Stanford University physicist Robert Laughlin says governments – and people generally – should proceed with more humility in dealing with climate change.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/please-remain-calm-the-earth-will-heal-itself/article1642767/

Don't waste your money, there is lots of information out there from reliable people for free. David Archibald is a moron.

BTJ
[....Don't waste your money, there is lots of information out there from reliable people for free. David Archibald is a moron.
.........]

And you know this how? Perhaps something from journolist?

Of course it's like shooting fish in a barrel when you don't put any effort in...any one can call someone an idiot without any reason behind it. Ask someone a question and just call them an idiot when they answer without any explanation? Who does that? Great social skills, that sort of thinking must get you far in life.

Posted by: BTJ | July 14, 2010 1:25 AM

Or a moron.

I think that I'll buy the book. Just for some perspective. See "Climategate: The Name Redacted?" thread for a link on how the AGW theory is presented.

I'm proud to say that I've been a firm believer in solar activity having the most measurable effects on the climate ever since I looked into this a few years back. It just made sense and these data charts backs it up solidly.

Being over half a century old now, I know for a fact that the cooler summers of late with lots of cumulus type cloud days and overall more cloud formation covering the sun matches the summers of my youth perfectly and again the solar activity corolation is almost eerily identical.

BTJ...Have you noticed how unusually cold it's been in the southern hemisphere of late?...Don't worry, "hiding the decline" won't be necessary anymore. It will be obvious to everyone with a pulse and everybody will dream, especially in a severe global recession, of the good old days when global warming made life much easier until it naturally starts to warm up again and some doom and gloomer, maybe one of Al Gore's bastards, will restart the lie for profit again.

This book was long overdue.

sasquatch thanks for the good link.

No surprise that a physicist is able to see through the scam.

I cant comment on the book, but if your plan is to give it to the local school library, then don't waste your money. If there is a local school librarian who isn't 100% behind AGW and any number of other left-wing causes, I haven't heard of her.

"Or a moron."

He's a nobody, his papers are horrible and a slap in the face to science. All you have to do is read one to plainly see so. He picks and chooses his sources to meet his predetermined outcome, he makes grammatical errors, he uses extremely small data sets to come to major conclusions, his analysis is incomplete leading to unbacked claims. He's a joke.

"I'm proud to say that I've been a firm believer in solar activity having the most measurable effects on the climate ever since I looked into this a few years back."

Solar radiation has been in a lull...the upper atmosphere has been cooling while the lower atmosphere warming..solar radiation does not have that effect.

" I know for a fact that the cooler summers of late with lots of cumulus type cloud days and overall more cloud formation covering the sun matches the summers of my youth perfectly and again the solar activity corolation is almost eerily identical."

Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about, please admit that.

"BTJ...Have you noticed how unusually cold it's been in the southern hemisphere of late?."

It's called WINTER!

"He's a nobody, his papers are horrible and a slap in the face to science. All you have to do is read one to plainly see so. He picks and chooses his sources to meet his predetermined outcome, he makes grammatical errors, he uses extremely small data sets to come to major conclusions, his analysis is incomplete leading to unbacked claims. He's a joke."

Are you referring to Phil Jones?

"Are you referring to Phil Jones?"

or Keith Briffa, or Michael Mann or . . . .

BTJ said: "He picks and chooses his sources to meet his predetermined outcome, he makes grammatical errors, he uses extremely small data sets to come to major conclusions, his analysis is incomplete leading to unbacked claims."

I agree with backlash, Phil Jones IS a moron.

As for the book, if BTJ hates it, its probably solid gold.

Download, print or bund ciscs, distribute!!

A great weapon in the info war.

BTJ...do you have trouble understanding the phrase "UNUSUALLY COLD"?

Maybe have your mommy read the following article for you.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/cold-snap-freezes-south-america-beaches-whitened-some-areas-experience-snow-for-the-first-time-in-living-memory/

Unless the Sun fires back up, I think we'll be freezing not cooking. If we do enter a cold phase we will be fortunate to live in a modern country with modern technology (at least in western Canada). Our homes are already designed for extreme cold so a bit colder and longer winters will be inconvenient not deadly. Adequate food production is the biggest threat but crop science and improved growing methods will buffer rich countries from the worst of it.

