Brett,

I think you're right about the first picture. I seem to recall an article in the Times or the PI this past winter about the snow in Paradise being up to the roof of the hotel. We don't often get so much snow all at once! I might be headed up that way later this month. I can give you an update if I pass by.

Consensus? What consensus?

I am an interested observer with no science background. I can see, however, that good meaning people on both sides of this debate can honestly come to different conclusions. I might be wrong but it seems to me that the majority of people, including climate scientists, do NOT believe in the "catastrophic" portion of the climate change story.
Mike Bryant

PDO! PDO! PDO!

GO GO GO!

Good to see there are still people who are willing to look at different viewpoints at the University of Washington. I know at the University of Utah things are a bit skewed to AGW rather than not.

Sounds like UW has internal issues,

Hmmmm....do you believe a MET or a HYDRO?

Decisions...decisions....

Betcha the MET is tied by BIG OIL.

BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL

LOL

!999 and 2008 were two of the snowiest winters on record in the Cascades. In 1999, Mt. Hood set the world's record for the most snow ever recorded on earth.

Is Starbucks putting something in the scientist's coffee?

(Nonstop rain and cold here in Scotland.)

Kudos to the author as he shows the data and admits the time frame can alter the results. (I am shocked!)
Just proves that we don't have a long enough baseline, an agreed to timeframe or data set of weather to make any definitive statement about climate other than "We don't know!"

Of course Hamlet defends the “sky is falling” scenarios by countering with “Ocean conditions are hard to predict, Hamlet argues, making it impossible to predict snowpack levels over the next few decades. But in the long term it's safe to bet that rising temperatures are going to mean less snowpack.”
You have to admire a man who admits ocean and snowpack conditions are hard to predict into the future for decades but everybody KNOWS the temperatures are rising. LOL Sure as long as you just use Hansenonian temperatures’ but only AFTER they are revised ever upward.
How does one counter a paper? You simply just dismiss it with non-science rhettoric! That way there is no controversy. I guess you just have to believe!

This just goes to show that a logical explanation which doesn't include AGW must try and be shot down by a warmist who then spins it his way.

Bob Tisdale: As important as your work has been in science and the importance of other factors to be considered it is good to know that you believe in AGW. I want to learn more of what you are talking about, as it is very relevant. This is a response you made about the arctic;
I doubt the �98 El Nino has much to do with the record declines in 2005 and 2007, but AGW is not the only thing going on either.
No one has succeeded in explaining the observed warming and sea-ice loss in the Arctic solely using natural variability; the changes are large and fast, and largely consistent with warming. Natural variability is large in the Arctic, however (e.g. the Arctic Oscillation is important for sea ice extent). The linked paper below suggests that the 2007 minimum was largely due to the preconditioning of low ice because of a long time spent in a warming climate, anomalous winds, and ice-albedo effects.Thanks KIPP

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_etal2008GL034005

Did I ever mention how much I envy you people who live up that way . God how I love the Pacific NW. Most beautiful place on Earth as far as I'm concerned. Oiznop, with all due respect buddy, I know how much you love you're hot summers. Give me a walk through the Redwood and Douglas Fir trees of Point Defiance on a cool, moist, misty October day with the Puget Sound Fairy's passing by in the distance blowing their horns. You can keep that hot, humid stuff. What does this have to do with Global Climatological Disaster? Absolutely Nuttin !! AIN'T IT GREAT ! Just seeing Rainier again brings back some wonderful memories of a much happier time in my life. Thanks Brett, that picture is just beautiful.

Reply: I agree, Mount Rainier is a beautiful location. I loved staying there and would go back in a second!

I was just talking about this the other day!! Professor Mote of U of Washington lied about lower future snowpacks in an article for Science Mag. and the State of Washington. Our corrupt Governor paid for his report so she could push AGW studies and fees. The LA Times reporter Alan Zarembo wrote an article about how his climate experts had models showing the NW snowpack would be smaller on the same day the State of Wash. reported our snowpack was 166% of normal. You can laugh at Alan at alan.zarembo@latimes.com.

BTW, was so much snow melt in the last month that we had to DUMP power from our grid and lose the money we would have made.

Patrick,

It was Mount Baker in northern Washington that set the all-time snow record. Mount Hood is in Oregon. Baker's record of 1140 inches broke the previous record (at the Paradise ranger station on Mt. Rainier, also in Washington) of 1122 inches, set back in 1972.

Hmm. This article is great because it shows that not everyone is afraid to disagree. Freedom of speech...even if it wrong...is more important than perfection.

