First complete ice core record of last interglacial period shows the climate of Greenland to be significantly warmer than today

Two comments:
Mann’s hockey stick covered about the last 2,000 years; the first tick on the graph above is at 20,000 years. Do posters here have a problem understanding scale? Besides, the O18 measurements from last summer’s melt event were in the same ballpark as those during the Eemian. Kind of a sharp uptick there.
Warming then versus warming now. A comparison of apples and oranges is being made. Yes, under different orbital conditions and various other factors, it is possible to achieve the same level of warming as we are currently starting. No, under the current orbital conditions, etc. it is not possible to cause the level of warming we are seeing without the increase in CO2 levels we are causing. Bob and others are seriously confusing “not possible” ever, with “not possible” under current conditions. Brokenyogi was clearly talking about the past, with different background conditions, and Bob is clearly talking about the present.

Thanks, Willis and Bob, for filling in the details of what I assumed Mosher must already know, but is pretending not to.

The polar bears did not survive.

Willis,
Also, re this:
“You haven’t a clue what Mosh knows, or I know, or anyone else knows.”
How, exactly, do you know what I know about what Mosher knows? Isn’t that incredibly presumptuous to think you know that? And it’s probably even worse for you to make that presumption about me, since you literally know nothing about me, whereas we both know a fair amount about Mosher.
I know that Mosher comments on this block quite frequently, because I have been a regular reader of this blog for years, and I read the comments sections an awful lot. Did you know that about me? Probably not. I also know that Mosher has his own climate blog, because there’s a link to it on this blog above. I’ve checked it out, and clearly Mosher has a lot of technical stuff to say about climate, which means he’s studied the issue in depth. I’ve read Mosher arguing here on all kinds of complex climate issues. So I know that he knows about climate, the general issues of the debate, the arguments made on both sides, etc. So I think it’s a fair assumption to make that he knows about the very things that I brought up, and that you elaborated on.
As for knowing what you know, I have read this blog almost every day for several years now, and probably have read almost everything you’ve written here. So I know you know quite a bit about climate science yourself. Without your replying, I would have guessed that you knew exactly what I was talking about here, and been right. I would also have guessed that you would have had prior experience with Mosher, and had a decent idea of his level of knowledge about climate science, since he’s a regular and his blog is referenced above by Anthony.
So do I have anything wrong here? Have I made a single false presumption about anyone? Obviously your statement above is complete nonsense, and you should admit that it was nonsense, because obviously you and Mohser have left a whole lot of clues around as to what you think and know about climate issues. You should apologize not only because you didn’t have the knowledge to make those claims about me, but even worse, because they were quite wrong.
The only think I don’t know, is how much drinking or smoking of herb you’ve been doing lately, that might account for this pointless attack on me. But since I don’t know you that well, I won’t make that presumption. Maybe it was just unseasonably hot in your neck of the woods. In any case, I hope you are at least enjoying this little tiff. I know I find it most amusing.
Best regards, and hoping you have a sense of humor to go with your outrage.

henrythethird says:
January 24, 2013 at 5:51 pm

So when drilling anywhere in Greenland, did they ever hit bedrock (or solid ground)?

Yes, several cores go all the way to bedrock. As a rule, there is a temporal discontinuity during the Eemian with the ice below the discontinuity being perhaps one million years older.

This is from the abstract

Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 +/- 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 +/- 300 metres lower than the present.

