the backs of cold and snow. In a hugely dissproportionatte number winter weather lovers come to this forum,.denialist blogs and get what sounds good for their addiction. I was an addict to snow. I remember the weekly rush when a storm was coming. s Sleeping 2-3 hrs a night Searching models anywhere, jma, crass, nogaps, bobs model. The rush of the ups and downs. its more like doctrine than science. Our local blog morethanweatherstl. Is filled with show junkies. I was one of the top ones. I tried the rationalizing game. I could buy solar mins off setting the warming. I couldnt out right deny the warming . Hell my animal instincts and intuition tells me that. Eventually, spending time here the walls fell, my addiction to snow was shattered. I couldnt have something that blinds me from truth. I still love snow. But its not at the cost of my logical pursuit of truth. since then my forecasts, predictions, and views all got much better. I am not sure why this gets swepted under the rug. AGW attacks that ideology of cold and snow head on. Y'know Friv, you are right - this is probably a big reason why. I've always discounted it because I always thought of my snow obsession as a thing that kids do, and as a working scientist, it just got kept in a different part of my brain from scientific interests such as AGW and related things (interest in geomorphology), even though I ended up in the biomedical field. This always has meant that I had a resigned, rather passive attitude to the prospect of having much less snow in the future, even though I really am a snow weenie. This never interfered with consideration of AGW evidence for me. Maybe attention deficit helps a bit here too. But it is now so clear that political and religious opinions/thinking/argument are processed almost entirely emotionally (limbic system), with very little real control exerted by critical thinking faculties. So AGW denial from mets (in spite of knowing better in detail) makes sense. When I was 11, AGW would have felt like a mortal threat......and I wanted to be a met then, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Fyi thats not everyone just a lot. It's akin to religion and evolution. People blindly rationalizing political stuff because they love their party Sports fans willing to defend and pay hundreds of percent higher prices for their teams and athelets. While those teams and athletes rape them for more money. They trick the addict fans. Into believing it's the market It's all the same to the human mind. I've been addicted to opiates, sports, and snow. It's all the same. Intelligence is not the main issue. Plenty of members of this board that can't see this are intelligent. because of this. To little to late may be on the way . Folks in ,2012 are still rationalizing this away. they have blocked out that the see ice is running at near constant record lows. They rationalize ohc bring at all time highs. They wont speak of the AMO. It's negative / neutral. sea ice, glacial ice and land ice is still at record lows while melting faster and faster. Also the AMO is calculated to 70N. I just read a denialist blog that calculated it to 75N. But they changed it to 70n because that is what esrl has. Funny, since around 70N is where the warm sst anomalies begin. The amo is negative. Which means the water south of the arctic is below average. Yet the water from 70-80n is way above average. probably has some thing to do with that OHC. Yes I know the rebuttle is pattern. But the pattern repeats it's self. The ice didnt do this before. The PDO is negative temps haven't fallen off. The arctic its rapidly warming . The combo of lost albedo of snow and ice with the collection of GHGs and OHC is unraveling the arctics ecosystem. yet the Ice is still supposed to recover. So now the big thing is global temps have flatlined Starting with a solar peak, el nino, +AMO, +PDO. Now we have a grand solar min, nuetral amo, -PDO, and la nina. Sound like fuzzy math Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Fyi thats not everyone just a lot. It's akin to religion and evolution. People blindly rationalizing political stuff because they love their party Sports fans willing to defend and pay hundreds of percent higher prices for their teams and athelets. While those teams and athletes rape them for more money. They trick the addict fans. Into believing it's the market It's all the same to the human mind. I've been addicted to opiates, sports, and snow. It's all the same. Intelligence is not the main issue. Plenty of members of this board that can't see this are intelligent. because of this. To little to late may be on the way . Folks in ,2012 are still rationalizing this away. they have blocked out that the see ice is running at near constant record lows. They rationalize ohc bring at all time highs. They wont speak of the AMO. It's negative / neutral. sea ice, glacial ice and land ice is still at record lows while melting faster and faster. Also the AMO is calculated to 70N. I just read a denialist blog that calculated it to 75N. But they changed it to 70n because that is what esrl has. Funny, since around 70N is where the warm sst anomalies begin. The amo is negative. Which means the water south of the arctic is below average. Yet the water from 70-80n is way above average. probably has some thing to do with that OHC. Yes I know the rebuttle is pattern. But the pattern repeats it's self. The ice didnt do this before. The PDO is negative temps haven't fallen off. The arctic its rapidly warming . The combo of lost albedo of snow and ice with the collection of GHGs and OHC is unraveling the arctics ecosystem. yet the Ice is still supposed to recover. So now the big thing is global temps have flatlined Starting with a solar peak, el nino, +AMO, +PDO. Now we have a grand solar min, nuetral amo, -PDO, and la nina. Sound like fuzzy math Lag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Lag. If it was lag wouldn't ohc be dropping faster outside the arctic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I am not a atmospheric scientist yet, but until we can send a satellite into the past, we will never truly know the climate history. We are basically using 50 years of weather and comparing it to the recent 10 years of weather.There is no way icecores are as accurate as a satellite thermometor( don't know the scientific name), we should not even put it in the same chart as satellite data. If a scientist wants