From this Georgia Tech article:
In 1657, Christiaan Huygens revolutionized the measurement of time by creating the first working pendulum clock. In early 1665, Huygens discovered “..an odd kind of sympathy perceived by him in these watches [two pendulum clocks] suspended by the side of each other.” The pendulum clocks swung with exactly the same frequency and 180 degrees out of phase; when the pendulums were disturbed, the antiphase state was restored within a half-hour and persisted indefinitely. Huygens deduced that the crucial interaction for this effect came from “imperceptible movements” of the common frame supporting the two clocks.
I can’t tell just yet if this is a new paper, or if the news story is a re-hash of the 2007 paper by these authors. Either way, it is interesting. See the authors pre press paper here – Anthony
MILWAUKEE — The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.
The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.
Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.”Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate,” researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.
Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other.
Eventually, the systems begin to couple and the synchronous state is destroyed, leading to a climate shift.”In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,” Tsonis said. “The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.”The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.
Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?”But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony, is it possible to get a discussion of the physics of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper, or a reference to a helpful discussion? The version I have is 3.0 (9/9/07) so perhaps you have discussed it.
Larry Kirk (05:55:10) and realitycheck (06:56:48) bring it up on this thread. Anna v (1/30/09?) also found some aspects of the paper “most persuasive”. Many others link to it or cite it. Stephen Goddard has convinced me and, I think, many others that there is a warming role for CO2 — but the earth’s atmosphere is not a greenhouse. If we could get more agreement on the physics from physicists’ statements, clarifications, and rebuttals, I think it would be extremely helpful. The example I have in mind is the dedication of Leif Svalgaard to your readers’ understanding of solar physics. His generosity is remarkable. (I am sure I am asking a very small thing.)
The other source I was referring to above was this paper by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
They basically show, that from a mathematical concept, the idea of a “Global Average Temperature” is nonsense. This is also mentioned in the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper discussed above by pyromancer76, Larry Kirk, Anna v and myself.
That observation is correct under the current tide and wave conditions but during storm tides and heavy seas they are obviously building too close to the sea. During large hurricanes entire barrier islands in the U.S. gulf coast can disappear.
This is another example of people thinking the historical (in human terms) beach lines are or were stable. That appears to be a sand spit that could just as likely disappear every 200 years only to reform a 100 years later, as storm conditions change. The historical high tide marks found by the researcher, does not necessarily apply to this specific beach and local wave conditions.
Lots of the pacific islands exist essentially at the pleasure of coral barrier reefs being high enough to shield them from heavy surf action during stormy periods. Just because a sand barrier island has existed for generations in no way assures you that it is a permanent feature of the local geography.
http://ncnatural.com/Coast/dynamics.html
It would be interesting to see a detailed geography layout of that location and have the historical information to determine if the locals fundamentally changed the local hydrodynamics of the beach area by dredging or adding a jetty or pier small changes in tidal flow in an area like that can eat away enormous amounts of sand beach in hours during heavy sea conditions. The change that causes the damage might be located a considerable distance away but changes the sand deposition in that area of the beach by modifying water flow patterns that deposit or scour sand during storms.
Larry
This link shows the damage a single storm can due to a sand beach island.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2009/2009-02-26-095.asp
People need to recognize that change is normal and these sort of sea front properties are only temporary in both a geological and a human historical sense.
In Bahrain and Dubai when they tried to build an artificial island, they had to spend considerable effort engineering the water flows in and around the island to keep it from being washed away, or having its lagoons infilled by sand. They built models of the lagoon/island complexes and analyzed water flow to design sustainable layouts that did not have severe scouring due to sea flow and had enough natural flow to avoid stagnation of the water in the lagoons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands
http://www.djmick.co.uk/travel/durrat-al-bahrain-newest-artificial-island-projec/
Managing beach erosion is not a trivial task and in some cases is a fools errand as the sea will take the land it wants regardless of the puny efforts of man. Sometimes the worst thing you can do to a beach is build a poorly engineered sea barrier or obstruction to local sea flow. It is entirely possible that the beach erosion shown in that news piece is a self inflicted wound by well meaning “improvements” to the beach area and near by structures.
Larry
“”” realitycheck (08:47:44) :
The other source I was referring to above was this paper by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
They basically show, that from a mathematical concept, the idea of a “Global Average Temperature” is nonsense. This is also mentioned in the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper discussed above by pyromancer76, Larry Kirk, Anna v and myself. “””
Well I wouldn’t say that the idea of a global average temperature is nonsense; and particularly not from a mathematical point of view.
