The Northwest (US) Snowpack Trend of the Past Fifty Years: The Truth May Surprise You

Reposted from Cliff Mass Weather Blog

The media is full of stories suggesting that global warming has greatly reduced the mountain snowpack in the Pacific Northwest.

Activist “climate justice” groups like 350Seattle have taken the snowpack loss claims even further, suggesting the current snowpack is “half what it should be”:

But the truth, backed by observations, contradicts such apocalyptic descriptions, as I will show you in the blog.
Recently, the Office of the Washington State Climatologist (who is Dr. Nick Bond of UW JISAO) put online a wonderful tool for visualizing snowpack at some major locations in Washington State.  Plotting up the actual snowpack trend proves to be highly educational.
I am going to show you the change of snowpack for over the past fifty years.  
Why fifty years?  Because that is the period when human emissions of greenhouse gases have gone up rapidly and when GLOBAL temperatures have risen more quickly (see plot below).  If you are looking for a period to see changes in Northwest snowpack driven by greenhouse gas increases, the last fifty-year period is the time to look for it.

So using the OWSC website, let me show you the fifty-year trends of snow depth on March 15th each year.   I chose this date because it is close to the date of maximum snow depth in the Cascades and I have the data for this year.

Let’s start with the higher elevation Crystal Mountain ski area (around 6000 ft).  An increase from 1990 to 2000 and then relatively steady.

Next, lower elevation (~3000 ft) Snoqualmie Pass. Not much trend in snow depth.

Intermediate height Mount Baker?   No real trend.

Or Paradise Ranger Station (around 5500 ft).   Hard to see a trend.

Yes, there are some random, low snow-depth years (like 2015), but no trend is apparent during the period when global warming has been greatest.
Another measure of the amount of frozen water in a snowpack is called snow water equivalent (SWE).  The OWSC website has a nice tool to plot the change in SWE, and I have done so for 1980 to 2019 (see below).  
None of the changes are significant (small circles), and when there are trends, most of them are green (increasing snowpack).  And such increasing snowpack is true at varied elevations.

Finally,  University of Washington research scientist, Mark Albright, took over 200 USDA Snotel locations over the Northwest and plotted up the snow water equivalents (blue lines) since 1984 (when the data became available) as shown below (the red line is a smoothed running average).  Lots of ups and downs, but no long-term trend.

So the inescapable conclusion based upon snowpack observations is that there has been little trend in the amount of snow in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest during a period in which CO2 has been rising fairly rapidly and when global temperatures are going up.
How can this be?
It can and the reason is the Pacific Ocean.
Let me show you a plot of the trend (change) in surface air and sea surface winter (December-February) temperatures for 1980-2019 from the NASA Goddard (GISS) website (see below).  The Arctic is warming more than anyplace else and, in general, the continents are warming more rapidly than the oceans.  We expect this from basic physical principles and modeling.
Oceans warm up more slowly because of their tremendous heat capacity.

But look closely: the eastern Pacific is warming more slowly than the western Pacific.   Look very closely and you will note that the eastern Pacific has essentially not warmed at all.
The temperature of the eastern Pacific has a very powerful impact on the winter temperatures of the Pacific Northwest, since air is coming off the Pacific virtually the entire winter.
So it makes sense that our winter snowpack has not changed because the sea surface temperature of the eastern Pacific has not changed.  This consistency provides us with more confidence in our understanding.
And there are further lines of supporting evidence.  For example, the melt-out days in major Cascade snow measuring sites have not gotten earlier.  In fact, many are getting later, which suggests more snow.  To illustrate,  here are the trends of melt-out date at Mount Hood and Stevens Pass….both are getting later.

What about the future?  If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Pacific will eventually warm and that WILL reduce the snowpack.
My group, in concert with Eri Salathe of UW Bothell, has been running many high-resolution climate simulations over the region (much of it supported by Amazon by the way).  This is the gold standard for regional climate predictions.
We assumed a very large increase of greenhouse gases (RCP 8.5), which is not realistic, but shows you the worst case (probably about twice a realistic value of greenhouse gas concentration by the end of the century).  It assumes mankind ignores the threat of global warming and revs up fossil fuel use.
Below is the forecast of snow water equivalent for this century at Stevens Pass (roughly 4000 ft) for simulations started in 1970.   The black dots are observations.
Not much change through 2018 in the model and observations, followed by a slow slide through 2050 and a more rapid decline through 2100.   

