Now, be fair. You can't expect Oregon's Finest Journalists to do anything other than wander around and expect passersby to recognize them and kneel at their feet, do you?

Haha, maybe poorly worded, but the point is not that "dry years will be dry" but that "dry years will be even drier." Neither trivial nor amusing.

This is like a U of O study that finds the super majority of assisted suicide users are suffering from depression.

Here we have nothing but a collection of drought years and the recognition they are drought years.

There's so much wrong with this. Snow pack is not in decline for one but the idea that isolating drought years is anything but cherry picking is pure manipulation.

The only meaningful part of this is the admitted contrdiction to global warming.

But even there it ends with the funny statement.

"Climate models embody the theory as we understand it," Luce says. "Now we've got a new set of observations that don't quite agree with the theory. People can go out and refine the theory."

Refine the theory? Or make the models fit the observations?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/pacific_northwest_snow_pack_the_true_story/

Pacific Northwest Snow Pack - the True Story
By George Taylor

Washington Governor Gregoire recently sent a letter to the Washington House delegation in which she stated that the snow pack has declined 20% over the past 30 years: “Last month, a study released by the University of Washington shows we’ve already lost 20% of our snow pack over the last 30 years.”

Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains:

I'm kinda with Ben. I think climate patterns are changing across the US, but whether it's global warming, I'd submit 150 years of weather data isn't really enough to create a model. I'm not saying global warming ISN'T happening, but I'd say we don't have enough info to really know for sure.

I just spent a summer in the midwest where not one day hit 100. And it rained frequently -- these are both unusual events for that area.

Now what city does those two conditions remind me of? Oh, yeah, Portland. Yet you guys had a bunch of days over 100.

Neither was a "normal" summer for either region. But I sure enjoyed a decent summer in the midwest.

Global warming? Or just a normal cycle? Time will tell.

I think these videos are important to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related

Talea's comment above on basing a model on observations over an extremely short time period are most important. A friend of mine who was in town recently - a physicist from Maryland specializing in solar studies - summed it up pretty well when he said there's no question human activities have some effect on the earth, but the degree to which people are applying limited observations to describe fluctuations is questionable. But if you can take the time, watch the videos and consider the methodology for yourself.

Here's the short version of talea's comments:

(1) Insert personal anecdote of apparently contradicty, short term, regional weather affect.
(2) Deny or cast doubt on global warming based on this.
(3) Continue business as usual.

Problem is, talea, we don't have time to wait and see.

john rettig, you could not be less wrong. The anticipated effects of climate change on OR are expected to be modest compared with, for example, the polar regions and the low-lying islands of the Indian and Pacific Oceans:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_on_sc/climate_09_greenland_s_melt

Yet one need not travel so far to observe what is occurring: Glacier National Park will soon be needing a name change.

Thanks for the review, John. Not that I asked for one; I just expressed an opinion, which is valid as yours.

No need to be rude -- I do agree that improving the environment by lessening man's impact is always a good thing.

I yield to none in my despair over the state state of the paper I recently canceled . . . but I have to say that I can't understand the problem with the sentence (the article's second) when read in context (i.e., as set up by the first sentence):

"In a warming world, scientists have told us to expect more rain and less snow in the Northwest -- but not less overall precipitation.

New evidence, however, suggests that both rain and snowfall may decrease across the region during dry years."

Waiting for "conclusive proof" that human activity is permanently effecting the environment before acting is like waiting to see the baby come out before you'll agree with your wife that she's pregnant and take her to the hospital. I mean, she could just be gaining weight, right?

Speaking of runaway climate chaos, here's a 20-minute talk from TED by a photographer who has set up 33 stop-motion cameras to monitor glaciers, which produces some astounding video of glacial disappearances:

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

Late last year I was talking to a retired Park Ranger and the subject of glaciers came up. He said the glaciers on Mt. Shasta were growing.
Go figure.

Late last year I was talking to a retired Park Ranger and the subject of glaciers came up. He said the glaciers on Mt. Shasta were growing.

That's a perfect example of climate change. Know why? Because "weather" is not "climate", but most folks raving about the "hoax" keep confusing the two. Read here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/08/state/n130432D99.DTL

The reason the Shasta glaciers are growing?

"Scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air sweeping over far Northern California. Because of Shasta's location and 14,162-foot elevation, the precipitation is falling as snow, adding to the mass of the mountain's glaciers."

And if you're still confused by the difference between weather and climate, read here:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

"Waiting for "conclusive proof" that human activity is permanently effecting the environment before acting is like waiting to see the baby come out before you'll agree with your wife that she's pregnant and take her to the hospital. I mean, she could just be gaining weight, right?"

.... Except for the minor detail that the relationship between pregnancy and childbirth has been documented for millennia, and the relationship between human activity and climate change is - at this point - speculative. It may be based on solid scientific speculation, but the point is, it is not at this time the established irrefutable fact that it's often represented to be. Because we cannot see into the future.

Skepticism over natural fluctuations of earth's climate vs. mankind as the dominant force behind the destruction of our planet does not preclude wise usage of our planet's resources. We can still be good conservative stewards of the earth without the threat of "the sky is falling."

ecohuman,

That's nonsense.

I know many people who actaully follow the AGW issue and none of them have "confused" anything. Let alone your bromide about weather vs climate.

Where do you get so certain anyway?

Is it the lefty way to be?

The abundant science which disputes the assumptions in AGW have never been greater.

And it's getting worse every day for the farce you trust in.

The never ending concoctions by belivers which attribute every imaginable observation to global warming CO2 emissions breaks all denier claims by a wide margin.

Like many people I have studied this issue for years and follow it at realclimate, climate audit, icecap.us and wattsupwiththat.com.

You obviously have not.

Citing George Taylor, the guy who's credentials consist of lying about his credentials, should invoke something akin to Godwin's law.

Jerry B,

You must be one of those lying about George.

He ven lied about his credentials at all.
But your attempt to smear him instead of facing the reality of science is nearly mandatory for warmers.

The citing was of the real snow pack trend that you won't face.

Other public officials besides Mote who do lie include Jane Lubchenco who perpertrated a false link between AGW and ocean dead zones. Her fabrication remains and is found in google searches.

Another whopper of hers is "Climate models are robust enough of predict wind patterns 100 years from now".

ecohuman,

That's nonsense.

I know many people who actaully follow the AGW issue and none of them have "confused" anything. Let alone your bromide about weather vs climate.

I don't know what "AGW" is, but I'm guessing

Where do you get so certain anyway?

Is it the lefty way to be?

The whole "left vs. right" mentality is so devoid of critical thinking that it rarely deserves a response.

The abundant science which disputes the assumptions in AGW have never been greater.

And it's getting worse every day for the farce you trust in.

Which "farce" are you talking about? Do you truly believe climate change is some sort of religion? Are you kidding?

The never ending concoctions by belivers which attribute every imaginable observation to global warming CO2 emissions breaks all denier claims by a wide margin.

you see, that one sentence right there tells me you don't know the difference between weather and climate, and what role "warming" plays in both.

Like many people I have studied this issue for years and follow it at realclimate, climate audit, icecap.us and wattsupwiththat.com.

You obviously have not.

obviously, I must be ignorant. If only I was more skeptical. Sadly, I've already sent in my Church of Global Warming membership fee, so it's too late to cancel.