Any quite arbitrary set of numbers has an average, from a mathematical point of view; even your local telephone directory has an average telephone number which you can compute matthematically from all the numbers in there; it maynot however come out to be a valid telephone number.
So the earth too does have an average temperature which could be computed if you had the data. Well the core temperature is supposed to be around 10,000 K, and I would venture that most of the earth’s volume is at greater than 400K.
So let’s forget the whole earth, and simply say the whole surface; bearing in mind that that surface goes from maybe a km below sea level to +29,000 feet.
But if you had simultaneously the temperature of that surface at sufficient points to satisfy the Nyquist criterion, you could calculate the average temperature at that instant, and if you did that sequentially in a manner that also satisfies the Nyquist criterion over say a full year orbit, then you could calculate the yearly average global temperature.
In practice you can’t come within many orders of magnitude of actually doing that.
But let’s suppose you did, and you got the true annual average global surface temperature.
That is the point at which it becomes nonsense, because just like the average number in your telephone directory; the average surface temperature of the earth has absolutely no Physical significance whatsoever.
It does not relate in any way to the question of whether the earth is gaining or losing energy from and to the rest of the universe; and since an average eliminates all spatial and temporal variances; then it can tell you nothing about energy flows on earth, so it can tell you nothing about global circulations or any other trappings of climate.
So in the real physical sense, a global mean surface temperature is nonsense; but in a purely mathematical sense, it is just another average of just another set of numbers.
I’ve already read the German Paper, and still trying to determine how much I believe and what in particular I don’t.
My Handbook of Physics; literally a compendium of all knowledge, simply says;-
“Thermodynamic properties may be defined and measured only in equilibrium.”
Note that “ONLY”.
We do a lot of hand waving when we are talking with people who know as much or more than we do; and we lose a lot of our pedantry in the process; But when things get serious, it pays to really be sure, just under what conditions our assumptions are valid.
So I haven’t bought into the German paper yet; but it makes interesting reading, so people should look at it.
George
I think that this “greenhouse effect” discussion may have gotten a little bit off the rails.
It seems that real “Greenhouses” don’t even work the way the “greenhouse effect” claims they do. Ok so what; the point is greenhouses do work to grow plants efficiently; so maybe they don’t describe how they work properly. (the ones I know of also use enhanced CO2 atmospheres inside to get even more plant growth)
So then ihn describing the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” we must have it wrong since greenhouses don’t work that way.
Ok so we just got the wrong name for the effect of so-called green house gases in the atmosphere. Well it wouldn’t be the first time something got incorrectly named.
The real question is does CO2 as a representative GHG intercept ANY surface emitted thermal radiation in the long wave infrared spectrum (say around 15 microns). Then if it does (it does), what is the effect of that; and in particular can it cause the earth surface or lower atmosphere to be warmer than if there wasn’t any CO2 (or less CO2) . And if it can (it can), then is that amount of warming significant; and can it cause any sort of runaway heating of the planet.
And the answers to those last two questions are (a) No; and (b) Hell No !
Now the paper in question examines some of the atmospheric heating physical processes, and absorption of some nfra-red wavelengths by CO2 is just one. Water in all its forms in the atmosphere does some heating, and some cooling, and I don’t think the atmsophere really knows one GHG molecule from another; either as individuals, or as species. There’s an interchange of energy and momentum.
But a doubling of the CO2 abundance, is still only avery small increment in the total GHG molecule population so it is nothing to write home about.
George
There are many who comment on this blog, e.g. Steven Goddard, who believe that there is an atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’. Can they please say what is wrong with the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161
“Roger Clague (10:18:54) :
There are many who comment on this blog, e.g. Steven Goddard, who believe that there is an atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’. Can they please say what is wrong with the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161”
At risk of having to be corrected I’ll have a go at this question.
That paper clearly debunks the validity of a comparison between the thermal behaviour of the air and a greenhouse. So far so good.
It then goes on to describe the vast number of variables that are insufficiently catered for in the models. I have no problem with that.
Then it suggests that it is impossible for science to get to grips with the phenomenon at all. There I tend to disagree.
They do not seem to deny that a temperature effect does occur as energy is transmitted through the planetary system more quickly or less quickly. I agree with them that the calculations involved in keeping a track of the ever changing thermal state of the system are formidable but with respect to them we do not need such detailed data.
All we need to know at any given point is whether the air around the globe is warming or cooling at any particular time and in my view that is far less problematic.
I’ve had a stab at the subject in layman’s language here:
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=1562
and for anyone with sufficient mental energy left I took the logic a few steps further here:
http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=2581
So far the climate has not done anything to falsify my analyses.
Stephen,
Anyone with sufficient mental energy left knows that more GHG means more downwelling LW which increases surface temp and ocean heat content.
