• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PhillipS

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Austin, TX
  1. Seriously? Do you think you're persuading anyone with that nonsense? Compare your paleoclimate reconstruction with that of any of the recent research. Marcott et al 2013, for example. et al., 2013, Science.pdf
  2. IMO, it's a sad state of affairs when our national leadership prefers to base critical policy decisions on ignorance and ideology rather than sound science.
  3. Apologies if I'm splitting hairs, Bluewave, but August didn't see an increase in Arctic SIV, it saw a decrease in the anomaly. Arctic SIV continued to drop, albeit at a slower rate.
  4. It's easy to just focus on the recent melt seasons but I got a jolt when I looked at the PIOMAS sea ice volume plot. The SIV is currently around 6.75K km3, just behind 2012 as ORH reported above, but the 1979-2001 average for this time of years is almost 17,000 km3, more 10,000 km3 greater than today - a loss I find sobering.
  5. The weather conditions over Greenland aren't being ignored - where do you think the information is coming from? But the Surface Mass Balance (SMB) is only part of the overall situation in Greenland - so focusing on it tot he exclusion of total mass change is simply grasping at straws. The long-term GIS mass loss of around 300,000,000,000 tons of ice each year continues unabated and according to some studies is accelerating.
  6. The nuclear proponents always seem to gloss over the fundamental weaknesses of nuclear plants, or to blame the problems with the industry on supposed "green lobbyists". But when you look at the problems you see the fundamental flaws in nuclear energy. Nuclear power plant projects are notorious for running over schedule and over budget. This happens even though the project planners know how to plan and budget massive projects. Every day of schedule slip and every dollar of cost overrun is due to unanticipated problems - problems with the site selection, problems with manufacturing the components, problems with construction, problems with inspections and testing, and problems with certifications. We don't see comparable delays and cost overruns in other energy industries whether fossil fueled or renewable. The nuclear proponents like to claim that these problems can be solved by 'streamlining' the designing and permitting of future nuclear plants - but the term 'streamlining' is a misnomer. Streamlining means reducing the drag on a ship, car or airplane - it has nothing to do with building power plants. What the nuclear proponents are really advocating is cutting corners - cutting corners on site selection, cutting corners on environmental reviews, cutting corners on component manufacture and inspection, cutting corners on construction and inspections, cutting corners on testing and certification. They advocate cutting these corners despite the fact that the permitting, reviews, inspections, and testing processes were put in place in response to lessons learned with past nuclear plant projects - lessons learned at great expense and, often, great suffering and tragedy. Nuclear proponents also claim that standardized reactor designs will make nuclear power projects faster and cheaper - but they ignore the consequence of standardization that any problem with the design is repeated in every installation of that design, and fixes will have to be done to every single one. We see this all the time with automobile recalls, and software bug fixes. Picture the chaos if 1,000 identical nuclear reactors have to shut down simultaneously to fix a serious 'bug'. Don't say that can't happen - particularly if the design phase for those plants was 'streamlined'. Keep in mind, too, that every nuclear plant ever built was designed to be failsafe - and that includes Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Hanford. But everything man-made fails at some point, whether it's a hammer or a Space Shuttle. That includes power plants of all types, fossil fuel, renewable, and nuclear. But nuclear is the only power plant technology that can render areas unusable for centuries. Adopting nuclear instead of renewable energy technologies would be a Faustian bargain.
  7. If Dr Berry was interested in an open and honest discussion of climate science he has been, and will continue to be, welcome to post on this forum. But he chooses not to, doesn't he? I wonder why that is. If his hypotheses had any merit he would be reaching and, perhaps, convincing a large and scientifically literate audience - but he chooses not to. Or he could write up and submit his ideas for peer-review and publication in reputable scientific journals - but he chooses not to. There isn't a singe plausible reason for Dr Berry to avoid open and robust discussion of his ideas - except intellectual cowardice on his part. So far from "DR. Berry for the win" it is Dr Berry for the fail - failure to inform, failure to convince, failure to advance in even a small way our understanding of climate science. He won't even be a minor footnote in the field of climate science - he's just another failed denier.
  8. Remember that Dr Muller was selected to head the BEST project by the Koch Brothers - so he isn't a 'Warmist' by any stretch. The methodology they used for their research has been open and transparent - so critics have had years to critique their approach. But the so-called 'skeptics' haven't done that, have they? And their findings have been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature - so critics have had years to refutes any or all of their findings. But the so-called 'skeptics' haven't done that either, have they? Your attack by innuendo is meaningless in a technical discussion. If you have some peer-reviewed research which refutes the BEST findings then by all means share it. Otherwise you're just trolling.
  9. The Troposphere is not the upper atmosphere, it's the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Since you don't seem to understand that, and you've asked others for their credentials - please share your academic background with us. And if you claim to be a scientist, please share some links to some of your peer-reviewed papers. Thanks!
  10. THe FriendsOfScience advocacy piece you posted is for 700mb - 300mb which is the Troposphere, and not upper atmosphere. Fueglistaler et al 2013 is a good paper on upper atmosphere (<100mb) water vapor trends. It disagrees with your claims that upper atmosphere water vapor is decreasing.
  11. FriendsOfScience is an denialist advocacy site, not a credible source of accurate information. Here is the NOAA page on global specific and relative humidity trends. Compare the two and you'll see which is the misleading one.
  12. NoTrickZone is a denialist fake news site masquerading as a science site. You could not have outed yourself as a 'Concern Troll' more thoroughly if you had tried.
  13. More open Arctic ocean -> increased evaporation -> increased water vapor -> increased precipitation. But GIS Surface Mass Balance is only half of the situation. It does not include dynamic GIS processes such as glacial calving, basal melting, or meltwater runoff. Look at the Total Mass Change data for the complete situation. As you can see, the GIS has lost around 3,600 km3 (3,600 Gtons) of ice since 2003.