BTW GW models predict (and common sense dictates that if you have high air moisture) more extreme precipitation occurring.

If this happens in winter, then that will fall as lots of snow!

Mt. Baker is not as spectacular as Mt Rainer, but it's pretty spectacular and nice to have in my 'back yard'. The first nations name for it translates as 'The Great White Watcher'.

So the global warming models have predicted smoething is common sense?

Chalk one up for the models!!!!

Through record cold, sleet, snow, the Global Warmers go-go-go! LOL......................

Veet you would hope so...

Josh (u see GWers are on your side too) - its called extreme events, including extreme cold events.But overall the average temp rises relentlessly.

Kipp: The authors of the paper you linked also missed the step change in Arctic temperatures caused by the 97/98 El Nino. Other than that, I did a quick read of the conclusions and it looks like a reasonable assessment.

Paulm : Just for the record , I do believe that the Cataclsmynoid models predict increased precipitation , but -as you mentioned- only as a result of INCREASED Water Vapor levels which itself is supposed to be a Positive Feedback. Are you making the same mistake that supporters of this ridiculous theory make all the the time- assuming : "because 'A' is happening , 'B' MUST be true because we can't think of anything else." "Because temperatures are going up , and CO2 concentrations [due to human emissions of course] are going up as well , then humans must be causing the warming!" Or , in your case , "Because precipitation is increasing, therefore Water Vapor levels MUST be increasing. After all , common sense would dicate this." Oh REALLY? Do you have any information to support this precept. Specifically : do you have any recent observational Data which shows that Global Mean Water Vapor Levels Have Increased over the past five years ? If not, then what exactly is supposed to be so common sense about this? In light of the recent DECREASE in GMT's does it not make just as much sense that an increase in precip could equally be due to the fact that a cooler atmosphere can not hold as much moisture and is therefore ridding itself of that excess moisture through incresed levels of rain and snow ? Would this not represent a negative feedback to above mentioned decreased GMT's which were created by a weather event called La Nina ? Did you're computer models include IRF's like La Nina in their codes ? Did you're Computer models take into consideration that precipitation might be acting as a negative feedback that keeps water vapor levels under control ? Dr. Spencer and others have made it very clear that our understanding of the impact of clouds and precipitation systems on our planet's climate are not well understood. There is a reson why predictions from computer models should not be trusted to accurately predict future climate- and it has to do with the people who programed them. Or should I say - FAILED TO PROGRAM THEM COMPETENTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE GUESSING ABOUT THINGS THEY DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND [Cloud behavior and Water Vapor are a good example] !!!

Brett: I replied to Kipp on this thread twice yesterday. Only one made it through. The only link I had was to my blogspot about the Arctic and that was through the URL field, not within the text of the comment. The link is the same one I have there now. I posted it in the morning, I believe. It was to the effect of:

Kipp: Are you taking misquote lessons from another blogger here.

You claim I wrote: "I doubt the '98 El Nino has much to do with the record declines in 2005 and 2007, but AGW is not the only thing going on either." That was Chris Colose's reply to my comment.

My comment was: "But is the recent bout of elevated Arctic temperatures a result of AGW or an aftereffect of the 97/98 El Nino?"

My position hasn't changed. In fact, I posted on the Arctic on my blogspot recently. Click on my name.

Brett: Is there something in the text that would've set off the filters? Reply: I don't know, I still can't figure out the behavior of these filters.

paulm, another poem

Gwers on my side
No way, they run an hide
They hide when the weather turns cool
Then they see there theory is bull
Warming causes cold they say
Even the blind can see they are crazay
Patterns change all the time
There is always one, to make a rhyme.

Paulm, if it snowed more wouldn't that area heat up less, more snowpack, extensive snowpack wouldn't that area heat up less, gulf stream shifts{which is a theory} wouldn't that cause an increase in North America snow coverage, sure the air would be drier but still wouldn't there be enough moisture in it on the gwers theory to produce snow, as the snow pack grew larger wouldn't that even make the cooling more dramatic, holy crap global warming is going to cause an ice age!!!!! But wait can an ice age occur with global warming, or would global warming be called global cooling, or would it equall itself out and be normal, or is this all just so far out there no one has a clue and its nothing more than sitting here and talking about who is going to win the super bowl, if they could have communicated the cavemen could have been doing the same thing arguing its getting colder or its warmer. My 3 past morning lows 49,42,46 and its early August, how much colder is global warming going to make it?