So even with unrealistically high CO2 emissions (assuming major increases in coal use through the entire century and little use of renewables), there are only modest declines through 2050 (about 25%).    A more realistic simulation would probably move the 2050 values to 2100.
I believe the above is the best estimate regarding Cascade mountain snowpack change available and consistent with the peer-reviewed literature (including papers I have authored on the subject).    I am sure that the activist crowd (e.g. 350Seattle, Charles Mudede at The Stranger) will start calling me names–like “climate denier” for providing it to you.   These folks can be very destructive.  For example, 350 Seattle and the climate justice crowd were able to pressure a fearful KNKX management team into removing my weather segment because the activists wanted the truth suppressed.
But no matter where you are on the political spectrum, you deserve the truth and society needs truth to make the best decisions and plan for the future.
PS;  There are several comments/questions about retreating glaciers.  Glaciers respond to a much longer time scale of climate change than annual snow.  Most of the retreating glaciers in our region have been retreating since the early 20th century, well before human emissions of greenhouse gases were significant.  Most are responding to the end of the Little Ice Age, a period of cooler temperatures and more that ended in the late 1800s.

4.7 31 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 22, 2021 2:11 pm

Thanks Cliff.
Truth to power from you once again.
Just for a giggle, can you put up a graph depicting the prevalence and intensity of exploding heads relative to your blog posts.

March 22, 2021 2:22 pm

Gotta love the Land Average inflection point on the Land and Ocean Temperatures graph, starting at 1980 – when the carbon monster was born.

Can’t be too careful now – just going to check under my bed …….

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 22, 2021 7:48 pm

And that ocean data.. I would love to see where that got that from, seeing they have very few reliable measurements for the southern ocean (remind me what percentage of world oceans that is ?) before ARGO

Yet they know it to 0.1C error..ROFLMAO !

comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
March 22, 2021 2:28 pm

A number of establishment scientists are now gaining the courage to show why AGW is not much of a problem even if true.
The apocalyptic / existential threat scenarios are slowly dying.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
March 22, 2021 2:54 pm

30 years of failed AGW predictions will do that to at least some people.
No sea level rise acceleration (Hansen, 1991 and many times since).
Thriving polar bears (DeRocher, circa 1995 to today).
UK children still know snow in winter (Viner, 2000)
Planetary greening.
And here, no diminution in PNW snow pack.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 22, 2021 4:18 pm

Next up for CAGW Theory will be: “climate deadening”. Where “no trend” is the trend and Earth’s natural vibrant rhythm and life “flat-line” and produce graphs just like Cliff’s. Where the weather, suffocated by CO2, never changes and is the same, day-after-day-after-day-after-day. (lol)

Last edited 1 year ago by Anon
Reply to  Anon
March 22, 2021 6:13 pm

That was funny.

Reply to  Anon
March 22, 2021 7:51 pm

Climate “Nothing-much-happening

Reply to  Anon
March 22, 2021 11:30 pm

WOW. In Southern Sydney

Look out the window.. BLUE SKIES !

Reply to  Anon
March 23, 2021 4:04 am

Please don’t give them ideas. Guardian and NYT journalists are dumb enough to fall for it.

Bruce Cobb
March 22, 2021 2:30 pm

If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Pacific will eventually warm and that WILL reduce the snowpack.

There’s no proof of that. The connection of man’s CO2, methane, whatever, and warming is based on speculation, not real-world evidence.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 22, 2021 4:05 pm

He is a prodessor at U. W in Seattle. He already lost a weather commentator job in Tacoma because not climate righteous enough. So this post still borders on heresy where he lives and works. Good enough baby steps.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 22, 2021 9:41 pm

Actually, his deplatforming was not primarily about climate heresy.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2021 3:56 am

Excuses excuses. Repeat a lie often enough and long enough, and you come to believe it.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 22, 2021 9:10 pm

Well if we pump ALOT of CO2, to the point of increasing the air pressure to say double the current figure, then I suppose the temperature would be noticeably higher. It would be interesting to compare places that are close together on a map but differ significantly in altitude to see the effect of pressure on temperatures and temperature trends.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 24, 2021 8:17 am

