RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.


1,536 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 351
    Shelama says:

    How many Nobel laureates are on record as doubting AGW?

  2. 352
    Hank says:

    “You say these conversations have no legitimacy – because everything has been settled by science. That is your right. You want to take legal action against people who raise questions. That is a step too far. I will repeat, attitudes like that have done more to create climate skeptics than Lyndon Larouche ever did.”

    I couldn’t agree more with this statement. The rush to label any and all skeptics as either “liars for hire” or just plain ignorant dismisses the multitudes of honest, thinking people who simply want to put the “science” of AGW under the microscope before blindly accepting what appears (to many) to be very radical social and economic changes suggested as solutions.
    You just can’t refuse to engage here, it’s not going to win you any votes of confidence.
    H

  3. 353

    278, 279 moderators jim and mike and flxible,

    I have learned that an instrument discrepancy is now a ‘divergence phenomena’ and that it is well understood but needy of further research.

    I do not find a plot showing a graph of global temperature based on tree ring data.

    I understand that there is a difference between modern instrument results and tree ring data, and would be pleased to hear the reasons for this. But first, I would like to see the complete graph of tree ring data, however it looks. If it is as meaningless as the references say, then we could at least discard the ‘medieval warming period’ since that is based on the same tree ring ‘instrument’.

  4. 354
    dr.gandhi says:

    This is the last warning call for all nations and fellow citizens.If not heeded atleast now, the doomsday is not far off. We ourselves invite it by our own irresponsible actions against ‘mother earth’.
    May be human Race has become arrogant by conquering other planets where it can safely land after the doomsday!!!!!

    drggandhi

  5. 355
    May says:

    I see this being a very “Political” issue for sure! We know are going to take order from the United Nations-Agenda 21 and become a much poorer nation due to this Type of supposide Science. Sure, things might be changing but look at history. Let’s also consider China and India. They will never change and are enjoying the fruits of what we are stripping away-Capitalism… Our energy policy from the Obama administration is now going to punish us into $50 poisonous lightbulbs while our cheap 100 watt will be absolete in a few months! Our ability to prosper and drill our own energy source has been taken away while Brazil (as Obama said) is now our Distributor. This is OUR oil, not theirs! We have other countries who worship animals and think they have the right to sue. This is the ideology we are prescribing to. And Why? So the elites-George Soros(just sold his Brazillian oil stock), Al Gore, etc get richer, while we get much poorer. We knew Obama had a chip due to his “Anti-Colonist” attitude which he has mentioned many times. We now have Presidents of the World INSTEAD of Presidents who are loyal to the Constitution (The American People). I am soo sad for our country! This must STOP in order for us to be great again.

  6. 356
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    It appears to me that the Global Scientific community and the U.S. Scientific community are not yet sufficiently alarmed over the prospects of severe and rapid Climate Change to take the actions needed to support and promote the leadership needed to combat the Climate Change problem.

    It is evident from this forum however that significant progress in politically sensitizing scientists. The discussion threads of the last year would not have been tolerated 4 years ago, and would have been censored out of existence.

    Once there is sufficient policy support from the scientific community, the political leadership will have a sufficiently strong base of support to simply step over the Republican denialists in the U.S. congress, and take unilateral actions as defended by the science, and scientists.

    At the moment policy actions can still be effectively criticized by paid shills of the Carbon industry and ideological shills of the Objectivist/Libertarian movements.

    The sooner science lends it’s overwhelming support for science based economic and social policy, the sooner science based economic and science policy can be driven into place.

    A good test of how soon rational policies will be put into place will come in 2012, with the U.S. presidential election.

    Obama will most probably lose the election and the next 4 to 8 years will be a Conservative sponsored disaster for the U.S. and the world.

    I anticipate that should America actually exist in 10 years time, that American scientists will actually be politically active and supportive of science based public policies.

    On the other hand, if the U.S. scientific community were to provide support early and overwhelmingly, those 10 years of Republican criminal misrule might be avoided.

    How many months do you have left to organize? 29?

    Good luck with that.

  7. 357
    don penman says:

    I don’t think that it is wrong to question the theory of evolution by natural selection but that does not mean that I have to believe in intelligent design.Whatever Roy Spencer believes about evolution(I don’t know)it has nothing to do with his book.This just shows the quality of science today.

  8. 358
    Rod B says:

    MartinJB, clever, but a ridiculous and stupid characterization of Spencer’s belief.

  9. 359
    Jonas says:

    “There has been a number of studies on the relationship between solar activity and earth’s climate, suggesting there is a solar signal. But the solar influence seems to be weak”

    Not so fast…

    What about the Maunder Minimum (LIA), the Dalton Minimum and the early 1900′s cool period. Perhaps cool periods in history coinciding with low sunspot counts have another explanation but the measured relationship is far from weak.