“”” Stephen Wilde (10:58:49) :
“Roger Clague (10:18:54) :
There are many who comment on this blog, e.g. Steven Goddard, who believe that there is an atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’. Can they please say what is wrong with the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161”
At risk of having to be corrected I’ll have a go at this question.
That paper clearly debunks the validity of a comparison between the thermal behaviour of the air and a greenhouse. So far so good. “””
Stephen, I think you’ve summed it up pretty well. They essentially proved that the term “Greenhouse effect” is a misnomer in both cases; but that’s different from saying there is no greenhouse effect in both cases.
There is in both cases, and they both have the wrong name. And like you from there on, I felt they do a lot of flailing around.
There is a small group of individuals who seem to be serious “skeptics”, as to catastrophic MMGWCC. But they choose to try and deny the existence of effects that can be easily demonstrated, and measured in laboratory settings. That approach plays right into the hand of the AGW fans, who wish to paint the “Skeptical” community as a bunch of ignorant kooks.
The AGW fans problem is that they are unable to point to any empirical real world evidence of their models in action; while the skeptics need to show why other effects dominate to prevent the CO2 hypothesis from having any significant impact on the outcome. You don’t get there by denying the existence of the weak interraction of CO2 with the system.
I received a paper this morning, which I can’t cite yet as it is embargoed; in which these “researchers” claim to have “modelled” (as in computer code), and their model they claim proved that the West Antarctic Ice sheet collapsed several times in the last 5 million years. So now we have modellers not only predicting the future; but actually creating events from the past; as if their computer actually saw these events happen.
It continues to get nuttier and nuttier; but it is in line with the Congress’ stimulus bailout pork spending program designating $140M not for climate modelling; but for climate data modelling.
Well they are already at it; making up stuff that maybe could happen if their models were correct, and reporting that they actually did happen.
Oh; and their scenario happened if the oceans warmed 5 deg C.
If the oceans warmed 5 deg C, you would have a 35% increase in global evaporation, total atmospheric water content, total global precipitation and in some form total global precipitable cloud cover; all of which would launch the mother of all negative feedback cooling effects, that would blanket the Westa antarctic Ice Sheets, with all of the snow they could stand.
And that 35% increase, is NOT form any computer climate model, but from actual real world satellite measured data; see SCIENCE for July 7 2007.
It looks like the whole science world is going mad, along with the political world.
“lgl (12:26:10) :
Stephen,
Anyone with sufficient mental energy left knows that more GHG means more downwelling LW which increases surface temp and ocean heat content.”
Not if there are negative atmospheric feedbacks that accelerate energy loss to space it doesn’t.
I suggest more reading and less ‘witty’ one liners.
George,
It seems highly likely that the West Antarctic ice sheet might collapse periodically for entirely natural reasons.
It might take an extra 5C to make the models replicate the event but that does not imply that the real world requires a rise of 5C or indeed any rise at all.
It could be just like an icicle forming from a roof, falling off from weight, wind and gravity and then re forming.
It’s an amazingly prevalent conceit that everything we do is supposed to have a direct effect on the entire globe as if natural forces were of no account.
Undoubtedly it has come to this pass because the real money for science now comes from taxpayer funds in wealthy nations so anything the power mongers want is what they will get.
Stephen,
That’s not how negative feedbacks work. They can limit the effect of a forcing but never cancel it.
“lgl (13:46:28) :
Stephen,
That’s not how negative feedbacks work. They can limit the effect of a forcing but never cancel it.”
Never ?
In the case of the Earth there is a vast ocean the surface temperature of which controls the temperature of the air above it.
In order to maintain sea surface/surface air equilibrium either the sea surface has to be warmed by the air or the warmed air has to accelerate any excess energy to space.
Due to the enhancement of the evaporative process caused by extra energy in the air combined with the cooling effect of the latent heat of evaoration I cannot see how the warmer air can heat the ocean.
Thus in this case all the extra energy from human CO2 has to be ejected to space by a speeding up of atmospheric processes.
Now I’m aware that that is not a mainstream view and is singularly unwelcome to many and I have challenged others elsewhere to show it to be false in the real world. So far no one has convinced me.
If you wish to debate the issue with me please feel to go to this forum:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
Dear Igl:
The volumetric heat capacity of the air it is 3,227 times less than of water.
Where there is no humidity to keep irradiated heat from below, from the sea water, surface or buildings,etc. heat dissapears rapidly by convection, as experienced in deserts. This is just common sense and third grade science. You just can´t keep the air heat without an efficient accumulator which it is not the unefficient air no matter how much CO2 it could contain.
