It is nice to see the hasty reactions to the troll post. But it was a fine trool post making fun of all the attempts to bring up personal experience as a proof of global warming. I wonder why some people who did react this time did not react the many times someone else used a particularly warm period or a sequence of hurricanes as proof for the other side.

The local effects of (real BTW) global warming are too variable and too small to be detectable by personal experience. But I do not think highly of those posters who first look for which opinion (man made global warming / global warming scepticism) a local personal experience is quoted and then either welcome it warmly or turn to science. Double standard posters!

(1) Never trust personal experience for so tiny effects (which could have large consequences, but that's something else, the effects are small compared to the standard deviation). Only trust good science for measuring these effects.

(2) Trust measurements much more than models.
We had the sad case reported just last weekend that the really big science global/local climate model (into which millions of Euros have flown) which did predict for Germany much more rain during winter, Mediterranean climate in summer, long periods ofdrought for some regions was found to be wrong. Not just a bit. Fatally wrong from the very onset. That means back to the start for the one big German model.

Wolfgang