[stormer]

Averaged decadally, a 30 year period is the basis on which climatic standards are established. Twenty-five years of data is a lot of information.

[Abathar]

But no records exist for the dust bowl era, or other cycles to compare it to? 30 years is no where near long enough to establish anything when it comes to cycles, and is what most statisticians use as an excuse to make a trend look like anything they want.

"Oh look at the big increase!!" of a hockey stick graphic made to scare people, yet lengthen it out and you see it's a natural rise and fall of going back centuries, sometimes millennium.

Accuweather has an agenda, lets face it. If the cycle was reversed you think a story would have been written like this one? I'm not saying that the lakes aren't warmer than they were, but do you know about the health of those lakes? When the zebra mussels filtered the water it changed more than you could ever imagine. Cleaning the water meant less absorbing of sunlight, which meant colder water while it happened. Does it mention anything like that in the article? Cleaner means colder, and the waters themselves have changed drastically in the 30 years mentioned.

I'd rather hear from someone that also looks at WHY the water is warmer or colder from other than only atmospheric reasons myself.