BTJ...It took me years of study, reading, observation, counterpoint analysis and digging along with many arguments with wife, family and friends because of my near obsession on the subject of AGW. Although my background is mechanical engineering, I feel I have an excellent grasp on the subject. In fact, I have yet to meet in person someone who can sit down and really debate with me on this. Odd that it's the same with the Gores, Suzuki, Jones etc. They avoid debate like the plague.
Like you, the ones that dare speak at all either try to change the subject as soon as they feel I have actually looked into it or simply remain silent or they typically try to ridicule me.
But that's very few and far apart...The poseurs who feign knowledge are mostly ones that are limited to have watched "An inconvenient Truth" or read some Greenpeace or WWF literature...And here is a prime example of that:

" I know for a fact that the cooler summers of late with lots of cumulus type cloud days and overall more cloud formation covering the sun matches the summers of my youth perfectly and again the solar activity corolation is almost eerily identical."

Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about, please admit that."
BTJ

Yes BTJ...If you even bothered to look on the other side of the fence you would know exactly what I mean here...And I won't even bother explaining it to you...Do your homework but remove the blinders first.

Some weeks ago, I posted that you seemed smarter than most of the trolls that come spew their nonsense and typical attack the messenger and run tactics here...I now declare that I may have made a mistake because on this subject, you are clearly loosing and increasingly look pathetic.

Are you even capable of saying you are wrong? Are you even mature enough?

AGW induced by C02 was an interesting theory when it first came out...It eventually became politicized and now it is full blown fraud with an unlinked socialistic agenda...Follow the money trail...There's only one certainty: Man's incessant greed and control over others...It's engrain in his DNA...A trait of survivalism.

.........I think I'm wasting my time.

"It took me years of study, reading, observation, counterpoint analysis and digging along with many arguments with wife, family and friends because of my near obsession on the subject of AGW."

Ok, but what did you study and read? Have you read any of the thousands of research articles? Or just blogs, news articles, summaries, etc.

"Odd that it's the same with the Gores, Suzuki, Jones etc. They avoid debate like the plague."

Suzuki does not avoid debate like the plague, I would love to see you debate him.

"either try to change the subject as soon as they feel I have actually looked into it or simply remain silent or they typically try to ridicule me."

When have I changed the subject or remained silent? Ridiculed you...probably.

"If you even bothered to look on the other side of the fence you would know exactly what I mean here...And I won't even bother explaining it to you...Do your homework but remove the blinders first."

Well, your observation doesn't exactly follow the scientific method. If that is how we attempted to understand the world we'd have a mess of random observations with no way to identify correlations and causations. There a large number of variables in cloud formation, you can't just pick one out of the blue.

"you are clearly loosing and increasingly look pathetic."

Ha, right.

"Are you even capable of saying you are wrong? Are you even mature enough?"

"It eventually became politicized and now it is full blown fraud with an unlinked socialistic agenda"

Notice how you only use 'politics' in connection with the claim that CO2 is a fraud...how about the science...has it been proven wrong?

"Man's incessant greed and control over others...It's engrain in his DNA...A trait of survivalism."

I beg to disagree...greed is good when it it directed through the individual only (ie. wanting to be the best)...control over others is not an inherent trait but the result of collectivism and a failure to be an individual.

Sure, if I'm proven wrong or presented with a reasonable, rational argument...yet to happen.

"how about the science...has it been proven wrong?"

It was never proven to be correct.

You have to have a financial interest in global warming. I have a hard time believing anyone can be as obtuse as your comments demonstrate. But I've been wrong before.

"It was never proven to be correct."

Easy enough to say when you completely ignore all data, information, analysis.

Please reference data, information and analysis for us poor peasants. Be sure to include the works of Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al. Just to prove how wrong I am about the obtuse comment.

Like I said. I've been following this fraud for 15 years now. I even thought the planet was getting warmer but then I saw.....

Facts only please. Your simple mindedness grows tiresome.