to use icecores in a chart/graph they should use the ice that was deposited in 2011 to compare it with ancient ice. If a scientist use satellite data they should only compare it to satellite data. It is soo simple. It will eliminate a lot of varibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I am not a atmospheric scientist yet, but until we can send a satellite into the past, we will never truly know the climate history. We are basically using 50 years of weather and comparing it to the recent 10 years of weather.There is no way icecores are as accurate as a satellite thermometor( don't know the scientific name), we should not even put it in the same chart as satellite data. If a scientist wants to use icecores in a chart/graph they should use the ice that was deposited in 2011 to compare it with ancient ice. If a scientist use satellite data they should only compare it to satellite data. It is soo simple. It will eliminate a lot of varibles. When one seeks to learn about the past climate, various tools are used to reconstruct the earlier climate. Some of the later reconstructions fare very well when matched with the instrument record. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png Moreover, there is quite a bit of consistency when different proxies i.e., ice cores, pollen, tree rings, etc., are used. The existence of consistency also provides confidence in broad understanding of earlier climate regimes. Clearly, the kind of precision one can obtain from the instrument record does not exist, but the reconstructions provide enough insight to allow for a reasonable understanding of earlier climate regimes. Finally, one should not assume that satellites are a qualitatively superior tool when it comes to measuring temperatures. They offer advantages, but also have their limitations. They allow for greater coverage. However, satellites measure temperatures indirectly. Algorithms are applied to the raw data collected by the satellites in order to estimate the temperatures from the raw data. There is a range of error. In short, satellites make a contribution to understanding the climate. They are not a substitute for other measures e.g., instruments. Their data complements the instrument record. It does not replace it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 When one seeks to learn about the past climate, various tools are used to reconstruct the earlier climate. Some of the later reconstructions fare very well when matched with the instrument record. http://www.ncdc.noaa...07/fig6-10b.png Moreover, there is quite a bit of consistency when different proxies i.e., ice cores, pollen, tree rings, etc., are used. The existence of consistency also provides confidence in broad understanding of earlier climate regimes. Clearly, the kind of precision one can obtain from the instrument record does not exist, but the reconstructions provide enough insight to allow for a reasonable understanding of earlier climate regimes. Finally, one should not assume that satellites are a qualitatively superior tool when it comes to measuring temperatures. They offer advantages, but also have their limitations. They allow for greater coverage. However, satellites measure temperatures indirectly. Algorithms are applied to the raw data collected by the satellites in order to estimate the temperatures from the raw data. There is a range of error. In short, satellites make a contribution to understanding the climate. They are not a substitute for other measures e.g., instruments. Their data complements the instrument record. It does not replace it. And when they don't they have devised some clever "tricks" to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 And when they don't they have devised some clever "tricks" to fix it. "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine): "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's tohide the decline." "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann ( Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php #18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 And when they don't they have devised some clever "tricks" to fix it. Would that be like UAH having climo as 1979-1990, then 1979-2000, then 1979-2010 to hide the rise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Would that be like UAH having climo as 1979-1990, then 1979-2000, then 1979-2010 to hide the rise? Actually it is nothing like that at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Actually it is nothing like that at all. Why not? Using the 1981-2010 Climo makes the satelitte record appear much cooler anomaly wise compared to NCDC and GISS. that let's folks use it in a wrong manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Actually it is nothing like that at all. If a "trick" were used to "hide the decline" in temperature, you would have to believe that temperature has in reality fallen since about 1960. Do think global temp has fallen since 1960? Do you really believe the decline referred to temperature at all? If not then why do you and other skeptics persist with this trickery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The 'decline' referred to in the hacked emails had nothing to do with the instrumental temperature record - it only involved a tree ring series being used in a paleoclimate reconstruction. As most people may know, tree rings vary with temperature (among other things) so they can be used as proxies. Scientists have learned to be cautious when using proxy data. Our knowledge of the relationship between the proxy and the desired parameter is never 100%, and many proxy series are robust for part of their time span and questionable for other periods. When a proxy has a period of questionable value there are only three things scientists can do: 1. Exclude the entire proxy data series - good data and bad. This is fine if there are alternative data sources but in many fields, including paleoclimate, the available choices are limited. 2. Include the entire proxy data series - good data and bad. Including known data know to be iffy weakens the results so scientists are understandably reluctant to do this. 3. Include the good data, exclude the bad data, and carefully annotate the research methodology to explain what was done and why. This is the 'trick' referred to in the hacked emails. And there is nothing unscientific or fraudulent about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.