    Dr Roy Spencer has a piece on his blog on this where he measures a TSI amplification factor of 3.5. It’s worth a read

  10. 360
    PKM says:

    15 Sphaerica (Bob)

    Maybe you won’t believe me but GRL no longer publishes peer-reviewed comments on their papers. Apparently that is new editorial policy, which I find a bit worrisome. It is just not in the spirit of science to silence peers who have constructive criticism.

  11. 361
    Thor says:

    I’m happy to se that this is about a laboratory experiment. Such experiments outperform simulations quite consistently.

  12. 362
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    Paid popup ad just seen on physorg.com

    “End of the Delusion – Climategate exposed the fraud But climate hucksters carry on – http://www.heartland.org

    Have a nice day.

  13. 363
  14. 364
    Derek Tipp says:

    Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT humans have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.

    How disheartening for all those green activists and climate change minsters to realize that all of the carbon emission savings accomplished at great expense and inconvenience have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

    That volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort made by the world’s governments through the Kyoto Treaty. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out CO2 and ash at any one time – EVERY DAY.

    When the volcano, Mt Pinatubo, erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

  15. 365
    Derek Tipp says:

    Here’s an interesting fact. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT humans have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.

    How disheartening for all those green activists and climate change minsters to realize that all of the carbon emission savings accomplished at great expense and inconvenience over the past 5 years have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

    That volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort made by the world’s governments through the Kyoto Treaty. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out CO2 and ash at any one time – EVERY DAY.

    When the volcano, Mt Pinatubo, erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

    Of course the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

    The bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

  16. 366
    Lady in Red says:

    What about the folk whose comments go straight into you
    trash bin, unread? Lady in Red

  17. 367
    Clive Williams says:

    ‘Alex Costa’
    Are you including the Roman and Medieval (aka Mediaeval) Warmings when you say the 14th warmest?

  18. 368
    Paul S says:

    Kees van der Leun (#100), May is the peak month for CO2 at Mauna Loa so every May over the last 50 years has probably been the record-holder for a year.

  19. 369
    Fred Magyar says:

    Edward Greisch @13

    Fukushima has not yet gone beyond natural background radiation except temporarily very close to the reactor. Chernobyl spilled as much radiation as a coal fired power plant does in 7 years and 5 months.
    I would not evacuate the Fukushima area if I lived there.

    Yeah, I hear there’s some real bargains in real estate in that area of the world right now, maybe you should buy some land and move over there and sit on it for a few years…you’re sure to make a killing (no pun intended) when you finally decide to sell!

    Chernobyl spilled as much radiation as a coal fired power plant does in 7 years and 5 months.

    Well, there’s a reason to ban coal plants if ever there was one, eh?

    Maybe you need to watch this to get a better understanding of how the world actually works

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5jnJdnQPr8

  20. 370
    simon abingdon says:

    Steve Brown #201
    “Global warming since 1995 “now significant” – Phil Jones”. (But some say he may have made a mistake in his analysis).

  21. 371
    Jim Cross says:

    #322

    It might be nice to go over this once again; however, I think this issue has been gone over before.

    I think the view of RC is that the predicted solar changes will make almost no difference in the climate of coming decades because it will make almost no difference in solar irradiance and there is no other credible link between the sun and climate other than the solar irradiance one. The other main link often hypothesized and much discussed here is the GCR link and that is rejected here at RC.

    Where I have a hard time with this is in accounting for the MWP and the LIA where Be10, as a proxy for solar activity, clearly shows high and low solar activity respectively during those time periods and green house gases concentration changes are not associated and mostly unchanged. To me this has always suggested some other mechanism for solar influence and a possible understating of the sun’s role in recent warming, since the same Be10 proxy has shown high activity for the last hundred or so years. I am not arguing solar changes accounting for all of recent warming but only that the role might be understated; however, I still find no credible mechanism since I am not convinced by the GCR link yet either. On the other hand, I have yet to see any convincing explanation for MWP and LIA either except for solar changes. And if we want to chalk the MWP and LIA up to natural variation then the same could be said of recent warming.

    So I would like to see something that addresses the last thousand or so year of climate and not the usual last 50 or so when we have satellite measurements.

  22. 372
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    Climate change ‘researchers’ caught padding sea level data…

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

  23. 373
    vukcevic says:

    Is the NAO to move further into negative territory during next decade?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOs.htm

  24. 374
    Jesús R. says:

    Any comments on the latest controversy regarding the IPCC special report on renewable energy?:

    Renewable outrage (The Economist)

    A Deeper Look at an Energy Analysis Raises Big Questions (New York times)

    New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace (Mark Lynas)

    Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer (Mark Lynas)

    I think that the “80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies” sound bite don’t reflect the “scientific consensus” on the subject.