Long-term snow, climate, and streamflow trends at the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, Owyhee Mountains, Idaho, United States

Forty-five water years (1962-2006) of carefully measured temperature, precipitation, snow, and streamflow data for valley bottom, midelevation, and high-elevation sites within the Reynolds Creek Experimental Watershed, located in the state of Idaho, United States, were analyzed to evaluate the extent and magnitude of the impact of climate warming on the hydrology and related resources in the interior northwestern United States. This analysis shows significant trends of increasing temperature at all elevations, with larger increases in daily minimum than daily maximum. The proportion of snow to rain has decreased at all elevations, with the largest and most significant decreases at midelevations and low elevations. Maximum seasonal snow water equivalent has decreased at all elevations, again with the most significant decreases at lower elevations, where the length of the snow season has decreased by nearly a month. All trends show a significant elevation gradient in either timing or magnitude. Though interannual variability is large, there has been no significant change in water year total precipitation or streamflow. Streamflow shows a seasonal shift, stronger at high elevations and delayed at lower elevations, to larger winter and early spring flows and reduced late spring and summer flows.

Observations beneath Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and implications for its retreat

Thinning ice in West Antarctica, resulting from acceleration in the flow of outlet glaciers, is at present contributing about 10% of the observed rise in global sea level(1). Pine Island Glacier in particular has shown nearly continuous acceleration(2,3) and thinning(4,5), throughout the short observational record. The floating ice shelf that forms where the glacier reaches the coast has been thinning rapidly(6), driven by changes in ocean heat transport beneath it. As a result, the line that separates grounded and floating ice has retreated inland(7). These events have been postulated as the cause for the inland thinning and acceleration(8,9). Here we report evidence gathered by an autonomous underwater vehicle operating beneath the ice shelf that Pine Island Glacier was recently grounded on a transverse ridge in the sea floor. Warm sea water now flows through a widening gap above the submarine ridge, rapidly melting the thick ice of the newly formed upstream half of the ice shelf. The present evolution of Pine Island Glacier is thus part of a longer-term trend that has moved the downstream limit of grounded ice inland by 30 km, into water that is 300 m deeper than over the ridge crest. The pace and ultimate extent of such potentially unstable retreat(10) are central to the debate over the possibility of widespread ice-sheet collapse triggered by climate change(11,12).

Rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have increased growth in natural stands of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)

"Please reference data, information and analysis for us poor peasants."

It's called "Fox News Disease"...the need to be told what to do and believe, the inability to think and research for one's self, the need to follow some prescribed doctrine.

"Like I said. I've been following this fraud for 15 years now."

And by 'following' you mean reading/listening to opinion right? Certainly not reading, researching, analyzing scientific work.

BTJ at 12:17 AM

Absolutely nothing in that tome you wrote speaks to whether any of it was caused by human produced CO2. In fact, the very last statement suggests rising temperatures can be a good thing. Better luck next time.

WOW. Talk about cherry picking. How do you address the fact that global temperatures have fallen since 1998 in direct opposite of the fear mongers predictions. When they authors of that propaganda (I wonder how much funding was involved in that piece) were measuring the impact of global warming, they had already reached a conclusion. Now that the data is different than the projections, are they going to research global cooling? How about the fact that while some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing. Rising sea levels! The AGW god bought a mansion by the sea. Who told you that I watch FOX. BTW, their garbage is only a step above the garbage spewed by the rest of the agenda promoters. They tend to tack right, while the rest decidedly tack to the left.

BTJ - read that last sentence. Think. Do a bit more research. If you watch TV, watch FOX to balance the utter garbage spewed by the rest and do try to draw some climate conclusions without a political bias.

Please take your response to the next post on climate fraud. Do some more research and do try to be a little less obtuse. Later.

" I know for a fact that the cooler summers of late with lots of cumulus type cloud days and overall more cloud formation covering the sun matches the summers of my youth perfectly and again the solar activity corolation is almost eerily identical."

"Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about, please admit that."
BTJ

OK, I replied that you do your homework and you would know what I was talking about...I'll give in, put your bib on and spoon feed you:

Have you ever heard about cosmic radiation and it's link to sun spot activity? Depending on the amount of cosmic radiation bombarding the earth it influences the amount of cloud formation.