This why GWrs.use bottles filled with hot CO2 instead of bottles filled with water to heat their now frozen feet (CO2 is for keeping Ice creams cold). 🙂
Re Stephen Wilde’s Comment and Links Above
Stephen,
I find your pieces on the role of the oceans intuitively correct, and they dovetail nicely with the fundamental observation quoted in the German paper, that if you leave the conservatory door open, it does not get as hot inside, as convection then takes over and removes the heat.
The key factors in heat transfer up through the atmosphere (and then back out into space) would seem to be these:
1. The major method of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere is convection, and the major direction of this heat transfer is therefore up
2. The major heat carrier in this convective system is water vapour
3. The major mechanisms of actual heat transfer within this convective system are: the absorbtion of latent heat by water at ground level during evaporation, and then its release at higher altitude during the condensation that eventually results.
Once at the top of the convective system, I am not sure how most of the heat proceeds from there: (Is it used initially in expansion of the air and then convected to higher levels? Is it radiated directly away through the thinner atmosphere?) But it certainly doesn’t come back down to the surface: what falls back to earth is cold rain, hail, sleet and snow, which is then used again in the repeat the process.
In a most extreme example of this, I have sweltered my way through a 40 degree morning in the tropical desert south of Halls Creek, Western Australia, watched huge diurnal thunderclouds piling up over lunch, and then been pelted by hail in the afternoon, till the ground was six inches deep in ice and eveybody was shivering in a temperature close to zero. The gargantuan heat transfer involved in this process was impressive. And it was all upwards, and was almost entirely facilitated by the water vapour that present in the air.
I am not sure that the absorbative/radiative effects of a small increase in the trace gas CO2 can really do much, in the face of the role of a phase change system as powerful as this.
The key points with respect to the predominant effect of water in the system are:
1. Water is by far the largest component in the system (I am including the oceans, which you rightly include as part of the ‘atmophere’, with which it is in a state of dynamic equilibrium), and
2. Crucially, water is the only component in the system that undergoes phase changes, from solid to liquid to gas and back, and it is these phase changes that give it the ability to transfer and then physically transport most of the heat in the system as it moves around.
If we were on a planet where water was solid as rock and it was CO2 that changed phase from moment to moment, absorbing and releasing huge quantities of latent heat as it moved around, then CO2 would cut it and H20 would be a side issue. But on our planet, it is just another little bit of gas.
Now I haven’t got time to stop and think about the oceans this morning. But the vertical heat transfer system there is bound to be very different to tthat of he atmosphere: the only phase change involved is the localised formation of a skin of solid water at the top, which is irrelevant to most of the ocean volume; the convective system is complicated no end by maximum water density being at 4C and colder, or solid water floating on top; lateral ocean currents, land and sea floor topography all interfere.
But judging from the predominance of the effects of ocean temperature / current on local climate over thos of latitude and effective solar radiation, once again it is obvious that water is in charge.
With regards,
LK
Larry,
Thank you for your support.
Another interesting fact about the ocean surface is that warming of it is never caused DIRECTLY by warmer air above it.
Any ocean surface warming is caused by solar energy previously absorbed working it’s way back to the surface.
It is true that warmer and/or more humid air above that water slows down the energy flow from water to air but as you rightly point out that has no effect on the temperature of the main body of the oceans.
When the energy flow from water to air slows down there is no overall warming of the oceans. All that happens is that the energy flowing from ocean to air ‘pools’ for a while at the surface. It effectively waits in a ‘queue’ at the surface until the air circulation and weather systems increase their speed of ejection of energy to space and neutralise the warming.
That is what happens when oceans naturally increase their emission of energy and the response of the air is exactly the same whether the warmer ocean surface is a result of enhanced energy emission from the ocean or enhanced energy in the air from another cause such as more humidity or more CO2.
The air has to balance both the energy from ocean to air with energy from air to space AND energy from sun to ocean and energy from air to space over time. Everything we observe is a feature of that interplay.
To deal adequately with any warming of the air from extra CO2 or any other increased GHG the air circulation and weather systems just shift their size and/or positions to adjust the rate of energy emission to space to restore equilibrium.
The equilibrium they work back towards is set by the rate of energy flow from the sun modulated by the rate of energy flow through the oceans.
The air circulation changes ensure that over time the energy radiated to space matches the energy received from the sun despite disruptions in the flow caused by the effects of the ocean cycles or changes in the composition of the air.
It has taken me a year to get to this point and I see nothing in AGW theory or literature to counter it.