SAGWA: IDK who Spencer is, but IPCC candidly admits they don't know the future behaviour of clouds in their projections. Clouds are now a negative forcing, but are a little more likely in the future to be positive than more negative. This uncertainty is candidly stated. The main problem is they don't know the altitude of cloud formation. I don't understand how increased precipitation could act as a negative temp forcing. It isn't like there is some huge reservoir of moisture in the atmosphere that would be slowly depleted by more precipitation. Weather happens fast; cycles dust and soot out of the troposphere within weeks. More precipitation necessitates more water vapour in the atmosphere. If you conjecture were true, the world would parch within a few months. Computer models circa 2006 have emerged La Nina.
A Canadian forestry website mentions glaciers are down 50% over the 20th century. I'd assume the same for coastal mountains south to Northern California. I'm surprised those trees in the photo aren't red. It takes -40F temps to kill the mountain pine beetle.

Phillip Huggan. What exactly is the experimental proof that clouds are "a little more likley" , as you put it , to be positive? Computer models? Spencer's work , which is based on experimental research , seems to show just the opposite. Has the Alarmist community come up with any counter experimental data to refute Spencer & Assoc. work on Infrared Iris? That paper came out after the IPCC's AR4. I did not say that precipitation was negative temp forcing, I said that precipitation was a negative feedback [ a response ] to temp decreases created by La Nina. La Nina was the forcing , the increase in precip was the result since a cooler atmosphere does not hold as much water vapor as a warmer one. There was no need for any great reservoir to exist - what was present in the atmosphere at the time that La Nina began was sufficient to create the response. Dr. Spencer has stated that precipitation is a factor in our environment which needs to be more thoroughly understood before we go jumping to conclusions about whether the Earth's Climate is a positive feedback system as the IPCC feedback tables would lead people to believe it is. That table ASSUMES that water vapor will be the Dominant Positive feedback , yet without a better understanding of how precipitation affects water vapor levels, there is no way to make that sort of conclusion in any fashion that can be considered credible. Like it or not , there is no experimentally based research which can validate the IPCC's supposition of a positive Climate sensitivity of which water vapor is tasked as the main player. Why is it that you believe that higher precip levels MUST have as a pre-requisite, HIGHER Water vapor levels? Is it not just as possible to have the same effect with exisiting WV levels and cooler temps caused by a La Nina ; or a cool phase PDO ; or a cool phase AMO ? Since the planet was warming [ up until recently ] , was it not possible for the atmosphere to have INCREASED in water vapor content to the above mentioned " existing levels " when we were experiencing strong El Nino's ; warm phase PDO's ; and warm phase AMO's? Were These Internal Radiant Forcings included in the IPCC's Model forcasts? If not [ and THEY WERE NOT ] , then why , when the models predict increased levels of precipitation as being an indication of increased WV levels , should we believe them - especially since there is no way to accurately MEASURE Global Mean WV Levels ?

SAGWA, what Spencer work are you refering to; have a paper title or link? If it is this paper: http://climate.snu.ac.kr/members/jgr2001.pdf
...the paper modifies a computer model with a precipitation algorithm. I won't comment as I'm not learning ocean currents until better coputer models emerge. If Spencer has no ties to tobacco or oil I'm sure his research is making a contribution as we do need to make Earth immune from warming and ice ages long-term.
Infrared Iris on wiki just says higher altitude clouds may form in a warmer world to act as a negative temp forcing (and feedback). IPCC agrees 100% with this hypothesis, it is just slightly more research and researchers suggest lower altitude clouds will result.
Spencer hasn't done any experiments on clouds formations. An experiment is when you establish a controlled and an uncontrolled environment and Spencer never had access to Biosphere (of course this distracts from the issue, a very good denier tactic).
Here is a partial list of potential positive climate forcings:
1) Rainforest die-off (not observed) may release sequestered carbon soil.
2) Increased cooling loads (A/C) emit more GHGs.
3) Crop failures and land use changes (cutting down rainforests for farms and not using fallow) may result if warmer temperatures drop agri-yields (or the opposite could occur if more plants in a warmer world sequester more carbon in soil).
4) Sequestered GHGs from permafrost may occur (very complicated).
5) Reduced ice area reduces albedo.
6) Warmer temps might (or not) lead to increased snowpack with reduced albedo.
7) Warmer temps might draw attention to biofuels that might emit more GHGs than they replace.
8) More clouds will likely be created, possibly leading to more high altitude clouds (or they could be low altitude cooling clouds).
9) Gla