0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from the EPA’s “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet
By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
Last week, the Obama Administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a new set of proposed regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing U. S. power plants. The motivation for the EPA’s plan comes from the President’s desire to address and mitigate anthropogenic climate change.
We hate to be the party poopers, but the new regulations will do no such thing.
The EPA’s regulations seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in the year 2030 to a level 30 percent below what they were in 2005. It is worth noting that power plant CO2 emissions already dropped by about 15% from 2005 to2012, largely, because of market forces which favor less-CO2-emitting natural gas over coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity. Apparently the President wants to lock in those gains and manipulate the market to see that the same decline takes place in twice the time. Nothing like government intervention to facilitate market inefficiency. But we digress.
The EPA highlighted what the plan would achieve in their “By the Numbers” Fact Sheet that accompanied their big announcement.
For some reason, they left off their Fact Sheet how much climate change would be averted by the plan. Seems like a strange omission since, after all, without the threat of climate change, there would be no one thinking about the forced abridgement of our primary source of power production in the first place, and the Administration’s new emissions restriction scheme wouldn’t even be a gleam in this or any other president’s eye.
But no worries. What the EPA left out, we’ll fill in.
Using a simple, publically-available, climate model emulator called MAGICC that was in part developed through support of the EPA, we ran the numbers as to how much future temperature rise would be averted by a complete adoption and adherence to the EPA’s new carbon dioxide restrictions*.
The answer? Less than two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.
0.018°C to be exact.
We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable.
Which, no doubt, is why it’s not included in the EPA Fact Sheet.
It is not too small, however, that it shouldn’t play a huge role in every and all discussions of the new regulations.
*********
* Details and Additional Information about our Calculation
We have used the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)—a simple climate model emulator that was, in part, developed through support of the EPA—to examine the climate impact of proposed regulations.
MAGICC version 6 is available as an on-line tool.
We analyzed the climate impact of the new EPA regulations by modifying future emissions scenarios that have been established by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to reflect the new EPA proposed emissions targets.
Specifically, the three IPCC scenarios we examined were the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) named RCP4.5, RCP 6.0 and RCP8.5. RCP4.5 is a low-end emissions pathway, RCP6.0 is more middle of the road, and RCP8.5 is a high-end pathway.
The emissions prescriptions in the RCPs are not broken down on a country by country basis, but rather are defined for country groupings. The U.S. is included in the OECD90 group.
To establish the U.S. emissions pathway within each RPC, we made the following assumptions:
1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions make up 50 percent of the OECD90 carbon dioxide emissions.
2) Carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power production make up 40 percent of the total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
Figure 1 shows the carbon dioxide emissions pathways of the original RCPs along with our determination within each of the contribution from U.S. electricity production.
Figure 1. Carbon dioxide emissions pathways defined in, or derived from, the original set of Representative Concentration pathways (RCPs), for the global total carbon dioxide emissions as well as for the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to U.S. electricity production.
As you can pretty quickly tell, the projected contribution of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production to the total global carbon dioxide emissions is vanishingly small.
The new EPA regulations apply to the lower three lines in Figure 1.
To examine the impact of the EPA proposal, we replace the emissions attributable to U.S. power plants in the original RCPs with targets defined in the new EPA regulations. We determined those targets to be (according to the EPA’s Regulatory Impacts Analysis accompanying the regulation), 0.4864 GtC in 2020 and 0.4653 GtC in 2030. Thereafter, the U.S. power plant emissions were held constant at the 2030 levels until they fell below those levels in the original RCP prescriptions (specifically, that occurred in 2060 in RPC4.5, 2100 in RCP6.0, and sometime after 2150 in RCP8.5).
We then used MAGICC to calculate the rise in global temperature projected to occur between now and the year 2100 when with the original RCPs as well as with the RCPs modified to reflect the EPA proposed regulations (we used the MAGICC default value for the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (3.0°C)).
The output from the six MAGICC runs is depicted as Figure 2.
Figure 2. Global average surface temperature anomalies, 2000-2100, as projected by MAGICC run with the original RCPs as well as with the set of RCPs modified to reflect the EPA 30% emissions reductions from U.S power plants.