The occasional surges of warmth in the stratosphere in winter fit into my scenario. When a large surge of polar air moves equatorward it draws a pulse of energy from the oceans in the lower latitudes and pumps it into the stratosphere where most of that energy is pushed out to space but a portion is not pushed out and descends again thus strengthening the high pressure systems on the poleward side of the mid latitude jets.
Features such as that occur more frequently and are larger when the oceans globally are in net absorption mode (surface cooling) such as now. At such times the poleward air masses are ‘stronger’ than the equatorward weather systems. The opposite applies when the oceans are in net emission mode as I describe more fully in my articles.
Everything we see in the air and the oceans is part of that natural energy balancing interaction and human emissions have no part to play other than a very small insignificant human induced shift in positions or intensities of the main high pressure systems. Wholly imperceptible in the face of natural variability.
Stephen Wilde (01:34:20) :
I read your links and in principle agree with your pov. In my view also it is all about heat capacities.
I am intrigued with your analogue with a resistance circuit. Ever since looking at this problem I have been thinking of analogue computers. Back in the 1960s, they were holding the fort against digital ones for being able to solve systems of coupled differential equations by making analogue electric circuits with resistors, capacitors and/or inductors and it would seem to me to be an ideal way of modeling climate. The Tsonis paper above seems to be doing something like that except imposed on a digital computer. It would seem to me that an analogue construct would be much more efficient.
Now on the GT paper mentioned in a post above:
My gut feeling is that in the AGW models there are double countings because of intermingling of quantum mechanical concepts and classical thermodynamic concepts.
In their latest paper Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
they give a physicist summary, with which I cannot disagree.
Stephen Wilde (01:34:20) :
¨
Magnificent! The most simple and didactic explanation.
Stephen,
Never? Yes, never.
Even if you feed all the output of an amplifier back in a negative loop, the resulting output will be half of what it would have been without the feedback. So the best you can hope for is that the close to 4 W/m2 a CO2 doubling would give is reduced to 2 W. What you are hoping for is not negative feedback but that some cooling mechanism will take care of it, but then you are denying the whole greenhouse effect. There shouldn’t be any if such a cooling mechanism exists, the first tiny degree of warming produced by the GHGs would have been countered.
lgl (09:17:56) :
What you are hoping for is not negative feedback but that some cooling mechanism will take care of it, but then you are denying the whole greenhouse effect. There shouldn’t be any if such a cooling mechanism exists, the first tiny degree of warming produced by the GHGs would have been countered.
One cannot deny that matter has heat capacity, so the atmosphere has a heat capacity, which is being missnamed as a “greenhouse effect”.
Also have you ever heard of thresholds?
What about non linear behaviors? Oscillations?
A tiny degree of warming of the oceans does not produce clouds, for example. It is a much more complicated mechanism. Clouds will be a negative feedback in this problem, after a certain degree of warming.
Once the tropical oceans get much hotter than 30 degrees, there are so many clouds and storms, taking the heat up in the stratosphere, they start getting cooler. etc.etc.
“lgl (09:17:56) :
Stephen,
Never? Yes, never.
Even if you feed all the output of an amplifier back in a negative loop, the resulting output will be half of what it would have been without the feedback. So the best you can hope for is that the close to 4 W/m2 a CO2 doubling would give is reduced to 2 W. What you are hoping for is not negative feedback but that some cooling mechanism will take care of it, but then you are denying the whole greenhouse effect. There shouldn’t be any if such a cooling mechanism exists, the first tiny degree of warming produced by the GHGs would have been countered.”
The amplifier analogy doesn’t work. The Earth as a whole is not an amplifier, merely an obstruction to the flow of solar energy. One could say that the oceans and the air are two seperate amplifiers (or resistors).
The greenhouse effect of the air is as nothing compared to The Hot Water Bottle Effect of the oceans. Since the surface air temperature always moves towards equilibrium with the sea surface temperature any change in the greenhouse power of the air alone is neutralised in the process of maintaining that equilibrium.
The proof or rebuttal of what I say will be real world observations. So far the Earth is simply not responding as expected to CO2 variations.
So, I am not denying the greenhouse effect of the air, simply saying that it has no effect in the face of the oceanic influence. It is present but has no bearing on the temperature of the air because the Hot Water Bottle Effect sets the temperature of the air and not the Greenhouse Effect.
If you wish to continue please use the forum that I linked you to.
Anyone interested in computer models should read this CNN sports article and notice the differences in approach from the climate modelers.
Computer model says UNC will win tournament
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/03/18/ncaa.tournament.bracket.predictions/index.html
“There’s a lot of luck in life. Life is a series of heads and tails, and human beings try to describe rationale behind them … when in fact it may be random.”
Stephen,
ok I’ll move to that forum.