I agree.
Those mountains are tall enough that they will alwys be cold enough for snow for much of every year.
A warmer world is wetter.
Funny how cooling causes warming, more storms, more floods, more intense everything…
IOW, whatever anyone needs to explain away.
And yet we still have some people, on both sides now for some strange reason, who think they intuitively know something which does not even make any logical sense.
Cliff Mass does not know how much snow a warmer world any more than he knows that CO2 will “eventually” cause global warming.
Or is it climate change?
Oh…OK, now I remember: It is called “climate change” because it has to be able to account for everything. And Climate Change™ has nothing to do with climate. It is just another way to say weather, plus anything else that can be made to seem scary and bad, as needed.

I wonder if Cliff also thinks that less snow pack, or smaller glaciers, means people will not have any water? As if precip has to fall as the frozen kind and stay sitting on a mountain for some length of time before it can become useful for people?
Lots of places have no snowpack, because they have no snow, and people still manage to have water. Places in the Western US that rely on snowpack have this inane idea that only melting snow provides water for rivers.
But most such places rely on snowpack because most of the annual precip occurs during the low Sun season, and during that time of year it is very cold in the mountains that are squeezing the moisture out of the air. So much and sometimes most of the annual precip falls as snow which then takes a while to melt once it warms up.
But if it fell as rain instead, it is very likely there would be more water feeding into rivers, because warmer air holds far more moisture, and it would be more steady and even over the annual cycle, because it would be flowing to the sea (through the ground and through streams and rivers) as it came down, not all-at-once-like during a relatively short burst of time. During the worst flood years in the Western US, heavy spring rains melt a large amount of snow at once. These have historically been the worst floods, and would obviously not be as bad if the precip all fell as rain.

This idea that snowpack is nedded to have any water is as inane as the “glaciers-are-where-water-comes-from” malarkey. Obviously for a glacier to be providing water, it has to be melting. If it was colder and the glacier was instead growing (as warmistas seem to think is what is needed to “tackle climate change” and “save the planet”) then obvously less of the precip that is falling in the mountains is going to be available for people to utilize.
If a melting glacier is providing water, and that is the only water people have, then they oughta be glad it is melting. When it stops melting and starts growing…whelp, then what?
Large glaciers represent huge amounts of precipitation that has been locked up in very destructive and useless form. It has been sequestered from any useful purpose, often for hundreds of years, and the areas where this occurs become lifeless wastelands, plowing away every living thing right down to bedrock and beyond, in places where there was once soil and trees and productive habitat.

Now, I know that there is far more to the story of glaciers than melting or growing. The terminus of glaciers is where it is because of the interaction of many factors, including how much precip falls, the temperature, the humidity levels, and numerous other factors, as well as how each of these varies and over what range they vary over time and over the range of altitudes involved.
But assuming precip remains constant, and there is some question over whether or not frozen precip is a net plus or a net minus, then all things considered it is almost surely best when there are not huge and deep ice and snow fields that accumulate for many months (or years or centuries) and then melt over the subsequent time period.

I agree with Bruce. Too many skeptics concede far too much, including the use of logical reasoning, as a response to warmista jackassery.
It is inane and just plain dumb to think the world is or was perfect, and any change is Very Very Bad, by definition.
Nature is random and often incredibly destructive.
Cold weather is antithetical to life, and life survives it because that is what live does…but that does not mean it would not be better for life to not have a frickin ice age going on!
Ice and cold and snow kill living organisms and destroy habitat, and we are on a planet where a huge amount of our surface area has been rendered deadly wastelands either permanently or seasonally, when just a short time ago in our geological past, and for the vast majority of the history of our planet, life thrived and prospered in profuse abundance in these now barren and hellishly frozen wastelands.

Planet is too hot?

Ice Planet.jpg
Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2021 2:41 pm

“… let me show you the fifty-year trends of snow depth on March 15th each year. “

a nitpick, but that is just 42 years (1980-2021 inclusive).

But the actual data-based results Prof Mass shows do not surprise me (nor should they to anyone who actually does their own thinking and study of the issue). Those are the kind of results the climate pornsters/propagandists never report in news reporting in their ongoing gas-lighting of the public with climate change propaganda.

