Is a 4C Temperature Rise by 2100 Feasible? Possible? Likely? Certain?

Following on from Emma Thompson’s bold statement on BBC that we were in for 4C by 2030, And Then There’s Physics showed up in the comments here and mayhem ensued, as it so often does when he arrives. Here’s Emma once again in all her glory:

In his post on the Emma Thompson story he acknowledged that large temperature rises before 2030 are unlikely. But in comments here he challenged me when I said that 4C rise in temperature ‘ain’t gonna happen’ this century.

He wrote “And that illustrates a large part of the problem with this entire topic. You (and Hunter, I think) feel perfectly comfortable stating something as a fact, even though it is not definitively true. The amount we will warm by 2100 depends both on climate sensitivity, on our emission pathway, and on the significance of carbon cycle feedbacks. It is not true that there is “no way 4C is happening this century.”

I’m not a scientist of course, but I do read the IPCC, which said in their Fifth Assessment Report “Relative to 1850–1900, global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) is projected to likely exceed 1.5°C for RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence).

Warming is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 (high confidence), more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5 (medium confidence), but unlikely to exceed 2°C for RCP2.6 (medium confidence). {2.2.1}

The increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the 21st century (2081–2100) relative to 1986–2005 is likely to be 0.3°C to 1.7°C under RCP2.6, 1.1°C to 2.6°C under RCP4.5, 1.4°C to 3.1°C under RCP6.0 and 2.6°C to 4.8°C under RCP8.59. The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean (Figure SPM.6a, Figure SPM.7a). {2.2.1, Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2, Table 2.1}”

So, according to the IPCC, only the most extreme expression of the most extreme RCP would get us to 4C by 2100. And as I’ve written here before, the RCPs aren’t predictions or projections, they’re scenarios that start from the conclusion (8.5 watts per square meter for RCP 8.5) and work backwards to see how we could get there.

Warming so far this century has been negligible. That of course is subject to change. I expect warming of 2C by this century, in large part because the developing world will use a lot of fossil fuels.

To me, 4C in the remaining 85 years of this century, while I suppose it’s physically possible, is such an outlying scenario as not to deserve much attention. But as I said, I’m not a scientist.

So somebody tell me–what is the mechanism whereby warming accelerates so drastically from a standing start. Global emissions didn’t increase in 2014 and neither did temperatures (much).

How do we get to ATTP’s nightmare scenario?

43 responses to “Is a 4C Temperature Rise by 2100 Feasible? Possible? Likely? Certain?

  1. How do we get to ATTP’s nightmare scenario?

    Listen, I didn’t say anything about a nightmare scenario, or that 4C by 2100 was likely. You’re mis-representing me again, which is the main reason I came to your blog yesterday. Now you’re doing is again. My extremely simply point is that your statement that “There’s no way 4C is happening this century” was a statement of absolute certainty which is not consistent with the evidence available. Is there any chance that you could stop misrepresenting me? All that this indicates is that most of your rants about alarmist are probably based on complete misrepresentations of what they actually said.

    In fact, this is utterly bizarre. You’re simply making stuff up that you can then criticise. It’s ludicrous and I fail to see why you think this is even remotely acceptable. Why do you do this? Do you think it’s funny to simply make stuff up about people that you then criticise? Do you not realise that you’re doing it? How is this is any way a reasonable way in which to behave? I think it’s absolutely despicable and you the idea that you can defend this type of behaviour is absurd.

    • I mean seriously, you big baby. I quoted you as follows: ““And that illustrates a large part of the problem with this entire topic. You (and Hunter, I think) feel perfectly comfortable stating something as a fact, even though it is not definitively true. The amount we will warm by 2100 depends both on climate sensitivity, on our emission pathway, and on the significance of carbon cycle feedbacks. It is not true that there is “no way 4C is happening this century.”

      Does that not capture your opinion? Is it out of context? Do you wish to add something, subtract or amend?

    • This is a blog. Bloggers are not required to write with the precision of science. In common English “now way” is synonymous with “unlikely”.

  2. So, umm, ATTP. Is 4C this century feasible, possible, likely or certain?

    Quit whining and give us an answer and some explanation.

    • Tom,
      I want nothing more to do with you. I’m going to ask one more time that you stop misrepresenting what I say. I don’t expect you not to stop, but that’s my request. There’s probably nothing I can do if you do continue to misrepresent what I say and make things up about me, but by asking I can at least illustrate to others that you’re doing so.

      Quit whining and give us an answer and some explanation.

      If you’d shown some interest in not being a dishonest hypocrite, I might have done so. Since you clearly have no interest in not being a dishonest, hypocrite, I don’t.

      • Same old excuse, time after time. If only I treated you better you might display some knowledge of… physics. Instead I have browbeaten you mercilessly and sent you fleeing into the dark.

        What a pity.

      • ATTP used to have a subtitle on his site saying something like “trying to keep the debate civil”. Then he inserted “and sometimes failing”. Now that subtitle appears to be gone.

        I guess that ATTP has decided that since being civil has not had a magical effect on those of us who think for ourselves, he will stop being civil. That is certainly the evidence of his posts here.

        Or maybe he is upset about that fact that evidence is mounting that there is no way 4C is happening this century. For some people that is bad news.

        As a fan of civility, I’d be disappointed by his choice except for the fact that ATTP was never actually civil, he was only condescending. So I guess nothing has actually been lost.

  3. ATTP is such a twit he thinks this all about him and everyone agreeing with him on how to interpret his spew.
    The issue, that he so strenuously avoids, is if we are suffering from, or likely to suffer from a climate crisis caused by CO2.
    Foolish small minds, so well embodied by ATTP, thinks there is some risk of it.
    But when pressed to define the risk he does a Sir Robin and runs away.
    The pitiable ET is just a victim of corrupt advisors using her to sell fear.
    ATTP, sadly, gets paid to teach students. God help his victims.

  4. Ken Rice is perhaps young and inexperienced. He is certainly a master at putting the message before facts and a very strong apologist for the science establishment. Not surprising given his day job. My experience on his blog is the usual partisan stuff. The trolls do the dirty work while the proprietor pretends he is civil. Explaining science can irritate Ken if you are not alarmist enough. It can get you banned.

  5. Even the NYT, in their back pages, gets it. Dr. Tung said that removing AMO effects from the warming of the 1980’s and 1990’s, and the non-warming this century, leaves warming of 0.08 C per decade. So, in the next 85 years to 2100, that would amount to warming of 0.68 C, assuming no increased or decreased rate. Warming of 4 C? No way.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/

  6. Why are you guys talking about climate? What do you think of Emma’s outfit? Her hair is nice too.

    • I really like her as an actress and, from what you can glean from media appearances, as a person. I am glad that she is passionate about the environment. More power to her!

      Just get the story straight next time. Less than half a degree by 2030, maybe 2C by end of century. Not so tough, is it?

  7. Thomas, I think I have now joined you in being effectively banned by Rice from his blog. His reasoning is very partisan: Your facts are right but I disagree about the interpretation, or more charitably to Ken, I just don’t find it interesting (even though its in line with the point of the post being commented on). He then of course goes on to place in my mouth things I never said and say that I haven’t been nice to him on other forums. I am wondering if Ken’s persona is undergoing a transformation into a much more partisan and nasty persona. Certainly, the “civil” part is going by the way side.

    Does this have anything to do with the plethora of new studies showing low climate sensitivity? Ken seems to feel it necessary to throw up some objection or counter point to any of these new studies that is mentioned at his blog.

    He does seem to personalize most of the interactions with those who disagree with him, not a very civil trait certainly.

    • DY,
      I think I’ve suggested two things about you, one of which is that you would whine about me elsewhere, which the comment above illustrates. The other is that you think that computational issues make GCMs largely useless. In this comment you say

      GCM climate modeling is just a giant mess

      So, I fail to see how I’ve mis-represented you.

      I also hadn’t realised that this was also you. Maybe you and I live in different environments, but I would regard both comments you’ve made about me here as not very nice. I don’t hugely care, but that you would pretend you hadn’t done so is rather strange. I can deal with people being unpleasant and snarky, I do that myself. I have more trouble with people who do so, but them seem to pretend they don’t. I think that speaks to their intellectual honesty.

      • attp, reading you opine on intellectual honesty is really funny. Please keep doing so.

      • hunter,
        That you would claim that I’m doing so – when I’m not – is not surprising at all.

      • ” I think that speaks to their intellectual honesty.”
        You are a pathetic gift that keeps on giving.
        “Thick as a Brick” comes to mind when reviewing the totality of your work.

      • Gee, ATTP–after bandying insults around here you actually have the nerve to go after Mr. Young for what he said about you?

        You’re kind of a jerk.

      • hunter, I memorized Thick as a Brick when it was first released. I think I still remember about 80% of it.

      • Well, Ken your comment here is indeed civil and that is a fine thing that I acknowledge without qualification. As the comment that you deleted at your blog said, there are signs of progress everywhere in science, even in climate science. Progress however, requires one to acknowledge that there is a serious problem in science, which you seem to have a problem doing. On this you are truly outside the mainstream.

        However, you are misrepresenting my views on GCM’s and in fact the science and theory that backs up those views. You deleted the part about GCM’s being tremendously valuable as weather forecasting tools. The part about the Met Office changing their GCM ONLY if the change improves weather forecast skill. Climate scientists get what they get and it may be not too great.

        GCM’s are a giant mess as i said and as Tobis more or less said at your blog in more words. Cherry picking quotes to read people’s minds is a trait of small minds.

        My views are similar to Tobis’ but based in actual rigorous knowledge and experience. GCM’s are not useless, but they are sucking the money and talent out of more promising avenues of research. GCM’s are also use very old and outdated methods. I pointed out the hyper viscosity combined with higher order spatial methods. These are just bad methods.

        But the main problem here, which is not numerical, is just the idea that the “attractor” will suck in all trajectories in the long time limit. There is no science to back that up, its just colorful fluid dynamics. “Every time I run the model I get a reasonable climate.” That’s not science.

        So what should we be working on instead of GCM’s?

        1. Simpler models are often more accurate and easier to constrain with data. We have seen that in many, many instances. Yet there is a consistent and dangerous dogma that “more physics” must be the answer in many fields of modeling.
        2. I personally believe the “theory” of climate needs improvements. Tropical convection is one such very hard problem where we need much more than we have at the moment especially as the theory seems to not agree very well with the data.
        3. We need much better data. As I’ve explained at your blog many times, in climate we care about very small deltas to much larger absolute quantities. That means our models and our data are probably quite inaccurate for what we care about. Let’s get busy.

        Finally, my comment here about you is accurate, targeted, and dispassionate. Your behavior has gotten much more partisan and nasty. That is your issue and not mine.

        The thing that angers me is your calling me a climate denier which is simply a big lie and not supported by any evidence at all. I would urge you to delete your lies about me on your blog so it does not become an echo chamber for slander and libel. The issues are far bigger than you or me and we should discuss these things as adults without the name calling and mind reading.

        You have also allowed Paul Pukite to say the most nasty things about me on your blog. Why have you done that?

        And what is this nonsense about me “seeming to pretend that I do not” make comments that in some cases seem snarky. Really, if that’s your beef, you need to grow up. It’s not about you or me. However, abuse is another more serious problem and does interfere with the adult discussion of real issues. Pukite is abusive.

      • One other thing, Ken. There is something of a revolution going on in fluid dynamics modeling too that I have played a very small part in. As I said in the comment you so kindly deleted, there is a new review paper on CFD by two very big names in the field that I was privileged to have some input to and it will be a very big step in the right direction in terms of honestly dealing with the successes and also the strong limits of numerical modeling of chaotic flows. This is an important step forward.

        If you are even remotely interested in this science (which is very relevant to climate), there are a a couple of references you could read that would be useful, some I was involved with and some by others.

        1. AIAA Journal, August 2014, Young et al. on simpler models of viscous compressible flows. Contains some interesting comparisons of methods.
        2. AIAA journal, August 2014, Venkatakrishnan, Kamenetskiy et al. A really big paper about multiple solutions for the steady state Navier-Stokes equations and also “near solutions” that are often found by inadequate numerical methods.
        3. AIAA Journal, July 2015, LeDoux et al. Showing how bad the results can be using single point optimization of airfoils and also some comparisons between methods.
        4. To appear, Booker et al. Analyzing uncertainty in CFD.

        Only if you are really serious about this subject. If you contact me privately, I can email them to you.

      • DY,

        The thing that angers me is your calling me a climate denier which is simply a big lie and not supported by any evidence at all.

        I didn’t, but if it really bothers you I’ll remove the parts of the comments you’re referring to. Removing them, however, doesn’t change my view, though.

        Pukite is abusive.

        Pukite is no longer welcome.

        Only if you are really serious about this subject. If you contact me privately, I can email them to you.

        Thanks, but I’m sure I can find them. Your response, however, makes me think that you still don’t understand what I’m getting at. Do I think climate models are perfect? No, of course not, that would be stupid. I’m sure there are many issues, such as those you highlight. Do I think they could do things differently? Sure, I wouldn’t have posted MT’s post if I didn’t think so. It’s not my place, though, to tell them what to do. Do I think we could see some kind of revolution in the coming years? Possibly. Would be good if we did. Do I think that this justifies saying GCMs are a giant mess? No, I think that’s a ludicrous thing to say and is not what MT said or was implying. It’s the main reason I find it hard to take you seriously, and the main reason I have little interest in interacting with you.

        Do I think all climate modellers are brilliant at what they do? No, I’m sure there are a range of skills and abilities; as with everything. However, I’m confident that they’re well aware of the issues that you highlight, and you appearing to suggest that they aren’t is bizarre. My suspicion is that you don’t understand (or are unwilling to understand) the difference between using modelling to design something, and using modelling to understand something. We’re not using GCMs to design our climate, we’re using them to understand how our climate might respond to changes.

        I guess it’s possible that you’re some kind of polymath who can see things that others are failing to see, and that by ignoring you I miss the opportunity of interacting with one of the greatest minds of our generation. That, however, is a chance I’m willing to take.

      • Tom,

        You’re kind of a jerk.

        That may be a fair description of my behaviour on your blog. However, my behaviour is typically guided by the behaviour of those with whom I’m interacting.

      • Ok, Ken, You seem to have no technical objection to any thing of a detailed nature I said here about GCM’s, which is pretty much the same thing as what I said at your blog (even though you deleted some of the best parts of it). You appear to not like the use of the word “mess” which is an opinion. Since your dislike appears to not be based on any substantive detail, what is the remaining possibility? You might want to try to answer that honesty.

        One must ask why you interact here with me civilly but can’t seem to do so on your own blog where you delete substantive comments and misrepresent my statements. Could there be an intellectual honesty problem to think about?

        Without appearing immodest, 40 years of experience gives me a little bit of an edge on Schmidt who is very bright by the way, but didn’t appear to know that Reynolds’ averaging assumed a stationary flow. That isn’t a problem for me, but it does indicate that your faith in the science establishment in this field may be based on either a reverence for that which you have little understanding of or else something else (you can fill in the blank yourself).

        I sympathize with you Ken as 15 years ago, I also reverentially believed what the CFD literature and its big names said. Then I and my team actually tried to start replicating results and we discovered a maze of dramatic selection and positive results bias. Confidence in our work came slowly as we uncovered the facts, at first trying to find excuses for why our results were wrong. Now, something big has started that I am a little proud to have played a role in. I would however be fine if this new wave of honesty happens without anyone really knowing about my role.

        My advice to you is to ditch the climate wars with Tol and Ridley and try to use your site for discussions of the science and try to attract a broader range of people. Tobis’ guest post is I think a very good start and I applaud you for posting it. Deleting my on topic and polite comments is a step backwards for you however.

        Ditching Pukite is another sign of hope. 🙂

        Best,
        DY

      • BTW, Ken, saying that you didn’t call me a climate denier but merely said I was “behaving like one” is what my wife would call passive aggressive behavior. Its a way of insulting someone while creating deniability. Adults say what they mean straightaway.

      • Adults say what they mean straightaway.

        I really, really, really think that you behave like a typical climate denier. Happy now?

      • Another thing I just noticed in your comment Ken, is your suspicion that I don’t understand climate models at the level required to make statements about them. One might ask if this is true of me, what does that make Tobis’ opinions or yours? Be that as it may, climate models are not hard to understand in their basics. As Nick Stokes has said many times, its really all CFD and there is no substantive difference in the theory or the practice except in the sub grid models. The NCAR GCM existed when I worked there as a graduate student. Computers were vastly smaller. Their current documentation indicates that the core methods haven’t changed much even though the field of CFD has advanced tremendously.

        You also imply that climate models perhaps might be good enough for their purpose even if they are very inaccurate, while we have a higher standard in industry. I think that is simply the opposite of the truth, We don’t yet use CFD in matters where public safety is involved. We use it to design the aircraft, but always flight test everything before certification. I think you would want it that way. We do use climate models as a partial basis for dramatically costly policy decisions. If anything, I would say getting the GCM’s (or perhaps more accurate simpler models) right is vastly more important. We should have a higher standard for these climate models because the consequences of wrong answers are vastly bigger. And yes its critical whether ECS is 3.4 C or 1.6C. I would argue GCM’s are rather unlikely to answer that question in their current state.

      • Oh Ken, And I really, really, really think you behave like a political hack.
        See how productive this childish name calling is, Ken??
        Just stop it and you will feel better and your wife will like you more.

      • ATTP, when I say you are kind of a jerk, it refers far more to your behavior at your blog than your behavior here.

        Here you just whine. At your blog you mess around with what other people say. You edit, moderate, delete and otherwise censor. You arrange the conversation to put your own arguments in the best light.

        Your blog is generally a Potemkin conversation, actually. You have the Greek chorus, (BBD, Joshua, etc.), a few favored actors and the token opponent who, carefully managed, serves only as a foil for the eventual victory of your version of science.

        The idea behind your blog is not new. But you didn’t seem to learn anything useful from your predecessors.

      • David Young, I have to tell you once again that you are a great impediment to scientific advancement. I know enough not to listen to any of your pronouncements about how difficult fluid mechanics is when modeling climate variability. It’s really not that hard.

      • Tom,

        Another thing I just noticed in your comment Ken, is your suspicion that I don’t understand climate models at the level required to make statements about them.

        No, I didn’t say this. I said you don’t appear to understand the difference between using models to design something that will do something specific and behave in a pre-defined way, and using models to understand a physical system and how it might respond to changes. I’m sure you’re capable of making comments about the technical details of climate models. I’m unconvinced that you understand how they’re used well enough to critique their use.

        You also imply that climate models perhaps might be good enough for their purpose even if they are very inaccurate, while we have a higher standard in industry. I think that is simply the opposite of the truth, We don’t yet use CFD in matters where public safety is involved. We use it to design the aircraft, but always flight test everything before certification. I think you would want it that way. We do use climate models as a partial basis for dramatically costly policy decisions. If anything, I would say getting the GCM’s (or perhaps more accurate simpler models) right is vastly more important. We should have a higher standard for these climate models because the consequences of wrong answers are vastly bigger. And yes its critical whether ECS is 3.4 C or 1.6C. I would argue GCM’s are rather unlikely to answer that question in their current state.

        That’s not what I’ve said either. I’ve simply said that your claim that they are a great mess is unjustified. That you would say “have a higher standard in industry” rather illustrates what I was getting at in the earlier part of my comment. You appear to be using your industry expertise to critique something else, without appearing to understand the difference betweens industrial research and fundamental research. If we had multiple planets, a time machine, the ability to run experiments on these different planets to see how they behave under different circumstances, maybe your comparison would be relevant. Since we don’t, it just makes it seem as though you really don’t understand scientific research at all. That we can’t constrain ECS more accurately than we currently can, does not mean that we should assume everything is a giant mess and ignore it. It’s also not the only line of evidence.

      • Sorry, my comment above was meant to be addressed to DY, not Tom. I decided to ignore Tom, given that him critiquing my blog and my behaviour, given what he seems comfortable posting here, just seems bizarre.

      • Well, I don’t understand completely the uses made of climate models, so you are right on that score. I have read at Annan’s and elsewhere that their skill for regional climate for example is not very good. At least they seem to get the general trend of temperature reasonably well.

        However, to say that GCM’s are used for “fundamental research” seems to be only very partially true. I have seen a lot of papers looking at impacts based on GCM’s. That’s applied research.

        As the references I gave above illustrate, we do the same kind of fundamental research you are thinking of when we build CFD codes, yes we build our own codes and our own turbulence models. You may be under a mistaken impression about what we do. Your distinction between industrial and fundamental research is pretty artificial and not really clearly thought out, I would argue.

      • DY,

        Your distinction between industrial and fundamental research is pretty artificial and not really clearly thought out, I would argue.

        Let me clarify something then. I don’t do industrial research. I don’t have strong views about it. I do more what I would regard as fundamental research. What I’m suggesting is that your claims about GCMs, and their uses, appears to illustrate that you don’t understand how models are typically used to understand a physical system (our climate). Maybe that isn’t because of differences between industrial research and fundamental research, but then I don’t have a sense of why you would hold the views that you do. I’m not the one making strong claims about an area in which I have little formal expertise.

        Even your example of using GCMs to understand impacts seems confused. A study that does that is simply asking the question as to what the impact might be if we were to follow a partiular emission pathway, and uses the results from a GCM that indicate how our climate might respond to such an emission pathway. I would argue that that is still inherently fundamental. They’re not doing it to design a pathway that would produce a particular impact, they’re trying to understand what the impact might be if we do follow that pathway. What might be more applied is if we were using GCMs to design geo-engineering solutions. That is a very different issue and I don’t think GCMs are in position to reliably do any such thing.

      • To clarify, I certainly have no objection to using GCM’s for fundamental research assuming their limitations are recognized. However, I would ask, would you get more understanding out of simpler models?

      • However, I would ask, would you get more understanding out of simpler models?

        Yes, I think you probably would and that is one of the points that MT was making. Also you should read Ed Hawkins’ most recent post for an example of this.

      • A further clarification if anyone is still paying attention: Fundamental research is desperately needed in this area of chaotic systems and their long time behavior. I have looked very hard for anything at all of substance and have found very little. We have tried in our very small way to take a step forward with Newton Krylov methods in CFD and have made some interesting findings, but these are very small steps.

        However, I personally believe that none wants to take on these issues because the modern science “system” will not reward them. You are rewarded for publishing many small or often meaningless papers and getting more and more soft money, often by dramatically exaggerating the benefits of your work. We need some people who perhaps have tenure and don’t care too much about money and are willing to think outside the box. Or maybe some citizen scientists.

        And Ken, this is where apologetics for the science “elite” is completely counterproductive. To change the system, we must first admit there is a very serious problem. 🙂 The first link is to an editorial in nature about this crisis and yes it is a crisis. The second is about a preregistration protocol that seems to have had a significant effect.

        http://www.nature.com/news/robust-research-institutions-must-do-their-part-for-reproducibility-1.18259?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132382

    • DY,
      Extremist kooks have no problem fabricating. Do not be surprised at anything attp does. He is a tiny example of the self-absorbed display we are being entertained with by Donald Trump in the US.

    • Tom,
      I like that attp is left with no retort. “Thick as a Brick” is a metaphor for the type of mindless true believer he embodies so well. He seems to have a disorder where he confuses his opinion with fact. He literally seems to think he can pick and choose what other people say or think about his derivative drivel. He cannot defend it, and as DY points out, the reality of low sensitivity and minor impacts from CO2 increases makes the cliamte kooks even loonier.
      As to the amazing Jethro Tull and “Thick as a Brick”, I am pleased to find yet another person who can recall the greatness that was that band.

      • hunter – Your link to “Thick as a Brick” saddened me. I had a copy of it “back in the day”, and I enjoyed both the music and the (rather silly in retrospect) “newspaper”. The album disappeared at some point during my marriage, though, which is too bad. Hope it found a new home.

        An apt line from the title song:
        “Draw the lace and black curtains / and shut out the whole truth.”

      • HaroldW
        Don’t be sad. Enjoy the memories and the great music. JethroTull was an amazing band. They get nearly 0 play time on the so-called “classic rock” stations but their music has great art and intelligent lyrics, something notably lacking in so much other music.

  8. Tom Fuller wrote:

    Your blog [aTTP] is generally a Potemkin conversation, actually. You have the Greek chorus, (BBD, Joshua, etc.), a few favored actors and the token opponent who, carefully managed, serves only as a foil for the eventual victory of your version of science.

    A very succinct characterization. You left out Cerberus, but I got that figured out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s