It is certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller then the number of those who reason badly ........ reasoning is like running & unlike carrying, hence one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.
Everyone's friend is No One's friend
Nice graph and analysis. To be clear, this is not "cherry picking". All the available climate data for the state are on that graph. You may want to look up this definition whenever you get around to looking up definitions of weather and climate.
I'll take your comments one by one from left to right.
1) There is no comparable data in the past for Minnesota. You can speculate it was warmer all you want.
2 & 3) You see a 30 year cold period around the turn of the century and assume what folks would say about it. OK, maybe. Without a bunch of earlier temperature data it is hard to say. Yes, look what the earth has done all on its own. For 130 years there has been a clear overall trend of increasing temperatures.
4) The dotted line was put there by the state climatologist, not me. Take it up with him. If you want to ignore the 130 year trend and only pay attention to short term deviations from the long term trend, that's you prerogative. Let's see, what else happened during this time period, a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions. I know, its just a coincidence. Lastly, please post the link for that data past 2000.
Having listened to this debate here and elsewhere, can someone please tell me what the temperature goal is that the GW protagonists are trying to achieve? Are we trying to mimic the climate of the 1600's? Even though this period is in what is called the little ice age? Or are we trying to get back to the biblical periods of 2-3,000 years ago? But weren't those temperatures warmer than now? And if global warming is caused by the release of CO2 stored in fossil fuels, what was the climate before that carbon was removed from the atmosphere?
It seems that trying to make a non static entity like earth into a steady state model is futility in the making.
In the interest of providing one last bit of information, a whole bunch more climate related graphs for Minnesota are available at:http://climate.umn.edu/climateChange...ObservedNu.htm. There is also a good link to a stream flow paper where you can view an abstract.
The complete temperature record for the northern and southern parts of the state through 2007 is at http://climate.umn.edu/climateChange...orthSouthO.gif . There is no drop in temperatures from 2000 to 2007 unless I am looking at the graph upside down.
You can count on this all being bunk. I will take a different view and, for now, believe things are changing and that CO2 has something to do with it.
Check out http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html and scroll down the page to the articles under “what happened in the past”.
Your right and thank you for falling into the trap, there is no valid historical data to make any predictions on Global Climate Change. Using 150 years of data to speculate on what the earth has done for hundreds of thousands of years or will do in the next thousand years is just as statistically insignificant as looking at the ALL TIME record lows today across the midwest and making assumptions of 100 year trends. There is NO SIGNIFICANT data that backs up global warming claims only speculation fueled by the need for research money and profiteering snake oil salesmen. They are happy to have you as a customer. Thank you for falling into the trap and proving the point.
What is so bad about batteries for the environment besides the lead and acis which is contained?
Am I missing something?