But Prof Mass also acknowledges the wrong use of RCP8.5 in a down-scaled regional model (total junk science BTW) and then proceeds to do it anyways. Even his “A more realistic simulation would probably move the 2050 values to 2100,” is just pulling warm, brown, smelly stuff out of his back-side.

As for NW Pacific Galciers, he should check on Grinnell Glacier status over the last two winters in GNP, Montana.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joel O’Bryan
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2021 2:53 pm

What surprises me is his land temp graph that shows now as 1.5f warmer than the 1930s/40s. That’s just not believable.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 22, 2021 2:58 pm

The Boyz at the Adjustment Bureau have been hard at work on the underlying data sets and using under-compensated, UHI contaminated data as rural stations disappear over the past 30 years (and they know it).

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 22, 2021 7:41 pm

The map of the globe shows why, in part. Australia has its warmer temperatures smeared across the landscape where there are no stations.

March 22, 2021 2:42 pm

It’s amazing how many of my liberal friends here in Seattle believe the Cascade snowpack is disappearing due to man-made global warming, even though many of them are skiers, and must admit there’s no shortage of snow at the resorts.

For true believers, dogma trumps reality every time.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Maxbert
March 22, 2021 3:01 pm

It’s DoubleThink.
“Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one’s own memories or sense of reality. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy.” -Wikipedia

If Liberals didn’t have their doublethink, the cognitive dissonance would overwhelm them.

Reply to  Maxbert
March 22, 2021 6:14 pm

Until reality trumps dogma:

Keep your eye on the UK + EU sponsored Carbon Border Tax proposal. The —- has just hit the fan, in a BIG WAY. The proposal vaporizes the “renewables are cheaper” propaganda, as Europe has just admitted that Going Green has made their economies completely uncompetitive. It is a real panic move on the EU’s part, a desperate cry… as they are just coming to realize what they have done to their economies.

And once the tax is implemented, not only will Germans/EU/UK be paying sky high electricity prices, but also a premium for whatever they buy from abroad (which is almost everything). And what developing country is going to pay for expensive products made in Europe when they can be bought for much less from India and China? (The people in those countries only make a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year.) So, all EU companies will be limited to their domestic markets only.

The next few years are going to be those where the dog finally catches the bus… and the carbon border tax proposal will be where all of this CAGW non-sense finally unravels.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anon
Bill Toland
Reply to  Anon
March 23, 2021 2:48 am

Electricity prices in Europe are already the highest in the world. They are going to get a lot higher in the future unless a halt is called to the renewable energy nonsense. The level of propaganda in Britain about renewable energy is simply staggering. If gas central heating is outlawed in Britain (which is already planned for new houses), millions of people will be unable to afford to heat their houses.

Reply to  Anon
March 23, 2021 4:10 am

Reality always rabbit-punches people in the end.

March 22, 2021 2:43 pm

So PDO did not make the cut?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 22, 2021 6:24 pm

The PDO is one of many natural, internal cycles of Earth’s climate system that causes variability the models do not replicate.
So saying that PDO is a natural variability that “Trumps” (pun intended) the human-made EvilMolecule is heresy.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2021 8:58 pm

well that’s

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 24, 2021 7:42 pm

Here is a chart of the PDO 1900-2017. Without both data sets I can’t compare them other than visually.

The snowtel data is available going back to 1910 for the snowiest Cascade sites. I don’t know why Mass failed to report the first 75 years of data. He writes “If you are looking for a period to see changes in Northwest snowpack driven by greenhouse gas increases, the last fifty-year period is the time to look for it.” That presupposes an effect — model-driven data selection, a modeling cardinal sin. He also posted a “simulation model” going out to 2100 as if that was a valid finding. Obviously, it’s not.

I am more than leery of taking cyclical times series data and drawing a straight line through them. It would be better to compare historical snow pack to the historical PDO and possibly the El Nino/La NIna data and look for correlations. That might completely destroy the GHG speculation.

Last edited 1 year ago by forestermike
March 22, 2021 2:46 pm

We all remember what happened to state climatologist Mark Albright some years ago, when he had the temerity to dispute the purported loss of Cascade snowpack. To use the Seattle Times’ happy phrase, he was “stripped of his title.”

