I posted a graph from L.B. Klyashtorin via Walter Starck on May 4, 2008, with comment from Walter that "I have never seen a more succint and telling argument to refute carbon dioxide government climate change".
The graph though was not of the highest quality, and so Louis Hissink has had it redrawn:
The original post is here:
Thanks Louis for the better quality graph.
Hmm, Creep was right for once - I missed the page reference. Humble apolgies creep - but it was late at night.
Gary; thanks; sometimes I think creep can't see the woods for the trees.
creep; I can't help it, I come from a long line of nongs; I must say, I find a certain degree of inconsistency in your posting; you have accused me of fly-specking when I referred to climate events in Newcastle, and now you are doing the same at Tassie , which has less people than Newcastle and is smaller than the Hunter Valley; variations within the climate, atmospherically and in the ocean, are the norm; the point about the Tassie report is that it says the local temp is 1.6 more than the general ocean warming; the point I am making is that there is no general ocean warming;
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/
Given that, the Tassie result is unbelievable in the sense that either the result is flawed or it is due to very localised events; like a big toaster.
No you're unbelieveable. How about not being a total nong and realise that this finding has been reported for some time. Hand waving with your generalist global links is utterly irrelevant to the Tasman issue. I'm making a specific comment. Does Tasman now = global.
So we've now had (1) it's a prediction (2) it ain't happening. Wrong.
Louis is "Pages 26 & 27" as quoted above beyond your reading level. It called RTFM mate !