Read this scientific paper from 2000, where I first looked into the sun as the possible (Some would say most logical) factor that has the most significant effect on climate...Here's an excerpt:

"...From our regression of low cloud factors with various solar activity related parameters, we have estimated the percentage change in cloud factor implied by the known variation in cosmic ray flux and solar activity during the past century. In addition, we have used cloud forcing factors derived by others to estimate the effect of cosmic ray-induced low cloud factor changes on global temperatures. Taken at face value, our results imply that, possibly excluding the last decade or so when an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, most of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity. Similarly, we find the lower level of solar activity in the Maunder Minimum predicts an increase in the low cloud factor that gives rise to an increased albedo for the Earth and lower global temperatures..."

Don't bother to come back and point out:
"possibly excluding the last decade or so when an accentuated rise in global temperatures is widely accepted to have occurred as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect"

Remember this paper was written in 2000...We now know that the Earth is on a cooling trend even though THIS last decade saw China explode in coal power plant start ups and general energy consumption increases around the world.

Here's the link:

http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html

Now, YOU admit that you were ignorant on this...The paragraph you used to ridicule me is clear enough that you should have known what I was reffering to.
As a matter of fact, this is part of the subject book for THIS thread which you dismissed as junk at the beginning here...It's the blinders effect again'st you BTJ...You gotta start proving to us that your belief has not just become a religion for you and that you still adhere to science.

The fact that the IPCC group and its cabal of warmers keep papers concerning the sun and its influences out of peer reviews is a smoking gun to their fraud IMO

Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle"...It's in there too.

Yesterday I was scanning the pre-order advert for the latest edition of National Geographic's amazing world atlas and telling the wife that maybe it was time to update ours. Then my eyes were drawn to the words "...effects of the planet's rising temperature and what can be done to deal with these hazards". While that's a climb-down from their global warming hysteria of a few years ago it reminded me of why I quit my NG subscription in the first place. Now they've blown a $160 sale because they insist on clinging to this silly superstition. Hopefully they come to their senses before the 10th edition comes out.

Readers Digest format:

-The sun is the energy (Fuel) but it also influences the generator (Alternator): The degree of power it sends to the battery depends on the amount and frequency of cloud formation.

-The battery is the ocean

-The distributor is the wind/jetstream

Before 1998 the sun was agressively charging the oceans with energy (Heat)...Since then the amount of energy directly reaching the oceans has been in decline...The oceans have just started to cool but are still relitivaly warm...Jetstream brings warm air to a cooler, by increased cloud formation, environment.

Result?: increase in thunderstorm frequency and severity and lots of precipitation.

Is'nt that what we are experiencing right now, at least in Canada?

We should see a 'balancing' occur in the next few years where cooler oceans supplying a cooler jetstream will be more at 'peace' with cooler regional airmass.

Winters will eventually be longer, cloud formation will continue blocking the sun's energy more frequently and for extended periods resulting in lower crop yields.

The sun will eventually wake up from its spot yielding slumber, cosmic radiation will again change, cloud formation will decrease in frequency and amount, the oceans will start warming again.

It's happened before, millions of time...It's part of history. No computer model prediction involved. Just some telescopes, thermometers, paper, ink and boring data collection and observations.

"Absolutely nothing in that tome you wrote speaks to whether any of it was caused by human produced CO2. In fact, the very last statement suggests rising temperatures can be a good thing. Better luck next time."

Wow...you people sure expect a lot...for one, there's a limit to how much I can put into a response, secondly, you expect everything to be thrown into your lap...you want to be told, not discover for yourself.

The second one DID NOT imply it was a good thing, even for if you are a poplar tree.

" Talk about cherry picking."

I can only put so much, it will always be 'cherry picking'

"How do you address the fact that global temperatures have fallen since 1998 in direct opposite of the fear mongers predictions."

"How about the fact that while some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing. "

The VAST majority are shrinking.

"If you watch TV, watch FOX to balance the utter garbage spewed by the rest and do try to draw some climate conclusions without a political bias."

That's not how gaining information works...you can't watch some misinformation from one political side and balance it out with some misinformation from the other political side and expect to land in the middle. It's all CRAP, and FOX is the best at spewing utter nonsense verging on lies. How about I find good sources instead.