Rud Istvan
March 22, 2021 2:48 pm

My brother and his family have lived in an old house on 10 acres in Issaquah, just south of the highway going up to Snosqualmie pass, for about 35 years. He, his dogs, and llama all say Cliff’s snow pack data is correct. Issaquah is about halfway elevation wise between Seattle and the pass.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 22, 2021 3:04 pm

Because year-to-year variability can be so high, the low years they blame “Climate change”, the mid to high-ish years get no coverage or much thought, and the really high snow years they again fall back on “climate weirding” as a form of climate change.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 23, 2021 5:45 am

Yeah, it’s that unprecedented Extremely Normal Snowfall caused by Climate Change that you gotta look out for.
Oh, I forgot… and WE’RE ALL GONNA DIIIEE!!!!

Robert of Texas
March 22, 2021 2:49 pm

(Snow packs at higher elevation) Wow does that look like part of a cycle to me. Ignore the bars and squint at the bar peaks on the graph…it looks like the upward part of a sine wave with a lot of variance mixed in. It looks like a 30 year swing to me…now is there any cycle related to the Pacifc that has a 30 year cycle to it…hmm. Naw, couldn’t be.

As for warming reducing snow packs – It completely depends. Just like a glacier by on a faster time scale, the size of the snow pack will be determined by snow fallen versus snow melted. If warmer weather increases snow fall at high elevations and it doesn’t melt even faster, then the snow pack will grow. The overall amount of land covered in permanent snow will shrink at the lower elevations.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 22, 2021 4:36 pm

I find trying to interpret time-series data with bar graphs to be difficult. I much prefer line graphs with discreet points. If you want to compare salaries between CEOs at 4 different companies, bar graphs work. But, anything more complex, the bars get in the way.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 23, 2021 2:28 am

” the bars get in the way.”

Sounds like a drunks excuse !

Jeff Alberts
March 22, 2021 2:55 pm

I still don’t understand why he thinks there will be a problem due to CO2 in 50 or 100 years time. There’s just nothing to support there being a problem. More CO2 has less and less of an effect, and so far, we can’t even discern the effect from natural variability.

He also labors under the misapprehension that averaging a bunch of model runs will give you something meaningful. I’ve seen no evidence of that either.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeff Alberts
John F Hultquist
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 22, 2021 9:40 pm

  ” averaging a bunch of model runs “

If you have money in retirement accounts and ask a finacial adviser
whether or not you will outlive your money the answer will be a
probabalistic response based on the Monte Carlo method. The real answer
will become known when you die.
The method is used widely. Search it up.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  John F Hultquist
March 23, 2021 5:45 am

Who said financial advisors were scientists? I think you will find that most financial advisers just use a formula (which they do not understand, based on the financial advisors I know), not a simulation.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 22, 2021 11:37 pm

“…….why he thinks there will be a problem due to CO2…”

As explained by Rud Istvan above, Cliff Maas has to act as if a true believer, otherwise he would be hounded to hell by the woke brigade of uber liberal Seattle, who are less interested in facts than destroying people who stray from the anointed path.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 23, 2021 1:04 pm

Jeff Alberts

Though French is my native tongue, I lack both time and motivation to translate this abstract of a far bigger French paper into English:

Maybe you have some interest in it. It is, as opposed to the original PDF which is hard to copy & paste, a HTML source you easily can copy into Google Trans like this:

Simply skip the usual, superficial pictures at beginning, and go into the paper.

It’s simply interesting.

J.-P. D.

Chris Hanley
March 22, 2021 3:04 pm

This is a plea to any Africans Indians Indonesians and others in developing nations out there: please abandon any selfish desire of enjoying the same living standards of those living in the US NW — think of the skiers.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 23, 2021 7:28 pm

Obama actually said that in South Africa.

March 22, 2021 3:31 pm

Actual data is the only thing that’s meaningful. Very little or no trend.

Dr. Mass’s model predictions are completely bogus as he used RCP8.5 despite knowing that it is unrealistic. RCP8.5 is NOT based on ANY prediction of future CO2 concentrations. It ASSUMES 8.5 W/m^2 of forcing from a doubling of CO2. The actual value based on both calculation of the direct effects of CO2 without speculative non-linear feedback from water vapor and actual data-driven observations is closer to 3 W/m^2. When you see that RCP8.5 was used you can stop reading and you will not have missed anything useful.

