Loudmouth,

"....Please try to respond , if you intend to, with some civility: please no insults..."

The impute of the above is that I am habitually uncivil and insulting to you.

I reject that assertion.

Just another part of your debating "technique" - and, when it's all boiled down, that's really all you've got.

Cheers

: )

When you're ready, Poirot :)

>>And why aren't we painting our rooves white, to reflect some of that solar energy back ? Just a thought - it probably shows clearly what a dill I am.<<

>>"...it probably shows clearly what a dill I am."

I know you meant that last remark sarcastically, but....<<

Well that was uncalled for. Painting rooves white probably wouldn't help very much but the principle is sound: increasing albedo helps cool the planet. One of the important feedback mechanisms that plays a part in climate change is that snow and ice have a higher albedo than water: less albedo means more warming means less ice means less albedo etc.

It works the same way in reverse. One roof won't make much difference but think global act local and all that. Poirot: if you're not up the ladder first thing tomorrow morning I'll have reason to suspect that your heart's not really in this whole caper.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

I'm aware of all that.

Loudmouth has a tactic of indulging in sarcastic self-deprecation....my reference to the "dill" quote was connected with his apparent inability to make sense of the graph.

I don't want to have to paint my roof white – the moss on the crenellations and flying buttresses of the castle's main wing looks nice – and I think of it as carbon capture technology.

But the concept of trends seems to make logical sense when considering climate change as opposed to changes in the weather…

Leo Lane presented us with an opportunity (with citations) a few pages back…

"We are in a cooling trend at the moment, which started 2000 years ago, so forget global warming:
“researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium“"

There are also seems to be general agreement (thanks Joe) of a temperature increase in the last century of around .8°C.

So if my arithmetic is correct – to get back to where we were over 2000 years ago when we can all agree there was no anthropogenic global warming – over the next hundred years we need to see the average temperature drop around 1.4°C.

Now I don't think that the Himalayan glaciers will have disappeared by 2035 – after all, it's taken them the last 50 years to reduce on average by 20%. But I do think it's a big ask to prove a trend by expecting no further increase in temperatures and to rely on around 4000 years of negative trend ("… a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium“") during the next century.

Mostly because none of us will be alive to see the result.

<<if my arithmetic is correct – to get back to where we were over 2000 years ago when we can all agree there was no anthropogenic global warming – over the next hundred years we need to see the average temperature drop around 1.4°C…Mstly because none of us will be alive to see the result>.

Speak for yourself WmTrevor!

The singularity is just around the corner and I intend to upload my self to a Cray Cascade supercomputer (purely for the enrichment of humanity) and be around to continue the battle with the Bonmot’s and Poirot’s of that period, who will no doubt be blaming us for the new cooling trend and campaigning hard for a new tax on renewable energy sources to encourage use of coal and oil.