  25. 375
    Jim Cross says:

    Is there a reference for this:

    “although other factors like a small drop in greenhouse gas concentrations around 1600 and strong volcanic eruptions during that time likely played a role as well.”

    When I go here:

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

    I don’t see a lot of difference between LIA and other periods.

    Also there is this:

    From Free and Roback Global Warming in the Context of the Little Ice Age:

    “Solar responses look better than volcanic responses in correlations before 1800, but their amplitude is too small, and they do not fit nineteenth-century temperatures. The responses to volcanic forcings are big enough, but the fit is not very satisfactory, particularly before 1800. … our results indicate a greater role for volcanic aerosols in past decade-to-century climate than found in some previous work and a lesser, but still significant, role for solar forcing.”

    Also, how do account for the MWP? If that is accounted for by reduced volcanic activity, then why wouldn’t that account for some (not all) of recent warming?

  26. 376
    MangoChuthey says:

    curious to know peoples views on the Teske / “conflict of interest” story

  27. 377
    Gilles says:

    Ray : Gilles, thank you for proving my point. Yes, if you take any single datum, you might be able to explain it by natural variability. If you take all the data…not so much”

    To my knowledge, there isn’t any proxy reconstruction showing something unusual associated with anthropogenic influence. They all show a rise around the turn of the (XIXth) century, but at this time, we were not supposed to have changed a lot the nature. This is kind of surprising if the world is supposed to be significantly modified by the anthropogenic influence : why don’t we see it on natural indicators?

  28. 378
    Eric says:

    I’m a layman, but how can you tell what sea level was a thousand years ago on a global basis? I understand a man on the moon because of gravitational laws and Einstein, but there is no such foundation for these findings. Seems like very educated guess work to me.

  29. 379
    Titus says:

    Prokaryotes @6 you say:

    “A scientist is a kind of Protective Angel for Humanity. Why? Simply because he lives and breathes for Truth”

    Serious two questions:

    Firstly, whose TRUTH do you believe out of?
    1/. Ptolomy (Almagest, Earth Centric Model)
    2/. Copernicus (Heliocentric Model)

    The answer for me is that neither are TRUTH. Ptolomey was good and useful for 1500yrs and Copernicus has been good for the last 400yrs. We are just waiting for the next theory to come along.

    [Response:Really now? The earth doesn't go around the sun eh--just all a matter of viewpoint and whatnot?--Jim
    ]

    Bottom line is how do you define TRUTH?

    [Response:No, it's not. The bottom line is how dedicated you are to it.--Jim]

    [edit]

  30. 380
    Bill Henthorn says:

    I believe your estimates are biased toward your theory that carbon dioxide is causing heating on the earth. It is a travesty of science to make such claims. Global cooling from the changes on the sun have already begun and are driving the global temps away from the carbon dioxide trends. The real forecast should be more like 5 or 6 degrees c. cooler on the northern Continents and the cooling should last until 2060. You are leading us to believe that this will not happen. All the people on the earth that will find lots of cold and food deprivation should not have to be led stray like this. Already corn has been directed away from food for the needy and towards expensive alcohol for fuel. People are dying because of this and it is a direct result of the wrong footed climate folks who point to carbon dioxide as the heating cause when it is natural climate cycles.

  31. 381
    Steve Shaw says:

    I am troubled by the following:
    1. Models failed to predict the slowdown in warming over the past decade. AFTER the fact, we hear explanations, but if we don’t have enough information to see decadal changes coming, how can we be certain the rapid rise from ~ 1980-2000 wasn’t at least 50% due to a combination of decadal factors (due to the uncertainty in our models, as demonstrated by failure to predict the slowdown)?

    [Response: This is not correct. What models predict is that for short time scales trends can be very varied because of natural variability and that variability is not very predictable (if at all). See this post for instance. After the fact you know what ENSO and NAO etc. did and so you might be able to tease out the forced signal as a residual (as Kaufmann et al attempt). But since ENSO is not predictable more than a few months ahead, you aren't going to be able to do better on timescales for which the phase of ENSO matters (i.e. less than a decade or two). - gavin]

    2. The predictions of warming over the century seem to rely on a significant multiplier (positive feedback) of the direct warming due to the added CO2. As far as I can determine, we don’t have enough information to derive the multiplier from physical principles, so we are inferring the multiplier from the observed data. It looks to me like the 1980-2000 rise is a significant factor in inferring the multiplier. Is my understanding correct?

    [Response: No. It would be good if that was the case, but there is significant uncertainty in the total forcings (mainly because of the aerosol effects) so the ratio of temperature rise to forcing is not very well constrained. The last ice age maximum is better (bigger signal, less relative uncertainty). - gavin]

    3. What about the claim that we are still coming out of an ice age, and that this explains some of the warming? This also could affect the multiplier to be applied to CO2 forcing.

    [Response: This isn't any kind of explanation. What are the physics? Natural variability is not something that can explain anything - it too has patterns and is subject to basic constraints. - gavin]

    To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. I am well aware of the current scientific consensus. But I need pointers to some key pieces to this scientific puzzle. I’ve read widely on this topic, over several years. I’ve made my own graphs, such as 5-year averaging to show that the peak in 1998 is irrelevant to the discussion. So I don’t need general pointers. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.

  32. 382
    Eric says:

    I love how people talk about solar and wind as if, if only people would understand. The economy understands. Let that be enough.

  33. 383
    Adrian Smits says:

    I thought it was very inspirational to see Mr Soon post everything on line. A good example for the rest of us!

  34. 384
    Eric says:

    What do polar bears have to do with climate anyways? According to wiki they’ve been around for 150,000 years. Maybe we should ask them what the climate has been like…

  35. 385

    Storch(Editor at the time of the Soon et al 2003 paper in question), said in his resignation letter, that “the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given.”
    Given that Briffa used a few trees from Russia as a proxy for global temperatures, that made up a huge portion of the ‘hockey stick’, isn’t that sort of like ‘calling the kettle black’?

  36. 386
    Mike M says:

    If we’re going to mention funding sources as though they were some sort of ‘metric’ to score the plausibility/sincerity/honesty/etc. of scientific research I would like to know WHY is it that government funding is always assumed to be some kind of perfect angel?

  37. 387
    vukcevic says:

    In the recent months natural causes are being considered as a very important component of the global climate change. All three major indices the PDO, AMO and SOI/ ENSO appear to have in common a decadal modulation process caused by the natural sources as displayed here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
    More info on my data will be available soon.

  38. 388
    ivp0 says:

    @64
    Sorry Ric,
    I am not really sure who you think spouted “decades of cooling” because I certainly did not and I don’t believe that will happen. I don’t understand why you think I might make a wager with you based on something I never said and do not believe will happen. I suppose “nasty” may indeed be the wrong adjective when describing your challenge to “put up or shut up”, perhaps hostile and unwarranted are a better fit. No matter.

    If you were interested in a preposterous wager like (+2) degrees warming in 30 years and I thought you were good for it I might be willing to take your money. Alas I do not believe you are good for it and it is unlikely I will be here in 30 years to collect. No joy in that.

    After getting nowhere here regarding the NH temps during the LIA I contacted Dr. Richard Alley directly and he confirmed his earlier findings -(1-2) degrees are likely with bitter winters especially in Europe. He attributed this to changes in solar activity, volcanic activity and ocean currents. The next 30 years should be an interesting test of our understanding of the solar/climate relationship if the sun does indeed go maunder.

  39. 389
    Eliza Lynch says:

    I think its time for you guys to run

  40. 390
    Ecotretas says:

    Rate of rise of global sea levels, measured by satelite, have been going down for at least 4 years:

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/05/rate-of-sea-level-rise-going-down.html

    Ecotretas

  41. 391
    Jon P says:

    Since Gavin is reviewing, let’s say “inaccurate” predictions from 2008, I am curious when he will write a post on this one.

    “…the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.“

    You are a scientist and not a politician, right?

  42. 392

    Cute polar bear. I don’t suppose you could refrain from resorting to such a blatant play on people’s emotions.

  43. 393
    Gwinnevere says:

    The scientific community and the meaning of Arrhenius-AGW-math
    ——————————————————————————————
    This was, and still is, the subject of guesting:

    — NATURAL temperature (atmospheric) variations are given by LOGARITHMIC functions (time-derivatives) — the Arrhenius expressions. These are often termed »radiative forcing» or the ”Arrhenius’s greenhouse law for CO2” in the established scientific community, see for example WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2008),
    http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/1s.pdf
    We all know that. Or should, in case missed.

    — ANTHROPOGENIC variations — AGW-mathematics, however — have no such, basic, connection; AGW is — only by quantitative provability and besides that, not at all — expressed, explained and described through POWER functions:
    — Why is that?
    — The reason a logarithmic function cannot express, describe or explain the anthropogenic (industrial fossil carbon) complex, is the central driving temperature-energy function responsible for the phenomena (the middle one in Sea, Industry, CO2). It is a power function. Not a natural logarithmic function. Namely an elementary transient (power, energy) function. No logarithmic (exponent, e-) function.