Reply to  Meab
March 22, 2021 9:21 pm

Yes, but he pointed out that even with the unrealistic rcp8.5 his models don’t see much of a difference – so good, we can build high efficiency combined cycle gas plants and super-critical coal plants and not really worry about energy for a few hundred years.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  PCman999
March 24, 2021 8:36 am

But the fact is that for someone taking a quick and cursry look at this article, and lets be real here, that is what a awful lot of people do when they “read” something, the first graph shows huge and sudden recent warming, when there has been no such thing, and the last graph shows a steady falloff in snowpack…from >1000 to ~250, less than 1/4 as much. That looks decidely alarmist to me.
And I did not see where he even mentions that precip that falls as a liquid is every bit as wet and watery as snow that melts.

March 22, 2021 3:37 pm

So the article shows no trend in snowpack coincides with no trend in E PAC Temps. Seems reasonable, but then goes on to state “If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Pacific will eventually warm and that WILL reduce the snowpack.” That sounds like a failed future prediction waiting to come to fruition.
Oh wait, I see the article pushes the prediction out from 2050 to 2100. Yep, Author won’t be alive to own up to the prediction then. Color me worse than highly skeptical.

March 22, 2021 3:53 pm

Media data reporting for snowpack, rain, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat, cold, floods, snow, wind, and weather are all at the mercy of the MSM catastrophic CC narrative. “The new normal” is people won’t know what the real extremes are.

Kit P
March 22, 2021 4:10 pm

No truth here just an abundance of stupid.

I am a Washington State residence. If there was truth in labeling, Washington would be called the never green state not the evergreen.

Most of the PNW is semi-arid. This why snowpack is important.

For readers from different parts of the world, the PNW extends east to the continental divide of the Rocky Mountains. Basically, the area drained by the Columbia River.

I am currently spending the winter in the desert Southwest near the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River.

During the depression, WPA created jobs with massive civil engineering projects building creating organizations such as BPA and TVA. Great investment for the USA. Turning poor areas into prosperous areas.

Flood control, irrigation, power production and recreation are among the benefits. $6 cup fancy coffee drinkers in Seattle, Portland, NYC, and Washington DC do not have a clue that a beautiful world exists outside the cesspools they call cities with sidewalk cafes and trees planted in cement.

If you want to know the snowpack in the west all you have to look at look at is hydropower production in the west.

One out of five years power production is down on a system because of reduced snowpack.

Had I only known that I could get paid for writing a fear mongering study with the help of Dr. et al.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Kit P
March 22, 2021 4:47 pm

I am a Washington State residence.”

You have people living inside you??

Kit P
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 22, 2021 5:29 pm

That explains the voices. Thanks I thought I was going crazy.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Kit P
March 22, 2021 8:54 pm

No problem dude.

John Tillman
Reply to  Kit P
March 22, 2021 8:01 pm

Hoover Dam construction started under Hoover, and predates the WPA.

Reply to  John Tillman
March 22, 2021 9:44 pm

He get no credit for it but Hoover was the one that started the Feds could save everything. Roosevelt stole it and put it on steroids.

March 22, 2021 4:15 pm

I ski all year long in the Sierras and have been doing so for a long time. I can assure you that there’s nothing to worry about, for it there was, I’d be worrying about it too. The summer snow patch I ski varies considerably from year to year depending on how much snow fell during the winter. The lowest I’ve seen it in September was about 5 years ago after 4 years of drought and one of the 2 largest snow packs I’ve ever seen that late in the summer was couple of years later after a record snowfall year.

A few tenths of a degree temperature increase is irrelevant to the longevity of the snow pack, even if it’s actually occurring. Total winter precipitation is all that matters and normal winter precipitation always has and always will bounce between extremes.

March 22, 2021 4:19 pm

So according to Berkeley Earth, average land temps were over one and a half degrees C lower in 1940 were they? And there was not much difference between ’40 and ’80 was there?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mike
March 22, 2021 4:50 pm

Wow, you’re right, it does say C. I was going with 1.5F between 1940 and now as being pretty unbelievable. With C, it’s more than a complete fantasy.