In case you can’t tell the impact by looking at Figure 2 (since the lines are basically on top of one another), we’ve summarized the numbers in Table 1.
In Table 2, we quantify the amount of projected temperature rise that is averted by the new EPA regulations.
The rise in projected future temperature rise that is averted by the proposed EPA restrictions of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants is less than 0.02°C between now and the end of the century assuming the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road future emissions scenario.
While the proposed EPA plan seeks only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, in practice, the goal is to reduce the burning of coal. Reducing the burning of coal will have co-impacts such as reducing other climatically active trace gases and particulate matter (or its precursors). We did not model the effects of changes in these co-species as sensitivity tests using MAGICC indicate the collective changes in these co-emissions are quite small and largely cancel each other out.
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
DesertYote says:
June 12, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Our posts crossed.
The moon has a huge role on the climate of planet Earth. Shortly after formation, the moon was so close that days lasted only 4 or 5 hours. There was only 2 to 2.5 hours of darkness. Over time, the moon has receded and with it our days are lengthening.
The moon holds up steady in our about 23 deg tilt, without such tilt we would not have the seasons, and of course it drives the ocean tides. events would be very different on planet Earth if we did not have the moon.
The issue with the EPA regulation is how much is each one hundredth of a degree going to cost. how much damage will it inflict on industry and the competitiveness of the USA, and drain on the wealth of its citizens.
Hi Ferdberple,
Ref mercury and it’s “vital” role in life processes.
I am genuinely interested in what you say. Can you please provide some references for me to read? (and I most certainly will). Others here may also be interested.
Are you please able to clarify which biochemical process it’s a co-factor in and precisely what metabolic pathway mercury mediates?
Thank you
Andy
Sounds like a billboard:
Your post-tax dollars: $200 billion.
Your reduction in global temperatures: 0.018C.
Vote Democrat: they know a better way to spend your child’s education fund.
jones, this won’t answer your question directly, but the concept is know as hormesis, and is documented quite well. Google BELLE (Biological Effects of Low Level Exposure). For an article specifically referencing the benefits of heavy metals, see: “Metals in Perspective”, Journal Environmental Monitoring, 2004,6, 14N-19N.
rip
Thanks, Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels. Very good essay.
Yes, it is interesting to know that the attainable goals are too small to mention but not too small to hype. Ah, the futility of trying to affect Earth’s climate!
Or Mars. Don’t forget Mars.
– – –
Darn it Motogeek, you beat me to it.
He/She is getting its science from Cosmos, the TV show, as are others :
Cosmos on global warming
– – –
Ha, I just found out the link was originally for me on that forum (as I’m Proton2 there).
I like Models. I’m a computer scientists. I build Models, in code. I’ve built Models that didn’t work because they ran out of computing resources.
I happen to know that the climate Models are Ca<=>rp. They have to leave out parameters / time steps / resolution, in order for them to finish their run before the end of time.
garymount : June 12, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Sorry having to tell you that you aren’t skilled enough for the work you do. Who I am to tell you that? I became Systemprogrammer 1971. No matter that I studied to become a teacher in history, religion and such later on. I have updated my skills year by year. To tell you the truth: If you know how to write what still is needed but most of you seem to forget – a flow plan for the full system – you would have known that there are methods so you never ever will have problem with computing resources. It’s all about how you write your system, which program language you use for what. Of course we who had Saab (airplane) hand in hand with the university when we studied had special benifits in learning how to avoid such, but neither I nor persons who studied side by side of me then, among them one today a prof., look upon you who write today’s models as skilled computer scientist.
Btw. I had to write a complex model program back in 1993 – in order to be able to do my special research I had to know ocean sealevels from mid Stone Age up to 1000 AD. I used 43 variables. Could have used more in my model but that’s the lowest possible to be able to have any plausibility for correct levels.
Not only have you today missed that even if A can lead to B and B can lead to C that’s not the same as A leading up to C. That’s understandable that some miss. But you also forgotten two things: Neither have any of you model-makers identified and taken the 10 most essential factors into consideration. You also forgotten that fallacies in argumentations doesn’t prove one thing nor is it sound Theories of Science approach not to check all premisses needed for an argument to be valid argument.
