HERE IS THE FINAL LIST OF THE TOP 10 PERIODS OF CONSECUTIVE SNOW COVER IN DENVER:

NUMBER OF DAYS INCLUSIVE DATES

63 DAYS………………………………NOVEMBER 26 1983 – JANUARY 27 1984
61 DAYS …………………………….DECEMBER 21 2006 – FEBRUARY 19 2007 (FINAL)
60 DAYS………………………………DECEMBER 1 1913 – JANUARY 29 1914
48 DAYS………………………………DECEMBER 24 1982 – FEBRUARY 9 1983
43 DAYS………………………………DECEMBER 19 1973 – JANUARY 30 1974
39 DAYS………………………………NOVEMBER 21 1992 – DECEMBER 29 1992
38 DAYS………………………………DECEMBER 24 1987 – JANUARY 30 1988
35 DAYS………………………………JANUARY 2 1949 – FEBRUARY 5 1949
33 DAYS………………………………DECEMBER 17 1918 – JANUARY 18 1919
27 DAYS………………………………JANUARY 28 1989 – FEBRUARY 23 1989

WFO DENVER/BOULDER

I’m just following what you quoted; i.e. that 2-4.5 deg C is the doubling sensitivity. It may be that the IPCC projection according to some model is that this is also coincidentally the same as a doubling, and that that is what Steve was quoting, but if so, you might have said so. I glanced through the SPM, but I’m far from having memorized it. Anyway, I suppose I shouldn’t have used the word “scenario” as I wasn’t especially thinking about the IPCC scenarios, just the general scenarios concerning whether CO2 will ever double or not.

Don’t confuse the scenario projections (page 21) with climate sensitivity!

I think the current world is more a B1 than an A1 world (page 14), and combined with IMHO increasing instead of decreasing sinks we will never reach a CO2 doubling any way.

The input scenarios are described here in TAR:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/531.htm

here are all SRES tables
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/519.htm

Note that the 2-4.5 deg C is based on a doubling of CO2 concentration by 2100. I don’t know that that’s a slam dunk by any means. Certainly guessing how we’d be producing energy by 2000 in 1905 would likely be rather wrong. I know warmers want to cut back fossil produced energy use ASAP, but most skeptics agree that there will need to be a reduction in fossil energy use in any case. We’ll have to see which scenario pans out.

their temperature projection to 2100 is 2-4.5 deg C

That is not correct:
SPM page 9 reads

The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative
forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of
carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C,
and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but
agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. Water vapour changes represent the
largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud
feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}

The waiving of the lower that 1.5 and emphasising over 4.5 values is telling. There are very good arguments in favour of a value of 1.3±0.4°:
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

The article shows the Russian data with a clear decline from 1945-1975. I also glanced at several of the references used in this 1982 paper and saw Hansen’s work with a global temperature decline and Angell’s radiosonde work with a temperature decline. I did not see Jones’ 1980 chart (no access).

I wonder if they’ll purge these historical studies from the record, too.

New record low for Feb 2:

At 4:44 am the temperature at Denver International Airport fell to 18
degrees below zero. This breaks the old record of 16 below zero set
in 1996.

NCAR is not too far away and the city of Boulder is suing the Fedreal government to make the climate cooler via reduced carbon dioxide emissions.