"Depending on the amount of cosmic radiation bombarding the earth it influences the amount of cloud formation."

Yes, I know! I completely understand what you are saying from the start...the point is there are lots of other things that affect cloud formation, ESPECIALLY in so small an area that a single human from the ground is observing it. You can't chalk up a couple observations from looking at the sky to 'cosmic radiation'. The sun has been in a 'slumber' for some time now, the upper atmosphere has been cooling...while the lower atmosphere has been warming and CO2 has been rising. What does that tell you?

"Now they've blown a $160 sale because they insist on clinging to this silly superstition."

They don't need your $160...YOU'VE blown a chance to receive a good magazine with great pictures and interesting articles...YOUR LOSS.

"The oceans have just started to cool but are still relitivaly warm"

Why are they warm? Why are they becoming more acidic?

"It's happened before, millions of time...It's part of history. No computer model prediction involved. Just some telescopes, thermometers, paper, ink and boring data collection and observations."

Haha...so you're telling me you figured it all out and all those people dedicating their lives to daily research and work haven't a clue? Come back to reality please.

They haven't, that's how I address that. And climate is complex, it won't just go up and up and up. The overall trend over the last century has still been warming.

It's happened before, millions of time...It's part of history. No computer model prediction involved. Just some telescopes, thermometers, paper, ink and boring data collection and observations."

"Haha...so you're telling me you figured it all out and all those people dedicating their lives to daily research and work haven't a clue? Come back to reality please."
BTJ

No you moron, I observe the data charts from that book and many others when I come to that conclusion as those charts where made from data collection (Sun spot and temp recordings) going way back. Its the future predictions from computer models I don't believe in because like you say, the climate is very complex and would require a program so powerful; we are years away of even developing one if we ever even get there.

"Depending on the amount of cosmic radiation bombarding the earth it influences the amount of cloud formation."

"Yes, I know! I completely understand what you are saying from the start..."

So then, why did you initially answer with this?:

"Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about, please admit that."

You just avoided the subject then? Why? Too "incovenient"?...Attack the messenger once again is typical for your kind.

"The sun has been in a 'slumber' for some time now, the upper atmosphere has been cooling...while the lower atmosphere has been warming and CO2 has been rising. What does that tell you?"

Nothing, other than what you state. Care to provide a link to the lower atmosphere temp rising of late. Explain if CO2 is rising and is a SIGNIFICANT temp increase driver, why have the oceans start cooling?

I think you make up arguments as we feed you info other than the IPPC stuff you limit yourself to.

Funny how you completely avoid comment on my other post at 9:54...What about that link?...Is it junk too?...I think you do cherry pick.
Care to comment on their conclusion...emphasis on MOST:
"...MOST of the global warming of the twentieth century can be quantitatively explained by the combined direct (irradiance) and indirect (cosmic ray induced low cloud) effects of solar activity. Similarly, we find the lower level of solar activity in the Maunder Minimum predicts an increase in the low cloud factor that gives rise to an increased albedo for the Earth and lower global temperatures..."

"The overall trend over the last century has still been warming"

No it has not...It has been up and down...We haven't even reached the peaks of the 30's and 40's. The last rise started in the late 70's and has stalled at the turn of the new millenium.

IMO, the sun is by far the most significant driver of climate change and overall temps. Granted, there are thousand other variables in the equation, CO2 being one of them but not even significant in the grand scheme IMO. Man made C02 even less.

When asked to provide evidence that humans are causing dangerous global warming, BTJ responds with information that climate change is happening, completely dodging the question.

Here's what you need to do, BTJ;

Provide evidence that HUMANS are CAUSING the warming,

And that it's DANGEROUS.

Sorry for shouting but it's just tiresome how all the AGW alarmists continuously avoid the question when asked to provide evidence.

"No you moron, I observe the data charts from that book"

Exactly..you moron..those data charts are BS...Archibald cherry picked data so badly that his graphs are not valid. He uses only a handful of data points to come out with graphs that present a level of detail that require LOTS of data points.

YOU are cherry picking if you concentrate your research on refurbished data by bloggers and old, retired professionals who don't actually DO the research.

