[weatherman]

Since the 1st order stations at SeaTac and Olympia are not enough, I attempted to find more stations using cooperative observer data. Unfortunately, the coop data are full of missing values, (our US climate database is a train wreck, but that's another story) I did find one additional site with a complete 240 month record from 1989 through 2008: Bellingham 3 SSW. This site is located at the sewage treatment plant just W of 4th St and less than a 1/4 mile from Bellingham Bay (48.71817,-122.51202). Here are the results showing a 20-year cooling of about 0.5 deg F in Bellingham, similar to values previously found for Olympia and SeaTac: 2008 minus 1989 (difference of end points of trend line, deg F): -0.5 Olympia Airport -0.8 SeaTac Airport -0.5 Bellingham 3SSW These are composite changes over several stations, but the 12 months are not weighted evenly due to missing data: -0.4 N Puget Sound (mostly Clearbrook and Sedro Wooley) -1.9 W Central Cascades (Cedar Lake, Palmer, Mud Mtn Dam, Buckley) -0.1 NW Cascades* NW Cascades is a composite of these 8 locations: Tolt SF Reservoir, Startup, Baring, SedroWooley, Concrete, Newhalem, Diablo Dam, Ross Dam

[weatherman]

[Layback]

I'm not in the field of weather but I have a good understanding of scientific studies. Do you contend that data points from 2 locations is enough to scientifically justify the statement, "Puget Sound climate is also showing signs of cooling"? Where is the data that supports that your statement isn't possible just on chance alone? Credentials mean nothing without data to support your claims, especially given the limits of the data that you have presented us with. I find that to be pathetic. It's not good science at all. At best you don't understand what a good statically-powered scientific study looks like and you are in over your head. At worst, your are intentionally misleading people. Show me the data that says I'm wrong.

[DIYSteve]

[weatherman]

I'm not talking about glaciers here, I'm referring to the 1 April seasonal snowpack.

[Scrooge]

[Schroder]

From "There's Gold in Them Thar Hills - being the History of the .45 Mines, Inc." by Daniel R. Pinkham:

[weatherman]

Using the 3 sites with complete data over the 20-year period: Composite of Olympia, Seattle, and Bellingham 10-year mean temperatures: ------------------------------------------------------ 1989-1998 52.0 F 1999-2008 51.3 F Difference -0.7 F 2008 ties with 2001 as the coldest year out of the past 20 years with an annual mean temperature of 50.1 F. This doesn't even include this past winter 2008-2009 which was substantially colder and snowier than normal. Our Puget Sound climate is no longer getting warmer with each passing decade! Mean Temperature of the 36 site-months for the 20-year period from 1989 through 2008: 1989,51.1 1990,52.1 1991,50.7 1992,53.4 1993,51.6 1994,52.9 1995,52.3 1996,51.6 1997,51.3 1998,52.5 1999,50.6 2000,51.2 2001,50.1 2002,50.7 2003,52.4 2004,52.5 2005,52.2 2006,52.1 2007,51.3 2008,50.1

[Tom]

I guess we'll see in another 10 years if your claim of no longer warming holds. If it doesn't I'm sure you'll find another myth to expose. BTW, no doubt there are other spots in the world that warmed this decade just as there are other spots that cooled. Does it say anything about the next decade or whether we'll see continued cooling or warming? You've said elsewhere we should be concerned about global warming but you only seem to focus on things we shouldn't be concerned about. So again, what is it that we should be concerned about?

[peltoms]

Weatherman is clearly right about the cessation of temperature rise in the Puget lowlands since 1998. There are reasons for this, but it is the big picture that must be focussed upon. For example we talk mainly about hiking in the North Cascades, and check out those temp trends.

or the state as a whole.

The only cooling to the last decade is really the last two years, when we have a la nina at work. The bigger question to me right now is why has this La nina persisted so long? Why have the coastal area not warmed as much, is it because of a change to a more negative pdo reflecting cooler water offshore? Bigsteve: Do not be too surprised by the snowpack comment. Take a look at the myth of snowpack page.

[weatherman]

I thought some of you might enjoy looking at the Washington state annual summary for 1897, although it doesn't say much about snowfall.

[peltoms]

Weatherman that is awesome 1897. What strikes you as extraordinary about the climate of that year?

[Layback]

Sorry Mike but there's nothing to show that the conclusion he has reached about an entire area isn't a product of chance alone. In my field you need hundreds of thousands of data points to reach the a definitive conclusion that the change you are citing didn't occur as a result of chance. What he's saying may be true but it's just as likely to be false and shouldn't be taken as gospel. I find it especially hard to believe when there are far more robust studies with many, many, many more data points that say we are in a period of global warming. I'm sorry that you don't understand that. Here's some info on the scientific method and p values for the ill-informed. It's not ad hominum at all. If you want someone to take your science seriously, you had better be able to prove that you're right. By definition, the owness is not on me to prove he's wrong. Now if he wants to say that we're in a period of global warming but the past few years haven't trended towards increased warming at the sites he listed, I can live with that. To say that we're in a period of cooling in the entire Puget Sound area based on data from two sites is preposterous. An "n" of two is a joke for an area of 16,000 square miles.

[Slugman]

None of what "weatherman" says has anything to do with global warming anyway. He is just trying to stir up the pot with people like BPJ who either can't or won't understand that global warming is a global phenomenon, and that GW theories don't predict that every place on earth will warm slightly over a ten-year period. It's still true: every time a flake of snow falls, the anti-GW fanatics will howl "See? There's no global warming", They do it every single time, on this website and all over the media. Let one guy get stuck in the snow at a mountain pass, you can bet the farm he'll be quoted on the local news saying there's no global warming. Mike: you need to look up what "ad hominem" means before you start using in accusations. If Layback had said "Don't listen to anything weatherman has to say, because he is always wrong", that would be an example of an ad hominem ("to the man") attack. Layback did nothing of the sort. He took exception to weatherman's idea and the evidence put forth to support it. The fact that layback did so with some strong words like "pathetic" doesn't make it an ad hominem attack.

[Layback]

No you don't. If you are going to make a case that supports Weatherman's claims perhaps you could use some evidence. Here's the full quote BTW.