And btw it’s not complicated at all to write a good model – it only takes skill.
Forgot to tell you – I wrote one of the first complexed seach engineprogram – when? 1980. Got a lot of money for the small part usage I agreed to sell only to be used for free searching in ‘library’-way. It’s still in use for such purpose…….
garymount: I happen to know that the climate Models are Carp.
Sounds fishy to me.
: > )
It’s a wonder that Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels ever vote in elections. Do they really think that their individual votes will have a significant outcome on the election? I propose that all of you who frequent this website stop voting…and get your similarly-minded friends to do the same. Maybe you can get Rush Limbaugh or someone of that ilk to take up the cause. Why waste your time and resources when each vote contributes so little?
That’s the thing about collective action: It takes a lot of people doing it to make a difference. Of course, having a modest reduction in one sector of one country’s economy for a 15 year time period is not going to directly reduce the emissions that much (even if it is a major sector of the 2nd biggest CO2-emitting country. The point is that it will encourage other countries to do the same. And it will enable them and ourselves to do so by encouraging the investment in the new technologies that will allow us to produce and use energy without emitting as much CO2. It will get us on a path to a new future that will extend beyond 2030.
Every journey begins with a single step. And, for every journey into the future, there are always the naysayers who want to stick with the old outdated technologies and to ignore the science that tells us that it is imperative to find new technologies.
Here is an article about Silicon Valley entrepeneurs and their views on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/upshot/watching-silicon-valleys-response-to-climate-goals.html
Joeldshore:
Collective action that leads collectively to no net benefit is wasteful at an efficiency of 100%. All money for no benefit. Interesting, no?
One of the major arguments against burning coal is that people downwind die from breathing smoke. The number for Toronto deaths caused by the Nanticoke power plant was given as 1600 or thereabouts. Someone correctly said, show me the bodies.
Now that it has closed, we should see a reduction in the number of bodies, yes? How much do you want to bet there were no bodies, and there is no reduction in deaths? Climate alarm about CO2 is not based on reality. It is based on ‘stuff’ that people Just Make Up. Fabricated facts. If the effect of legislation is a massive reduction in power generation for no discernable benefit (below the detection threshold) then the expense is a straight waste, the destruction of value for no net benefit.
The disinformation campaign must be working. I asked someone what they thought the current concentration of CO2 is in the atmosphere. He replied “about 60%?”
I ask this question often; soon into any discussion of “climate change” to provide an indication of the basic knowledge level of the person I am talking to. Most answers are in the range 5-20% this was a bit of an outlier.
It does demonstrate that being continually hammered by lies (as we are by our media in Australia) that some of it rubs off. I miss the days when journalism meant presenting all the available facts and allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusions. Those days are long past.
By all means go ahead, set the example: and stop using high intensity energy for intensive work, not promoting that OTHERS stop using it or stop intensive works, selling guiltmongering and deluding yourself with a false superior moral stance.
India , China, Australia, Russia, and Europe are leading or following?
Forcing emerging countries(politicians) to use state of the art OLDER AND INEFFICIENT technology, forcing to borrow debt to aquire it, and go down and broke for it?
“Green” entrepeneurs like media elitists that makes money selling and buying carbon credits, sending hiper-rich into JET and ROCKET suborbital JOY rides? Using halfwashed technology replacing analog with digiltal systems, second hand scientists, materials and technology bought from someone else´s work? that kind of entrepeneur?
Leading with “new” stuff like:
Imported solar arrays?
Electric cars, using older technology than gasoline engines?
Boat-age-old wind power, with coal backups that generate MOST of the energy atributed to the wind farm?
Algae?
Biodiesel burning forests and wood pellets, carbon neutral ideas?
Carbon markets?
Solar magic highways?
Mandatory use of higher cost/less efficient/ misleading benefits technology?
Shutting down lands, sectors and economies, because of imaginary enviromental damage?
Good thoughts?
Bullying?
Alarmist, slander activism and name calling?
Expensive feel bad-support-fell good/don´t think/don´t ask ads?
Spelling checks?
It´s gonna work because here is a graph that probes it.(NYT)?
USE YOUR OWN MONEY and shut everyone else´s doubts, but then again it´s safer to risk public resources right? Then keep using them, because is the “right” thing to do? Make a fortune and crash the business(Solalinde and the like), and acomplish nothing for the enviroment?
NOTHING new there.
I don´t believe in salvation for a buck, neither for a vote.
Michael says:
June 12, 2014 at 8:51 am
“Up to a point CO2 is neither helpful nor harmful to “us” …”
Other than automatic and involuntary breathing:
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/Breathing.html
Not exactly your point, but still interesting.
18mK sounds much worse than 0.018K.
18000 microKelvins sounds absolutely deadly.
joeldshore says:
June 12, 2014 at 8:12 pm
Joel, please point to evidence for that statement. People made exactly the same claim about the Kyoto protocol, that it would encourage other countries to commit similar economic self-destruction … care to tell us how well that experiment turned out? You are a scientist … evidence is your friend. Seriously, Joel, who has been encouraged by any of the countries foolish enough to cripple themselves economically for nothing? Names, please. Because as near as I can tell, all the Kyoto Protocol encouraged was that it encouraged several of its adherents to QUIT the protocol … and as near as I can determine, not one damn country volunteered to sign on in their place.
I say your claim is totally without foundation, and that you can’t establish it with evidence. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. Otherwise, your main number one point is falsified.
Jimmy Carter said exactly the same thing about solar power, it was just around the corner, investing in the Carter energy plan would allow us to get off of fossil fuels … and here we are, forty years later, and solar is still a pipe dream. Are you really a scientist? If so, LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Where is the whiz-bang energy technology that the government has brought us with all of its millions and millions and millions of dollars of subsidies. Wind? Solar? Don’t make me laugh. Biofuels? Ethanol? Fuggeddaboutit.
So where do you get your blind confidence that the latest government step will work this time? Because of their great success with Solyndra? Because of the millions thrown at hydrogen?
True … even when you are going in the wrong direction. What’s your point? That if we take one step in the wrong direction, we should take more wrong steps? That we should make policy decisions on rejiggering the global economic system based on “Confucius Says” type folk sayings?
So “science” tells us that it is “imperative” to find new technologies? Joel, I am so tired of scientists playing god. “Science” says nothing of the kind. What we have are a bunch of people running around saying “The Sky Is Falling!! It Is IMPERATIVE to Find New Technologies! Science sez so!” … meanwhile, there’s enough fossil fuels for centuries, and despite decades of searching, nobody has found the fabled “fingerprint” of any human effect on the climate.
This idea that somehow the world needs to be guided by science into and through some transition in fuels is just another part of your scientific megalomania. The world first switched from wood to coal and whale oil. Then we switched from coal to oil and natural gas. All without the benefit of “imperatives” from science, we just switched.
Now, you claim above that in “every journey into the future”, science has told us it was “imperative” to find new technologies, and there have been “nay-sayers”. So how about you provide evidence of scientists saying it was “imperative” to find new technologies before the change from wood to coal, or before the change from coal to oil? Also, please provide evidence that in these changes there have been “nay-sayers”, folks who said “Hey, wood was good enough for my dad, I don’t think we need to burn coal”, or “I like expensive whale oil, we don’t need to be drilling all these holes” …
In closing, let me say that over and over, people have said the same things in the war on carbon—that this is the “first step”, that it will “encourage” others, and “every journey begins with a single step”, and all of that rubbish. We heard that from everyone from Carter on down to you. It’s nothing new.
Here’s the bottom line. Suppose this action by the EPA were the first step. It’s not the first step, billions have been wasted on this BS already with no visible effect, but let’s pretend that it is.
It is estimated that the new EPA regs will cost the US on the order of $50 billion dollars per year, and by 2100 it is slated to reduce the temperature by 0.02 degrees. That’s a total cost of $4.3 trillion for 0.02°C, or $215 trillion dollars for each degree of POSSIBLE and far from guaranteed cooling.
So I’m sorry, Joel … but if your “first step” costs $215 trillion dollars per degree, I don’t give a rat’s tailpipe about your brilliant exposition and your further analysis—because at that price, $215 trillion dollars per degree, I don’t have the slightest interest in seeing the second step in your whiz-bang scheme to rewire the world’s economy …
Not only that, but the casualties in your insane war on coal are the poor in places like India. Your chosen “first step” is sentencing them to increased poverty, deprivation, and in some cases death … I’d appreciate your comments on how that undeniable fact plays into your decision making.
For example, some folks don’t seem to care. The politically late and unlamented Dr. Steven Chu, for example, said he wanted to drive gasoline prices as high as those in Europe. Won’t make any difference to Stevie, he’s got his chauffeured wheels and lots of money for gas … but for a poor single mom who has to drive to her job, it takes food out of her kids’ mouths. And clearly, Stevie doesn’t care … are you with him in that?
You sure that’s the side you want to be on, the side spreading poverty and hunger? Because that is the clear effect of the policies that you are supporting. You must remember when you were a kid, and cheap electricity was seen as the salvation of the poor, the farmer, and the housewife?
Well, it still is their salvation all over the planet, Joel … it still is.
And despite that, you are pushing to make electricity more expensive, and falsely claiming that science says that it is “imperative” to make it more expensive … hogwash. It is imperative to make electricity as cheap and available as we possibly can, there is no other path out of poverty for the poor of the world.
Anyhow, there’s a few questions for you to answer, if you choose.
Or not, your choice … and I can see why you might choose not answer them.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 13, 2014 at 1:30 am…….
thanks for articulating those points again.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 13, 2014 at 1:30 am
/////////////
One of your best.
The 0.018C number comes from using high estimates of ACO2 sensitivity like 4C/ ACO2 doubling.
If one uses the ACO2 sensitivity that we have MEASURED over the last 35 years (that is, if all of the warming is attributed to CO2, and even that’s a stretch) then the 0.018C number drops by a factor of 4 and becomes something less than 0.005C.
Again… when will the oceans start to boil?
It isn’t about global warming or climate change. It’s about ever more government control and sucking ever more money out of us.
They will claim this will confused the Red Chinese to emulate us. Funny, they haven’t emulated us on actual air pollution, the Bill of Rights, or multipiparty representative democracy.
But somehow they will take Obama’s lead on this one issue.
Willis Eschenbach says:
Willis, thanks for your comments but, that is a totally bogus estimate from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has long opposed such regulations, and I am surprised to find anyone who calls themselves a skeptic taking that number seriously. For one thing, it was based on a considerably larger cut in emissions by 2030 than the Administration went with, so the assumptions are wrong from the get-go. (The one modeled by the Chamber is almost twice the rate of reduction between now and 2030 as what EPA went with, once you consider the reductions that have already been made from the 2005 baseline.) See more detailed discussion here: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/06/03/editorial-boards-continue-to-cite-debunked-stud/199567
And, then, as others have pointed out, there are lots of other questionable assumptions. See, e.g., here: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/05/3444651/epa-regulations-inequality/
But, the most important thing to look at is the historical track record of such estimates. And, that track record shows that industry estimates of the costs of environmental regulations tend to be wildly inflated. In fact, even the EPA’s own estimates tend to run high of the mark. (See, for example, http://www.wri.org/blog/2010/11/epa-regulations-cost-predictions-are-overstated and http://prospect.org/article/behind-numbers-polluted-data ).
Furthermore, you made a completely bogus estimate even more bogus by extending the U.S Chamber of Commerce estimate for the regs through 2030 out to 2100, even though Michaels and Knappenberger assumed no additional cuts after 2030. You are just an economic alarmist and, unlike what you guys like to call “alarmism”, such economic alarmism is totally lacking in any credible scientific support whatsoever.
joeldshore says:
June 13, 2014 at 10:08 am
Your citation says:
The citation you give is pushing the same line that Gina McCarthy is pushing—there will be no increase in energy bills from putting on such onerous regulations that some plants will close.
Look, I can understand you don’t like the $50 billion per year estimate. It’s just an estimate, and if you have a better estimate, I’m more than willing to listen.
But your claim in your citation, that there is nothing to support the idea that closing a number of coal plants and imposing high costs on others will have no effect on electricity costs, flies in the face of all experience. That’s a fantasy world, not a citation.
And curiously, your second citation quotes without objection the Detroit News as saying (emphasis mine):
It’s your citation, and it cites without demur the claim that the European experience (which I also cited) suggests that “the chamber’s claims are more credible than the administration’s’ …
So you’ve given us 2 citations. One of them says oh, no, the closing of power plants won’t raise electricity prices … seriously?
And one of which says flat-out that the European experience suggests the $50 billion per year is a better estimate than the administrations.
But heck, Joel, We can solve this right now. Let me cut the $50 billion per year estimate by a factor of ten. That means that the price of a POSSIBLY avoided degree of temperature rise eighty years from now is $21,000,000,000,000, twenty one trillion dollars with a T. And remember, this is a reduction in household incomes … which naturally and unavoidably hits the poor households the hardest.
As a result, your objection is meaningless … and at $21 trillion per degree, I’ll say again—if that is your idea of a “first step”, don’t bother telling me about the second step.
I notice you didn’t touch any of the other questions I raised … I hope you get to them. Let me add another one …
Europe is once again building coal plants, despite having closed them, and despite having the type of regulations that you espouse to limit CO2. Does this mean that a) the regulations succeeded, or b) the regulations caused enough economic hardship to make them cry “uncle”?
And if the answer is b) … why do you believe the administrations’ claims that the regulations will NOT increase electricity prices? I saw the charmingly innumerate Gina McCarthy on TV actually claiming that closing existing power plants will REDUCE electricity prices … please tell me that you don’t swallow that one as well …
Finally, Joel, for Obama to unilaterally order this change is exactly the kind of imperial presidency that the founding fathers tried to avoid. His assumption of power through various bogus means turns my stomach. I wouldn’t mind so much if this asinine move were being decided in some democratic fashion. Having it rammed down our throats, accompanied by a smug “daddy-knows-best” attitude with no scientific foundation, is a tragedy.
Look, Joel, if this were actually about temperature reduction, they would not have left out what the authors rightly call “the most vital number”, the expected benefit. All of your tap dancing and waffling doesn’t obscure the fact that the are doing this for a POSSIBLE reduction of TWO HUNDREDTHS OF A FREAKING DEGREE, Joel.
Now, suppose I had a magic climate control box, one that really worked and really controlled the climate. And I walked up to you and said, “Joel, if the governments of the world pay me $50 billion dollars, a one-time fee, I’ll give a money-back guarantee to reduce the temperature today by two hundredths of a degree” …
Here’s the question. Would you put that fifty billion dollars into say clean water for the developing world today, or put the fifty billion into improved seeds and drought resistance techniques for poor farmers today … or put it into a 0.02°C guaranteed reduction in global temperature today? Which is the better deal, which gives the most bang for the buck?
Now, consider that actually it’s much, much worse than that. We’re not paying for guaranteed temperature reductions today. We’re paying for POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS A CENTURY FROM NOW!
And this makes the your objections about the estimated cost immaterial. Given the manifold very real problems in this world of ours, I truly don’t understand how you can defend spending even fifty cents on the possibility of a 0.02°C reduction in global temperature a hundred years from now … but since you do, let me tell you about a beautiful bridge that I have for sale. It’s a great opportunity, I’ll give you ownership for the small, small price of only $50 million dollars … and I promise that you’ll get free and clear title to the bridge in the year 2100.
Deal?
My best regards to you, and my kudos for being one of the few AGW-supporting scientists willing to come here and defend your views. I do hope you answer my other questions. I acknowledge that it’s not always pleasant or easy to espouse and defend one’s claims, my own experience with writing unpopular posts has shown me that in spades, but it is very important to do so. I wish many more AGW supporters had your courage.
w.
In reply to Willis Eschenbach… schooling joeldshore.
That was really good. I wasn’t anywhere near the wood-shed, but I could still hear the SMACK of the paddle hitting home. Epic.