" Its the future predictions from computer models I don't believe in because like you say"

It's also the CO2 correlation you don't believe in either...or can you not pick an argument and stay with it?

My suggestion is not to put too much focus on the model predictions, especially the extreme ones...just know that we are altering the planet in such a way that will require massive management and cause unwanted consequences.

""Huh? You have no idea what you're talking about, please admit that.""

Because you tried to come to a correlation and in fact a causation to explain your narrow observations with a very, very, very limited amount of data/information. There are any number of things that influence cloud formation, you can't just pick one and say that's it.

"Nothing, other than what you state. "

Actually, if you had used logic, it would tell you that the Sun cannot be causing the lower atmosphere to warm, because the upper atmosphere temp would also rise. Rather, an increase in the lower and decrease in the upper would imply that an increase in the greenhouse effect..and/or land use pattern changes are the cause.

" Care to provide a link to the lower atmosphere temp rising of late."

Evidence for dynamical coupling from the lower atmosphere to the thermosphere during a major stratospheric warming

We used temperature data from the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding on board ESA's Envisat satellite to analyze the temperature responses in the mesosphere and thermosphere up to 170 km to a major stratospheric sudden warming (SSW) which occurred in January 2009. The temperature observations show clear signatures of a mesospheric cooling and a thermospheric warming, the latter peaking at 120-140 km in agreement with model predictions. From the analysis of the zonal temperature structure during the SSW a pronounced wave 1 pattern was found in the entire middle and upper polar atmosphere with maximum amplitudes around 50 and 140 km. In the mesosphere, the wave amplitude is significantly damped. The wave amplification above is most likely produced by in situ forced planetary waves in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere region. Our observations represent the first experimental evidence of a dynamical coupling of the lower atmosphere and the thermosphere in the 120-150 km range by means of satellite data. Citation: Funke, B., M. Lopez-Puertas, D. Bermejo-Pantaleon, M. Garcia-Comas, G. P. Stiller, T. von Clarmann, M. Kiefer, and A. Linden (2010), Evidence for dynamical coupling from the lower atmosphere to the thermosphere during a major stratospheric warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L13803, doi: 10.1029/2010GL043619.

"why have the oceans start cooling?"

Any evidence? What is your time frame?

In this work we use the data base MEDATLAS and data from more recent monitoring programs to construct the longest temperature and salinity time series ever analysed in the Western Mediterranean (1900 to 2008). These time series show that both the upper and intermediate layers have warmed throughout the twentieth century. Long term and decadal variability in the upper layer correlate with surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere and heat absorbed by the upper North Atlantic Ocean, suggesting that the time series analysed in this work reflect the present heat absorption of the oceans in the context of global warming. The present data set highlights the importance of monitoring programs and provides a proxy for the study of climate change.

Graph:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/cache/MiamiImageURL/B6VF5-4YXP18M-2-3/0?wchp=dGLzVtb-zSkWA

"other than the IPPC stuff you limit yourself to"

That's funny, I haven't read one IPPC report to date.

"Funny how you completely avoid comment on my other post at 9:54...What about that link?...Is it junk too?...I think you do cherry pick."

I didn't look at it...I've already pointed out that the sun cannot be the cause of warming.

"No it has not...It has been up and down...We haven't even reached the peaks of the 30's and 40's. The last rise started in the late 70's and has stalled at the turn of the new millenium."

Where do you get this crap from?

Surface air temperature variability over India during 1901-2007, and its association with ENSO

Indian annual mean (average of maximum and minimum), maximum and minimum temperatures showed significant warming trends of 0.51, 0.72 and 0.27 degrees C 100 yr(-1), respectively, during the period 1901-2007. However, accelerated warming was observed in the recent period 1971-2007, mainly due to intense warming in the recent decade 1998-2007. Temperatures (mean, maximum and minimum) increased by about 0.2 degrees C per decade for the period 1971-2007, with a much steeper increase in minimum temperature than maximum temperature. In the most recent decade, maximum temperature was significantly higher compared to the long-term (1901-2007) mean, with a stagnated trend during this period, whereas minimum temperature showed an increasing trend, almost equal to that observed during 1971-2007.