    This is also what was posted, and notified, in post no140:
    — The triple power AGW-math functions INCLUDE the Arrhenius (the ”as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate scientists”, as noted in post no237) expressions as a
    VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION. That is what post no140 exposes to the eye.

    — But where is the notification of this, obviously illuminating, (»world scientific sensational») mathematical coherency in the present scientific community? I mean not the post no140 as such, of course not, but THE COHERENCE as such, the bare mathematical correspondence — obviously too the EXPLANATION: all of it.
    — I see none.

    Gwinnevere

  44. 394
    DP says:

    Why did the rate slow down during the warmer temperatues in the 20′s and 30′s? It should have accelerated then.

  45. 395
    Rod B says:

    Martin Vermeer (32), Gee, you sound like a guy who published a paper that depended on the near perfect reliability and accuracy of some measurement. ;-)

  46. 396
    Tilo Reber says:

    dhogaza “27.So apparently we have some folks suggesting that totally normal and known-about (on century scales) La Niñas refutes climate science, physics, etc?”

    I’m not sure what La Nina has to do with it, dogaza. It seems to me that El Nino would bring heat to the surface and allow it to escape into the atmosphere, causing thermal contraction of the water. This would be counteracted when the extra heat caused extra ice melt. La Nina would work in the opposite way. So I’m not sure that there is much relationship between ENSO and sea level rise. In any case, since we have begun to measure sea level with satellites we have had six El Ninos and five La Nina’s. As I already said, you can look at the second half of the satellite data and see that it has a rise rate of 2.1 mm/year. During that time there have been four El Ninos and 2 La Ninas. So I don’t think that the deceleration is ENSO related.

  47. 397
    Gwinnevere says:

    no269 Didactylos:
    — Thought so.
    I am still waiting for you to exemplify quantities by practical values.
    — As to the rest of you comment, I am not allowed to argue with you on such premises. But I would very much like to.

    Gwinnevere

  48. 398
    Gwinnevere says:

    no273 tamino:
    — Whether it is a nonsense phrase or not, tamino, your comment makes nothing to the matching quantities in the deduced functions Sea, Industry, CO2.
    — I see no mentioning of quantities in your post.
    — Does that mean you don’t want to accept these quantitative matches in the three functions Sea, Industry, CO2?
    — As to the rest of you comment, I am not allowed to argue with you on such premises. But I would very much like to.

    Gwinnevere

  49. 399
    Gwinnevere says:

    no276 Hank Roberts:
    — Elliptical functions — never introduced in modern academy. Atomic masses by the entire atom seen as a unit, not the »isolated» nucleus. These two describe two different ways, with no mutual correspondence. The precision in the resulting atomic masses talk for themselves in comparison to the measured and the established theoretical.
    To your information, unless already familiar. (Don’t read it, unless you are qualified).

    Gwinnevere

  50. 400
    Gwinnevere says:

    The scientific community and the meaning of Arrhenius-AGW-math
    ——————————————————————————————
    This was, and still is, the subject of guesting:

    — NATURAL temperature (atmospheric) variations are given by LOGARITHMIC functions (time-derivatives) — the Arrhenius expressions. These are often termed »radiative forcing» or the ”Arrhenius’s greenhouse law for CO2” in the established scientific community, see for example WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2008),
    http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/1s.pdf
    We all know that. Or should, in case missed.

    — ANTHROPOGENIC variations — AGW-mathematics, however — have no such, basic, connection; AGW is — only by quantitative provability and besides that, not at all — expressed, explained and described through POWER functions:
    — Why is that?
    — The reason a logarithmic function cannot express, describe or explain the anthropogenic (industrial fossil carbon) complex, is the central driving temperature-energy function responsible for the phenomena (the middle one in Sea, Industry, CO2). It is a power function. Not a natural logarithmic function. Namely an elementary transient (power, energy) function. No logarithmic (exponent, e-) function.

    This is also what was posted, and notified, in post no140:
    — The triple power AGW-math functions INCLUDE the Arrhenius (the ”as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate scientists”, as noted in post no237) expressions as a
    VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION. That is what post no140 exposes to the eye.

    — But where is the notification of this, obviously illuminating, (»world scientific sensational») mathematical coherency in the present scientific community? I mean not the post no140 as such, of course not, but THE COHERENCE as such, the bare mathematical correspondence — obviously too the EXPLANATION: all of it.
    — I see none.

    Gwinnevere


Switch to our mobile site