This is obviously nonsense.
First – if the ice sheet thickness decreased, there is no way to know how much ice melted. It could have lost a meter, or a thousand meters. The assumed fact that the Eemian ice is resting on the surface indicates that the accumulations of the previous ice age, and all those before it, were lost. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that about 3,000 meters of ice were lost .. not just 400m.
Second – there is no way that only 130 meters of ice has been added in the last 100,000 years. According to the supplemental data, the core was 2,533.3m deep to bedrock and measurements from 2,162.1 to 2,533.3 meters were used to reconstruct the Eemian. So it is not clear what the 130 +/- 300 metres lower than the present means since, according to the supplemental spreadsheet, 122,025 years before present (yr BP) is located 2,395.4 meters below the current surface. Clarification is in the supplemental data

The 128 kyr BP old ice is found to originate at a location that is about 205 km upstream and 330 m higher than the present elevation of the surface at NEEM.

except that the abstract says that it was lower in the past and the quote above says that it is lower now. Perhaps the abstract is trying to say that the “folded” ice is now 130 meters higher than where is formed. (This is very difficult to understand.)
According to wikipedia, the Eemian is from 130,000 to 114,000 years ago. In the NEEM core, 114,000 years ago is at 2,209m, 2,261m, and 2,364m below the surface. That’s right, in 3 places, older ice is on top of younger ice and the ice gets younger as the depth increases. The abstract clearly says We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice .. but this is an inverted time series .. and there are 2 of them covering the same time period.
Actually, the data could be interpreted as the result of a meteor strike. Assuming their stratigraphy is correct (there is not enough data to make a reasonable guess), this looks a lot like Barringer Crater with an overturned rim. To me this suggests that the last ice age was instigated by a meteor strike around 114,500 years ago. (Their dates are 114,810 yr BP, 114,120 yr BP, 114,964 yr BP. Assuming that all 3 are actually the same date provides pretty convincing evidence that something important happened.)
In addition to the 3 discontinuities associated with the “folding”, there are about 4 additional major discontinuities in the data. Presumably, these are due to major melt events during the ice age itself.
The core is 2,533.3 meters deep, but the analyzed data only goes down to 2,432.19 meters (128,300 yr BP). The available material does not say (or I did not see it), but the lower part of the core may be over one million years old, an estimate based on recovered plant material in other Greenland cores. If so, that clearly means that the Eemian was warm enough to remove the evidence of several previous ice ages. At any rate, the supplemental material explicitly says that the lowest ice was not used.
Their analysis contains corrections for changes in elevation between time of deposition and current elevation above sea level. However, the analysis assumes that this change is caused only by ice flow. They seem to ignore the fact that the level changes because heavy ice causes the land under it to sink.
By the way, their supplemental data is labeled wrong. In the spreadsheet, the time columns are labeled kyr BP and kyr b2k – but the values are in years, not thousands of years. (I know its a nit, but since they think we are so “anti-science”, I thought it was worth mentioning.)

Willis,
Now you’re becoming almost as deliberately obtuse as Mosher was. Maybe even more so, since you are making this such a personal attack on me. I know you’re the BMOC around here, but this bullying really doesn’t suit you.
Let’s break it down. I said to Mosher:
“And Steve Mosher, don’t be such a tool. It’s the AGW types who have claimed that it’s impossible to have warming such as we have now, without manmade GHGs being the driver. ”
The phrase “being a tool” means, “being in the service of some larger agenda outside oneself”. I would stand by that characterization of Mosher’s contribution to that thread, which I had read in its entirety up to that point. I had noted that Mosher had made several other obtuse comments to others, and that several regulars had already criticized him for dropping brief and unexplained comments that he wouldn’t back up or respond meaningfully to. In that context, I felt it was a very reasonable observation to make, the he was “being a tool”, and that it was good advice to tell him to stop. It wasn’t an accusation of criminality, it was a personal observation about the way he was conducting himself in this discussion. And I think, a fairly accurate one.
To which Mosher replied:
Wrong. no one says that is IMPOSSIBLE to have the warming we have now without GHGs.
The argument is entirely different
You will notice that Mosher didn’t deny being a tool. But he did continue to make obtuse comments like this, which were factually wrong to boot.
That’s when you (and Bob Tisdale) “blew in” and pointed out that the AGW modelers do in fact claim that our modern warming is impossible to explain without using GHGs as the main driver of climate change. That, in fact, is the very essence of the AGW argument. You made this response before I even had a chance to, which I graciously thanked you for:
Thanks, Willis and Bob, for filling in the details of what I assumed Mosher must already know, but is pretending not to.
This is where you started getting ugly. But before we get into that, notice what I actually said, not what you think I said (or thought): what I assumed Mosher must already know. Right up front, I say that I’m making an assumption about what Mohser knew. I don’t state it as an absolute fact, as you later claim I do. Which just goes to show that you can’t read very well, and make all kinds of assumptions of your own about me, which could be easily shown to be false if you had just read what I said. I assumed Mosher knew these matters, and based on that assumption, further assumed that he was pretending not to. Playing dumb, in other words.
Was that assumption false? You didn’t seem to think so at first, when you said:
Mosher likely knows of the line, he’s widely read
So you, also, assumed that Mosher knew this aspect of AGW theory, because he’s widely read. So far, we seem to be in general agreement about Mosher. We both made assumptions about what Mosher knew, based on his overall familiarity with climate issues. Your insertion of the qualifier “likely” being no different from my use of the phrase “I assumed”, the difference being that of six and half a dozen.
Then, for reasons unknown, you go out of your mind with outrage:
Brokenyogi, assuming that you can tell what other people know is a very foolish enterprise. You haven’t a clue what Mosh knows, or I know, or anyone else knows.
But insulting people by claiming that they are pretending not to know what you can tell, by way of your spidey sense, that they already know?
That’s just nasty and unpleasant. You don’t know what Mosh knows, only Mosh knows that, and all your ugly claim does is to make you look much, much worse than him.
Except that you just said that knew that it was likely Mosher knew this line of argument. Were you just feeling guilty? Were you feeling sorry for Mosher? I can’t say, only you can, but your attack on me makes no sense. Obviously I did have clues as to what Mosher knew, as did you, which is why you considered it “likely” that he knew. So on this, you were clearly wrong. Either you were wrong to say that it was likely Mosher knew, or you were wrong to say I had no clue as to what Mosher knew.
As I’ve pointed out, there are many clues that Mosher would have known about this line. First, he’s widely read. Second, he has a blog that he uses to write about climate issues, in a highly technical way. Third, much of his blog is devoted to a technical analysis of the computer simulations and climate models that this very issue turns upon, meaning it’s even more likely that he would know about the AR4 climate models and their need for GHG warming to explain recent warming. Fourth, Mosher’s blog is respected well enough to be listed on this very blog’s blogroll as something readers here should check out. Given all that, I thought it not just unlikely, but extremely unlikely that Mosher wouldn’t know about this line. Just as you did. And so far, you haven’t produced even a shred of evidence that I’m wrong, that Mosher didn’t know about this. Nor has Mosher himself. So your entire rampaging rant against me has not the slightest bit of evidence to back it up, that I was wrong at all. Insulting, yes, but wrong on the facts behind that, no.
So let me remind you, you’ve made a series of accusations against me, without any evidence to back them up. You are clearly wrong on the issue of whether I have a clue as to what Mosher said, or that I absolutely don’t know what he knows about this. You’ve been doubling down on your prosecution of me, without showing me any evidence of my being wrong in my assumptions. You seem to base your case against me purely on the fact that I am openly making assumptions about Mosher, without showing those assumptions to be in any way unreasonable. Instead, you merely fall back on the specious argument that no one can know what’s in anybody’s head. Well, news flash, you can. I can assume all kinds of knowledge in your head, based on your obvious familiarity with climate science, and that you regularly write on this blog, and even correct people frequently in the comments section. You would probably feel insulted if I assumed you didn’t know anything about the AR4 climate models and their need for GHG drivers to explain observed warming. So I assume all kinds of things about your knowledge base on the subject, because you have one. And the same with Mosher.
So when you say:
You call him a tool because you’re not as knowledgeable as him or me? How does that work?
I would think someone as smart as you would grasp the principle immediately. Since I’m nowhere near as knowledgeable about climate science as you and Mosher, and I know about this very basic aspect of the AGW arguments, it stands very much to reason that both you and Mosher would know about it too. In your case, you have already admitted that my assumption about your knowledge base would have been correct. And you have provided no reason for me to think that my assumption about Mosher isn’t correct also. And I bet you still think he does know about this line. Admit it, dude. Get off your high horse of absolutism and BMOC bullying. Join the real world, where reason prevails, and even people you don’t like can be right.
It’s ok because what I said was totally different from what you said. I said he might or might not know of the line. You said he was deliberately deceiving people. How you think those are the same escapes me. In any case, his having read that quote doesn’t mean he knew that was what you were thinking of, even I was just guessing.
He could have corrected me if I was wrong in my assumption that he was pretending not to know about this. I think that’s unlikely, but not impossible. I never made the claim that my assumption was absolutely true. It just seems correct to me, based on my read of him. The thing is, if we both agree that he likely knew the line, then why the denial on his part, that “no one” makes this line of argument? Clearly many do. I know that, you know that, and we both think Mosher likely knows that. His absolutism on that is clearly false, and it seems to me that Mosher is just backing himself into a rhetorical corner. Which is why I told him to stop being such a tool, and said that he was just being obtuse, and pretending not to know this. Maybe it slipped his mind, but it sure looks to me like someone playing rhetorical tricks to get out of their corner, and then vanishing without having to explain himself.
If you disagree with that assessment of mine, fine, but get off the high horse. You’re not some Knight in Shining Armour around here. Your job isn’t to protect Mosher from the consequences of his own bad arguments, which definitely do give the impression that he argues in bad faith. I’m not the only one, even on this thread, who thinks Mosher argues in bad faith. So my impression doesn’t come out of thin air.
Let me reiterate. I said he “likely knew”. You accused him of acting in bad faith. Those are not the same, no matter how many times you claim it.
Those are compounded issues, but clearly related. If Mosher knew about this line, then his argument that “no one” makes that line, is obviously an argument in bad faith. He might have said, “Some people make that line of argument, but I don’t think it’s necessary to.” That would have been arguing in good faith. What he did say, was a classic bad faith argument. And I called him out on it, which I think is what one does in the face of bad faith arguments.
If you call that “evidence that he is pretending”, god help the accused if you ever have to be a juror at a trial.
First, wasn’t putting Mosher on trial. You’ve been doing that to me, but it’s not what I did to him. I merely pointed out what seems obvious to me. There’s clear evidence that Mosher would likely have known of this line, and if so, that his response to me was in bad faith. That’s a prima facia case right there. It’s not good enough for a criminal trial, but for an argument in the comments section of a blog, it sure is. Mosher can of course step in to correct or clarify himself, but until he does, I think my comments are more than reasonable. You certainly haven’t shown them to be false, and have no evidence at all to back up your accusations against me. You have to remember, that libel or slander isn’t the case if the underlying accusation is true, regardless of whether it was insulting or not. And in any actual trial, Mosher would be required to testify. If he declines, there is no case against me. And so far, he’s declined, so you have no case against me.
No, I don’t say he knows better. Learn to read. I said it was likely he had heard of that quote … and if you had cited, or quoted that quote, you might have a case. But you didn’t, and then you claimed Mosher was acting in bad faith because he didn’t get your vague allusion.
It wasn’t a vague allusion at all. Let me repeat it for clarity:
It’s the AGW types who have claimed that it’s impossible to have warming such as we have now, without manmade GHGs being the driver.
That’s an extremely clear statement. It’s practically elegant. It was clear enough that you, for example, knew exactly what I was talking about, and even where to find the exact AR4 quote to back it up. Tisdale knew exactly what I was saying also. Is Mosher somehow supposed to be so ignorant of this issue that he wouldn’t know what this clear statement meant. He seems very clear in denying that it was true, and that “no one” makes this argument. He didn’t reply by saying “that’s vague, I don’t know what you mean”. No, he replied with an absolute denial of it. He gave every impression of understanding exactly what I was saying, and disagreeing with it, even though he certainly ought to know his denial was false. Maybe he just thought he could get away with it, that I was some nobody he could bowl over, but wasn’t counting on you stepping in with that quote that completely humiliated him. I wouldn’t know exactly what his motives were, only that they give the appearance of bad faith on his part.
You’ve insisted you’re absolutely positive of what he knows … losing faith?
Now you’re just making things up. Where on earth did I ever say I’m absolutely positive of what Mosher knows? Quote me. Give us the evidence, please. I would say this is an example of a bad faith argument on your own part. You must know this statement you just made is false. You can’t be that ignorant. I contested your claim that I had absolutely no clue what Mosher knew. I never made the counter claim that I knew absolutely what he knew, only that I had clues to work with. So what’s the explanation here for this clearly false statement on your part? Are you just getting so defensive, that you can’t think straight, and imagine that making things up is going to actually help your case? Or have you so twisted your own mind around itself, that in your delusional state you thought for a moment that I must have made this kind of absurd statement? I know you say you’re not responding to me any further, but on this point alone I think you have to offer some explanation. Again, either provide evidence that I ever said anything like this, or apologize like a man.
Heck, no, it’s not hard to admit when I’m wrong. Painful, but not too hard. I’ve done it right here on this blog, not many times, but more than I would like. Next time I’m wrong, I’ll let you know so you can check it out.
I think I’ve clearly demonstrated that you are wrong on several points. Some blatantly so. If you’ve apologized in the past for being wrong, then do so now.
And in the meantime, I plan to take your excellent advice and let Mosher deal with you … that’s enough for me.
Not good enough. I can deal with Mosher about Mosher, but you’ve made a number of false, personal allegations against me, that you need to address, or apologize for. This has gone beyond Mosher, and has become a personal issue between us. Unlike Mosher, I don’t run away and hide from this sort of confrontation. And I won’t run away from your bullying attitude either. I mean honestly, just making things up about me will only bring out the debater in me. If you aren’t man enough to face up to your false statements, that will define just what sort of man you actually are.

Willis,
What a disingenuous, fatuous, pompous response you’ve constructed. Let’s see, by my word processor’s count, that alone took 646 words to tell me you’re not the least bit interested in what I have to say, you’re not going to respond to me, and that you don’t care about me. Somehow, that’s not very convincing. Guess how I know you care? You took 646 words to say so! You could have said all that, by not saying anything. Or in a single sentence. Which is part and parcel with the rest of the nonsense you’ve been throwing my way, and taking so much time to talk about, that you don’t care about. You’ve written a total of 2,145 words directly to me on this issue, that you don’t care about. Wow, the self-deception you live with must be incredibly hard to maintain, if just doing it with me on this minor issue takes 2,145 words.
You want my name? Here it is: Conrad Goehausen. I’ve used the Broken Yogi moniker on the internet for at least ten years, and any decent google search will get you to my real name in no time. I have nothing to hide, and I’m not hiding behind any anonymity. Not that it matters, of course, since my identity has nothing to do with this argument.
As for your puerile apology, yes, I’m sorry you are so incapable of fessing up to the false statements you’ve made, and that I’ve detailed previously. Some of them are so blatant, that there’s simply no defense, such as the accusation that I claimed absolute certainty as to what Mosher knows. I asked you to provide proof that I ever said that, and you’ve taken the coward’s route of bluster and insult. So typical of bullies when confronted with a demand for the facts. The record of everything I’ve said on this thread is right here, no one has tampered with it, and there’s no evidence of my ever saying that.
And yet you ignore your own clear and obvious mistakes, and refuse to own up to them, while insisting that I have been proven to be wrong about Mosher, when you don’t offer any evidence in support of that. You have simply not shown in any way shape or form that my charges against Mosher were false. Where’s the evidence? Even Mosher doesn’t say my accusations were false. You’ve taken up that cause, for reasons no one else can fathom, and made a fool of yourself in the process by making patently false accusations against me, even lying about what I’ve actually said here. You continue to claim that I made unprovoked and false claims about Mosher, without showing that either of them were either false, or unprovoked. All we have is Willis’ self-righteousness to go by. Which counts for exactly nothing.
I’m sure hoping your scientific arguments aren’t so full of holes. Up till now, I’ve tended to trust you to be honest and scrupulous in your arguments on this blog. Now I see that was a false assumption on my part. You aren’t deserving of any latitude or credit for honesty. It’s obvious now, that backed up against a wall, you will just make things up to try to win an argument, and then go into denial about it. How ironic.

It’s been interesting to witness some of the reasoned debate on this blog…

Blog rule # 4: don’t get into a pissing contest with a skunk.

Mosher’s comment can be found in the comments section at the bottom of this page:
http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/modis-qc-bits/#comment-2703

Willis,
I didn’t claim that I knew everything in Mosher’s mind. I merely claimed that it was very, very likely that he knew what I was referring to in my one-sentence remark, and that he knew about the AR4 modeler arguments I was basing my comment on, and that his comment about it not being true, because no modeler literally says it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the warming to be caused by something other than GHG, was a deliberately obtuse argument.
As you point out now that Mosher has elaborated upon it, it’s an example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Which means, an example of arguing in bad faith. I could have pointed that out, if Mosher had stuck around, and if you hadn’t jumped in and side-tracked the entire discussion into some fantasy of your being the thought policeman of these comments sections.
As for what Mosher has said now in explaining himself, I thought it was fricking obvious all along that this is what Mosher was intending to put across about my comment, and what kind of counter-argument he was making in his shorthand manner. How did I know this? Was it more mind-reading on my part? Hardly. It’s the simple fact that Mosher wrote “IMPOSSIBLE” in full, screaming, capslock. I thought he was making himself very clear, if speaking in shorthand, just as I had in my own shorthand. But again, we never got to discuss that, because you focused on the juvenile argument that I couldn’t possibly assume that Mosher even knew what I was talking about, or was familiar with the modeler claims in the AR4, for example, and launched a series of pointless, stupid personal attacks on me that had nothing to do with this argument itself, but were part of your own personal problems with me, for reasons that have never been made clear.
And to make it clear, the only reason I felt the need to go to his blog, and ask him why he responded to me with this emphasis on the word “IMPOSSILBE” was to get his clear response in his own words, to show what was actually in his mind when he wrote that, so there would be no ambiguity. It was not, as you now claim, because I wasn’t aware of what he meant by it. His answer was precisely what I thought he meant by it.
So let’s repeat: Mosher knew everything I thought he knew, and he was arguing exactly as I presumed him to be arguing. You, on the other hand, were completely wrong about what I knew, and what Mosher didn’t know, and are even now claiming that somehow this “IMPOSSIBLE” argument Mosher is something completely new and unforseeable, even though he wrote it in a capslocks scream. If Mosher is being obtuse about the underlying argument, you are being even more obtuse about the actual discussion issues. Neither Mosher nor I have had any trouble understanding one another. It’s you, on the other hand, who have introduced a completely pointless and distracting argument about our argument, that was wrong to boot, and hence even more pointless than I would have thought possible.
On the other hand, when you stick to just addressing the climate issues themselves, you make good points, and I welcome your contribution to the discussion. The lesson ought to be clear: stay the fug out of the way when it comes to other people’s personal disagreements, and just stick to commenting on the science. On the first, you are clueless. On the second, you are well-informed. As for Mosher criticizing you personally, it looks like I’m not the only one who thinks poorly of your personal skills here in dealing with others. But annoying as those are, it’s not as important as the science itself. So carry on.