Scroll down to read this post.

 

My February birthday fund-raising campaign for this website, Behind the Black, is now over. Despite a relatively weak initial three weeks, the last week was spectacular, making this campaign the second best ever.

 

Thanks to every person who donated or subscribed. It continues to astonish me that people who can read my work for free like it enough to donate money voluntarily. Words cannot express my appreciation for that support, especially in these uncertain times.

 

If you have been a regular reader and a fan of my work and have not yet donated or subscribed, please consider doing so. I take no ads, I keep the website clean from pop-ups and annoying demands (most of the time). Thus, I depend entirely on my readers to support me. Though this means I am sacrificing some income, it also means that I remain entirely independent from outside pressure. By depending solely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, no one can threaten me with censorship. You don't like what I write, you can simply go elsewhere.

 

You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:

 

1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.

 

2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
 

3. A Paypal Donation:

4. A Paypal subscription:


5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


Two new studies say different things about Greenland’s icecap history

The uncertainty of science: Two new studies of Greenland’s icecap suggest completely opposite histories, with one saying that Greenland was ice free at least once in the past 2.6 million years, with the other saying that the icecap covered Greenland continuously for the past 7.5 million years.

Evidence buried in Greenland’s bedrock shows the island’s massive ice sheet melted nearly completely at least once in the last 2.6 million years. This suggests that Greenland’s ice may be less stable than previously believed. “Our study puts Greenland back on the endangered ice-sheet map,” says Joerg Schaefer, a palaeoclimatologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, and co-author of a paper published on 7 December in Nature.

A second paper in the same issue paints a slightly different view of the ice sheet’s past stability. A group led by Paul Bierman, a geomorphologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington, found that ice covered eastern Greenland for all of the past 7.5 million years. Experts say the two papers do not necessarily contradict one another: at times, nearly all of Greenland’s ice could have melted (as seen by Schaefer’s team) while a frosty cap remained in the eastern highlands (as seen by Bierman’s group).

If all of Greenland’s ice melted, it would raise sea levels by seven metres. Models suggest that Greenland could become ice-free as soon as 2,500 years from now, depending on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. [emphasis mine]

This story is a perfect example of how the passionate belief in a theory (that global warming is happening, is a threat, and will melt the icecaps) can warp a scientist’s thinking. Both studies used a single drilled ice core, with the first from Greenland’s central region and the second from Greenland’s eastern region. Thus, there is no reason to say that the entire Greenland icecap had melted, as noted in the highlighted text that describes the first study. What the data merely suggests is that these two regions might have had different histories.

Instead, the article, in its effort to confirm the possibility that Greenland’s icecap could melt entirely and thus pose a threat of a big sea level rise, ignores this simple detail and struggles to justify the concept that the entire cap certainly melted in the past, even though one study suggests otherwise. This causes everyone to misunderstand the results, and draw conclusions that are uncalled for, based on the available data.

Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

 
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.


The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
 

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News

2 comments

  • wayne

    Been watching Feynman & Penrose video’s today–and don’t want to venture down the “climate” rabbit-hole, too deeply. (I was trained in Behavior Analysis, so although not a righteous “scientist” (to some folks standards) I’m highly sympathetic to the whole Scientific Method approach.)

    A thinking-out-loud question:
    Is it the case, these people are asking & indeed, self-answering, their own “Why” questions, rather than exploring the “How” questions of “climate?”

    A multiple-repeat from me, but I think it’s on point, from a purely conceptual standpoint:

    Feynman
    “Fun to Imagine” clip
    https://youtu.be/wMFPe-DwULM
    (7:32)

  • Edward

    wayne asked: “Is it the case, these people are asking & indeed, self-answering, their own ‘Why’ questions, rather than exploring the ‘How’ questions of ‘climate?’

    Good question. Robert’s point seems to be that each of the groups of scientists were drawing conclusions based upon a single point of data. It is difficult to derive much knowledge from single data points. They have two data points that each describe a “what” answer to a question.

    I would suggest that they may be suffering from confirmation bias, in that each group may have concluded a preconceived notion about the Greenland ice by using the limited data available to them.

    Although the “how” question may be the one to answer, when it comes to global warming/temperature change/climate change/whatever, climate science still is trying to figure out the “why” part of the science.

    Not knowing “why” is why there are so many various hypotheses for the “why” of the recent “pause” in global warming.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

    They clearly do not understand the basic “why” of what is going on, so it is difficult for them to begin the “how” explanation that describes the “what.”

    (The “pause” has driven climatologists to declare the occurrence of the well known phenomenon of climates in constant change — but that it is now man’s fault, yet that it wasn’t for the past millions of years. I would suggest that, as we have seen in the early 20th century and the late 19th century, the recovery from the Little Ice Age is not happening as a straight line temperature increase but has undergone other rate changes, including at least one multidecade decrease.)

    If climate science (and global warming) were so settled, then we would have answers comparable to Feynman’s “why” example in the video clip linked by wayne, above. Instead, we have people telling us that higher CO2 levels are causative of higher temperatures, even though data going back many millennia demonstrate the opposite. That unsettled argument is the basis of the man’s-fault claim for global warming.

    Yes, Gore’s chart was a deliberate lie, in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Apparently the truth was too inconvenient for him, because the truth contradicts and invalidates the man’s-fault claim, and he can’t get rich selling carbon credits unless he can convince his marks — er — customers that it is man’s fault.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *