LOL, Richard. I hadn't thought of that interpretation; guess I'm not as cynical about Al's data (I thought it was just poorly "scaled").
Capitalizing the term probably made it sound like "the famous hockey stick," eh?

Thanks for asking for clarity on the comment; I too was wondering which was misleading or nonsense.
I think it's me that is misleading (and you were wondering!); and Beltrami, et al. that is "complete...."

But this is soo off-topic, eh? More later (see new topic); but until then....

I'll go and try to find the data about Net Mass Loss in Antarctica as well as in the Arctic and Greenland.
I know E. Antarctica is gaining in the highlands, but overall there is a net loss of 100-150 Billion Tonnes/year (last I heard).
wink

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.