Quote:
|
maybe to 10,000 cubic kilometers per year
|
Sure, I left out the km unit, but you knew what I meant. Your implication by saying maybe to 10,000 cubic kilometers per year is that it's among the worst projections based on your source.
You missed my point entirely (on purpose?), that we don't have any grasp of big and small numbers, especially without context. I made no scientific claims.
Point out where I've denied AGW, or stop attributing that name to me.