All that averaging and smoothing. Major no-no.

Loren C. Wilson
March 22, 2021 4:33 pm

A warmer ocean means the air coming from it will have more water in it. This should lead to a greater snowpack, and greater overall precipitation. Why does your projection show the opposite?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Loren C. Wilson
March 24, 2021 8:29 am

That is a very inconvenient observation.
It is obvious you possess none of the qualities necessary to do proper Climate Science™ type thinkifying and opinionating.

March 22, 2021 4:52 pm

Well we can test what may happen to the snowpack with a warmer eastern Pacific because it has already happened in the recent past.They seemed to have overlooked “The Blob” in there study. Where they were warm sea temps in the NE Pacific from around 2013 to 2016. Now it appears to have had a impact on the snowpack during 2015 but not during the other years. So there is doubt about the claim that a warmer eastern Pacific will certainly lead to a decline in the snowpack.

March 22, 2021 5:22 pm

Cliff tries to schmooze both sides over to his lukewarmer view “If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the Pacific will eventually warm and that WILL reduce the snowpack.” and at the same time, glaciers “…are responding to the end of the Little Ice Age, a period of cooler temperatures and more that ended in the late 1800s.”

March 22, 2021 7:34 pm

My group, in concert with Eri Salathe of UW Bothell, has been running many high-resolution climate simulations over the region (much of it supported by Amazon by the way).  This is the gold standard for regional climate predictions.”

Self satisfaction gold standard models that aren’t worth a brass farthing.

March 22, 2021 8:27 pm

Here is the link to Washington State Pass Report


Many of the passes have cameras showing the road conditions.

Soon it will shut down for the season

March 22, 2021 9:02 pm

For the life of me I don’t understand “lukewarmers”. There’s lots of real world evidence showing that CO2 does not affect temps (such as PNW snowpack) yet still they believe that CO2 controls temperature, just not as much as the alarmists believe.

Just stop…

Nick Graves
Reply to  Bob Johnston
March 23, 2021 1:43 am

Well, it is signalling a degree of scientific scepticism, which ought to be a good thing.

However, the truth is it can be extremely dangerous career-wise to point out that the Emperor has no clothes at this juncture.

It’s encouraging that so many are ‘cooling’ at last. Hopefully soon, it’ll be down to the last Mann standing and we can all rip the piss out of him.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nick Graves
March 24, 2021 8:22 am

And just imagine if we all adopted a go along to get along attitude to what is going on?
We are in this situation because when it would have made a difference, hardly anyone stood up and spoke out against this massive lie being foisted upon the world.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Rhys Jaggar
March 23, 2021 4:00 am

Metl-out dates depend not solely on snow-pack depth. They also depend upon cloud cover in spring (when the melting occurs) and daily spring temperatures too. They are greatly affected by heavy rainstorms and also affected the other way by brief rainstorms followed by hard freezes (turning the whole snowpack into glacier-like firn).

I know of no models which accurately incorporate all those factors into algorithms which can reconstruct historical melt dates accurately.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 24, 2021 8:20 am

Excellent observations.

March 23, 2021 8:22 am

When are scientists going to realize how manipulated the temperature data is?

comment image

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  S.K.
March 24, 2021 8:20 am

I was going to make a comment about this too.
The use of that graph at the start of this article is as bad if not worse than the one that ends it.
AFAICT, and if I knew nothing else, I would say the author is an alarmist.

Nicholas McGinley
March 24, 2021 7:24 am

I wonder why Cliff does not begin each of his graphs in the same year?
If this is about the past 50 years, start them all 50 years ago please.
I hate to have the feeling that graphs are being truncated to try to manipulate what I am supposed to believe.
I hate it when warmistas do it, and I do not like it any better when a skeptic does it.
Just sayin’.

March 24, 2021 11:36 pm

Can you provide information about glaciers in the N. Cascades, such as that of Nat. Park Service work?

Dr. Jon Reidel, a geologist with the U.S. National Park Service at North Cascades National Park lectured on March 18 on the value of Washington’s glaciers, their recent photographic history, and National Park Service glacier monitoring. 

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights