Study: ‘ Greenland ice sheet is not as sensitive to temperature increases and to ice melting and running out to sea in warm climate periods ‘.
From the University of Copenhagen
Greenland ice cores reveal warm climate of the past
In the period between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, Earth’s climate was warmer than today. But how much warmer was it and what did the warming do to global sea levels? – as we face global warming in the future, the answer to these questions is becoming very important. New research from the NEEM ice core drilling project in Greenland shows that the period was warmer than previously thought. The international research project is led by researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute and the very important results are published in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature.
In the last millions years the Earth’s climate has alternated between ice ages lasting about 100,000 years and interglacial periods of 10,000 to 15,000 years. The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
Past reveals knowledge about the climate
The North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling project or NEEM, led by the Niels Bohr Institute, is an international project with participants from 14 countries. After four years of deep drilling, the team has drilled ice cores through the more than 2.5 kilometer thick ice sheet. The ice is a stack of layer upon layer of annual snow fall which never melts away, and as the layers gradually sink, the snow is compresses into ice. This gives thousands of annual ice layers that, like tree rings, can tell us about variations in past climate from year to year.
The ice cores are examined in laboratories with a series of analyses that reveal past climate. The content of the heavy oxygen isotope O18 in the ice cores tells us about the temperature in clouds when the snow fell, and thus of the climate of the past. The air bubbles in the ice are also examined. The air bubbles are samples of the ancient atmosphere encased in the ice and they provide knowledge about the air composition of the atmosphere during past climates.
Past global warming
The researchers have obtained the first complete ice core record from the entire previous interglacial period, the Eemian, and with the detailed studies have been able to recreate the annual temperatures – almost 130,000 years back in time.
“It is a great achievement for science to collect and combine so many measurements on the ice core and reconstruct past climate history. The new findings show higher temperatures in northern Greenland during the Eemian than current climate models have estimated,” says Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute.
Intense melting on the surface
During the warm Eemian period, there was intense surface melting that can be seen in the ice core as layers of refrozen meltwater. Meltwater from the surface had penetrated down into the underlying snow, where it once again froze into ice. Such surface melting has occurred very rarely in the last 5,000 years, but the team observed such a melting during the summer of 2012 when they were in Greenland.
“We were completely shocked by the warm surface temperatures at the NEEM camp in July 2012,” says Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen. “It was even raining and just like in the Eemian, the meltwater formed refrozen layers of ice under the surface. Although it was an extreme event the current warming over Greenland makes surface melting more likely and the warming that is predicted to occur over the next 50-100 years will potentially have Eemian-like climatic conditions,” she believes.
Good news and bad news
During the warm Eemian period there was increased melting at the edge of the ice sheet and the dynamic flow of the entire ice mass caused the ice sheet to lose mass and it was reduced in height. The ice mass was shrinking at a very high rate of 6 cm per year. But despite the warm temperatures, the ice sheet did not disappear and the research team estimates that the volume of the ice sheet was not reduced by more than 25 percent during the warmest 6,000 years of the Eemian.
“The good news from this study is that the Greenland ice sheet is not as sensitive to temperature increases and to ice melting and running out to sea in warm climate periods like the Eemian, as we thought” explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen and adds that the bad news is that if Greenland’s ice did not disappear during the Eemian then Antarctica must be responsible for a significant portion of the 4-8 meter rise in sea levels that we know occurred during the Eemian.
This new knowledge about past warm climates may help to clarify what is in store for us now that we are facing a global warming.
Niels Bohr Institute: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/
Documentary films: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/
beng says:
January 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm
You’re right – I overlooked the YD extinctions.
Can someone please explain this to me: How does drilling DOWN in to and getting a core of ice, show the “altitude” of the ice sheet? If one is drilling DOWN in to an ice sheet, then how can you tell the ice sheet half a mile below you was once a half a mile above you?
Willis,
“Since I haven’t yet learned to read minds, what another man knows and doesn’t know is an eternal mystery. ”
Well, I’ve learned how to read words, and that tells me what people think. You should try it sometime. I’ve also learned the art of logical deduction. That’s a really good skill too. I don’t have to see into Mosher’s mind to see what sorts of things he knows. And if I’m actually wrong, I’m sure he’s able to correct me. What business you have doing that, you haven’t explained. But so far, he hasn’t told me I’m wrong at all about what he knows. And you’ve even admitted the same.
Here’s what you said:
“Mosher likely knows of the line, he’s widely read.”
So you say he likely knows this line of argument, because he’s widely read. Exactly the same logic I used to say exactly the same thing. Why is it okay for you to say that, and not me? Please, inquiring minds need to know.
Then you say: “You have absolutely no evidence that he is pretending.”
Yes I do. I even have your own testimony that he likely knows this line of thought, because he’s widely read. So there’s plenty of evidence that he’s knowledgable enough about climate science and its arguments that he knows this. And thus, it’s very clear that either he’s had a sudden “senior moment”, or he’s pretending. Since I have no knowledge of his age, or any reason to think he’s going senile, I think it’s more likely that he’s playing dumb, for rhetorical purposes. Again, if I’m wrong about that, he can correct me. Why you are inserting yourself into that is beyond me.
“When you blow in, call someone a tool, and then accuse them of pretending to be ignorant of something, which means that they are acting in bad faith … yeah, you did something wrong here.”
Blow in? I’ve been reading this blog for years. Like I said, almost every day. I don’t comment a lot, because I’m not as knowledgeable as either you or Mosher. Which is why I accused him of being a tool, and knowing better. I’m not the only one on this thread criticizing Mosher for the way he’s been conducting himself these days. And even you say he knows better. But for some reason you’ve decided to go all righteous on my ass, for reasons that make no sense.
Your absolutist claims are getting worse and worse, and you’re just digging yourself into a deeper hole by doubling down on them. Reminds me of some people in the climate debate itself. Do you really want to be that guy? Maybe you should stop digging, and climb out of that whole instead. You could start by apologizing for coming down on me so hard, and illogically to boot. If Mosher wants an apology from me, let him ask, and explain himself better. Maybe he doesn’t know what I think he knows. And if that’s the case, if he was just making an innocent mistake, I’ll be happy to apologize to him, even just to show you how it’s down. Because clearly, you don’t know how to do that. Show us you’re even a tenth of the man you think you are, by admitting that you were wrong.
Is that really so hard?
henrythethird says:
January 24, 2013 at 5:51 pm
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.
captainfish says:
January 25, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Great question. When they de-gas the core, they look at the ratios of various gases. Some ratios are used as temperature proxies. Others are used as altitude proxies.
Since the lower atmosphere is well mixed, I am not sure how well that analysis works. It is easy to see how the gas mixtures in a forest might be different than on a mountain top (because the plants are different), but in the middle of a large ice sheet I am not so sure.
What the proxies don’t tell is what was under the “new” ice – 1,000 meters of older ice, or bedrock.
This is from the abstract
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
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.)
brokenyogi says:
January 25, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Cool. I’m sure police forces all over the world could use a man who can tell what’s in a man’s mind from what he writes on the page … after all, people never lie or deceive or forget or are confused or make mistakes, they always write exactly what they think, so you can just read their words and correctly discern their innermost thoughts …
Do you ever re-read what you’ve written, or do you just trust to your luck?
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.
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.
If you call that “evidence that he is pretending”, god help the accused if you ever have to be a juror at a trial. How you or I feel, or what I might believe about Mosher, is not evidence in any sense of the word. Nor is your estimation of the likelihood that he is “playing dumb”, that’s just your guess, it’s not evidence of anything.
By “blow in” I meant blow into this discussion. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Clearly.
You call him a tool because you’re not as knowledgeable as him or me? How does that work?
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.
Climb out of that whole? I’m usually lucky to save half my skin …
You’ve insisted you’re absolutely positive of what he knows … losing faith?
Show me how it’s down? Is that like showing me what’s up?
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.
And in the meantime, I plan to take your excellent advice and let Mosher deal with you … that’s enough for me.
w.
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.
brokenyogi says:
January 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm
If you want to “break it down”, I fear you’ll have to do it on your own time. Sorry, not interested in the slightest.. You’ve obviously grown bored attacking Mosher, so now you want to attack me. You warn me that “you don’t run”, you caution me that this will just “bring out the debater” in you … oooooh, watch out he’s gonna bring out his Inner Debater, everyone be careful …
Obviously, you are laboring under the incorrect assumption that I care that you have threatened me with your inner debater and associated other actions. BZZZZT. Next contestant please …
You say:
Is this a “personal issue between us”, Brokenyogi? No. For that to happen, I’d have to care about you. You may have a personal issue with me, that’s up to you. I have no “personal issues” with a random anonymous voice on the internet, couldn’t be bothered, could care less.
Have I made “false personal allegations” about you? Not from my perspective. From here, it looks like I’ve made true personal allegations … that’s what happens when you attack like you did. People point it out.
Now, you say you want an apology from me. Am I sorry? Actually, yes, I am.
I’m sorry you ever showed up in the thread. I’m sorry that you decided to make bogus accusations against me and others. I’m sorry you’re still here bitching and whining at a rate of knots about what a big blue meanie I am and how I’ve been so eeeevil and kroool to you and how you really need an apology from me to make the owwie go away, you poor man.
Further, I’m sorry you don’t have the courage to sign your hateful screeds, so that you would have to take responsibility for your words. I’m sorry I have anything to do with you at all, in fact I’m sorry I ever heard your pseudonym … yes, Broken, I’m sorry for all of those things.
In fact, the only thing I’m not sorry about is that I only read a small bit of your most recent and no doubt faaabulous seven-page opus … best decision I’ve made all day.
And that is the only apology you will see from me, Broken. You came into the thread, made two unprovoked and totally false attacks on Mosher, fatuously claimed to know what people are thinking, went to the point where you made accusations that Mosher was “pretending” because you are the great human lie detector and you know his secret thoughts, you closed by giving me a pile of grief for calling you on your nonsense … and at the end of your charming swing of destruction through the thread, you want an apology from me?
Dream on, my friend, dream on, it’ll be a while … my best advice is, hold your breath while you wait for my apology. It’ll be easier on everyone.
w.
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.
brokenyogi says:
January 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm
Hey, it would have been impolite to just walk away. Plus you were so angry, I was concerned that you’d have a coronary meltdown if I didn’t at least answer your previous hissy-fit, and the site doesn’t have insurance to cover that kind of thing. So it was just a matter of prudent medical precaution.
So I thought if I explained to you why you are not any fun to discuss things with, you might learn something … foolish me.
This only took 99 words, didn’t even break 100 … happy now?
Buh-bye, write if you find work,
w.
It’s been interesting to witness some of the reasoned debate on this blog…
Dude, I’ve been laughing my ass off at this whole thing. But if you need that badly to think you’re in the superior position, go right ahead. My advice: learn to laugh at yourself.
Blog rule # 4: don’t get into a pissing contest with a skunk.
Update: I wrote to Steve Mosher about our exchange, and asked if it he was unaware of the AR4 issues in question, that Willis said I had absolutely no clue as to whether he was aware of these matters. Steve’s response (from his blog)
1. Yes I am aware of the line of argument
2. This is the exact argument I was referring to.
3. There is a reason why I repeated your word ‘impossible’ and put it in bold.
There is an important logical difference between arguing
A) we did these simulations and it is IMPOSSIBLE to have the warming we have now absent GHGS
B) we simulated with and without all currently known forcings and found that the warming could not explained by natural forcing only.
The first makes a claim that no scientist ( no good scientist would make ) since science deals with the “likely” and the “unlikely”
The whole point is your use of the word impossible. impossible suggests certainty and there is no certainty in science. Willis as usual is wrong in his assesment of what my point would be, and I’m not surprised he would miss the importance of my emphasis on the word IMPOSSIBLE. The actual argument doesn’t make this type of claim. I hope you see the point. No one says that its IMPOSSIBLE. The way to disprove this is not to find something where you think they imply its impossible, but to actually find something where they claim that it is, in fact, impossible and actually use the word. IMPOSSIBLE.
******
So, to summarize, I was completely correct to assume that Steve Mosher knew about this line of argument, and that he was responding to it, rather than to something else. Willis was completely wrong to say I had no idea what was in SM’s mind. Apparently, my mind-reading skills are miraculously accurate.
I wrote a reply to Moster as follows:
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your clarification. Yes, I understand your emphasis on “impossible”. In the context of the debate, however, that’s not how it came off, or even that your qualification is accurate in relation to the work of the modelers. It is quite clear that the modelers really are saying that, within the context of their own modeling scenarios and the assumptions they have built into them, it’s impossible for them to construct a working model that 1) conforms to observational data, and 2) does not include sizeable assumptions about GHG warming and its feedbacks. From that, they conclude that it’s simply impossible to have warming as we have now, without GHG being the driver of much of it. I don’t think that’s a mischaracterization of their arguments. It’s why they call anyone who disagree with their conclusions “deniers”, rather than merely having an honest disagreement.
And that’s why I accused you of being obtuse in your response.
Sorry for any ill feelings I’ve aroused. Seems like Willis got a lot more bent out of shape about it than you did.
No hard feelings.
Conrad
*****************
So, to summarize, my claims about Mosher were quite correct, not false and unjustified.
As to the issue of arguing in “bad faith”, I’d say that focusing on the semantics of my use of the word “impossible” distracts from the actual constraints put on modelers by their assumptions about the essential requirement for GHG warming to produce meaningful results, and the reliance on those models for the CAGW advocates to claim that GHG warming is the only possible scientific explanation for our recent warming trend. Since SM was very much familiar with these arguments, and the requirements of the models, I’d say it’s a disingenious way of arguing, to assume that “impossible” refers to some existentialist eternality, rather than the practical matter of making the equations and the computer models add up.
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
Yes.
It would seem that willis demands that others quote him exactly when they disagree.
In the same spirit I would suggest that folks find a modeller and ask them the following question.
“is it impossible that anything else has caused the warming”
I don’t think you will find a smart modller who argues this. Why? because modellers know that all models are wrong but some are useful. or ask them this “is it possible that your model is wrong and that some un known or misunderstood factor caused the warming?”
So rather than telling us what you think modelers mean quote them exactly. Give them the same treatment you demand from others. Now, you wont quote them exactly. You will forget that they say all models are wrong and argue that they really mean that it is impossible that anything else could be the cause. But since they believe that all models are wrong, then they cannot also believe that it is impossible that their conclusions might be wrong. At play here is the principle of charity.
google it.
brokenyogi, you claimed to know what was in Mosher’s mind. But in his answer to you, he pointed out that he was talking about something that neither you nor I picked up on, which revolved around his use of the word “IMPORTANT” and your use of the word “impossible”.
Now, Steven said in there that I didn’t get his point, which was true.
And he said he hopes that after his new explanation you see his point, which means you didn’t understand what his point was either.
Since neither you nor I understood that that was Steven’s point, which is why he had to explain it to both of us, your proud crowing that “Willis was completely wrong to say I had no idea what was in SM’s mind. Apparently, my mind-reading skills are miraculously accurate” rings quite hollow.
You didn’t have any more of a clue what his point was than I did, neither of us could discern what he was trying to say, much less his thoughts, and even now he only “hopes you see the point”, he is not sure you understand his thoughts even after he has explained them to us again … yeah, you’re a hell of a mind-reader, brokenyogi …
w.
Steven Mosher says:
February 2, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Dang, an example of the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy captured in the wild! That’s a rare thing.
In any case, I cited just such a claim above, so your fatuous idea that I demand more of others than I do of myself is falsified, not to mention unpleasant and untrue. I quoted the IPCC’s folks as saying:
Note that “Natural forcing alone cannot explain …” means it is impossible that natural forcing caused the warming, that it cannot be explained by anything natural. This means that all natural options are ruled out … and since nothing is left but man, their statement clearly says that it is impossible that anything but man has caused the warming.
And that, dear Steven, is the very claim that you say no smart modeler would argue, and the very claim that you basely and falsely accuse me of not quoting …
Again I have to question the reason for your constant attacks on my character and my honesty. I don’t do that to you, in fact I defend you when I can, and I have stated many times that you are a smart guy and that people ignore you at some peril … so why are you wandering miles out of your way to vainly try to attack my ethics and integrity?
Because for goodness sake, if you’re going to attack me, do your homework first. Don’t accuse me of not quoting things I’ve already quoted, that just makes you look foolish … and you are many things, but that’s not one of them.
w.
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.
Steve,
Thanks for rejoining the discussion here, after that very wierd interruption. Back to the science:
So rather than telling us what you think modelers mean quote them exactly.
I think the quote Willis produced from the AR4 is more than adequate to justify my remark:
Natural forcing alone cannot explain the global warming over the last 50 years.
Notice that this doesn’t say “It is difficult to explain the warming of the last 50 years by natural forcings,” or that “it’s likely the warming was caused by GHG forcings”. Instead, it used the word “cannot”. That is an uneqivocal statement. This is the grammatical equivalent of saying that it’s impossible. Though I grant you that scientists don’t like to use that word, the phrasing they choose has no ambiguity to it at all. I’m sure if you sat them down, they’d admit that it’s not literally impossible in the existential sense that they are wrong. But in the practical, working man’s scientific sense, yes, they are saying that. It’s why the climate debate has become so extreme. Many of these guys really are saying that the basic scientific issue is settled, and while there are some issues to work out, there’s simply no reasonable doubt in their minds that the warming of these past 50 years has been almost entirely due to GHG forcings.
Is that unreasonable to suggest? The AR4 is hardly the product of some lone fanatic out there in the hinterlands. It’s the “scientific consensus” of the world’s largest international climate science body. I’m sure there are some even on the AGW side of the aisle who might be a little nervous about the lack of equivocation in that statement. But it’s there, in black and white, nevertheless, representing the scientific consensus. I’m glad you criticize it, but you can’t deny it’s existence as the voice of the international climate community. Sadly, it is, until something changes within that community. We can criticize the underlying justifications for statements like that, but we can’t pretend they aren’t out there dominating the scientific view on this matter, and of course strongly influencing all media and discussion of the subject.