Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Search Tips

Comment Search Results

Search for crux of a core

Comments matching the search crux of a core:

  • Climate Carbon Bookkeeping

    MA Rodger at 07:55 AM on 18 January, 2019

    Dan Joppich @12,

    You are entirely wrong to suggest that the graphic you linked to (below) was the work of Bob Carter. (Even an image he does use is attributed to others & not his work. See image here of graph photographed at a Bob Carter talk which is derived from Davis & Bohling (2001).)

    Holocene Temperature from Wikipedia

    You are rather naive in believing that a google search will yield a Bob-Carter-created graphic of Holocene ice-core tempoerature records. And if you had bothered to read the description of the graph on the web-page you linked-to, you would know it is not a plot reconstructed from Greenland ice-core data and has zero Bob Carter authorship.

    And your naivity must be ridiculously great to think any would believe that you "didn't even read whatever the article was on the page" when @8 you have reproduced two (almost) full paragraphs from that very page word-for-word.

  • Temp record is unreliable

    MA Rodger at 19:42 PM on 26 July, 2017

    Mike Evershed @427.

    For anyone who takes the time to examine Humlum's work, it is evident the man is a prolific source of nonsense and that he does not take any rebuttal seriously because he doesn't care. Note his Figure 3 on the web-page providing your primary quote - it is addressed in this SkS rebuttal here but in response Figure 3 has not been properly corrected by Humlum. Rather, now we find his Figure 3 is simply "not showing the post Little Ice Age temperature increase."

    The logic of the Humlum quote you present @422 is making three assertions. Firstly that it is difficult to create "a meaningful global average temperature" and while the word "meaningful" is a bit odd, it is correct to say that it is not a trivial task to create a global surface temperature record. But, as shown in the links @423Response, this work has been done.

    Secondly, Humlum references Essex et al (2006). Yet Humlum does not set out in any way what it is in this paper he is referring to. He says it is "an interesting discussion of the whole concept of calculating an average global temperature" and that "a re-read of Essex et al. 2006 might be worthwhile." The reference by Humlum is thus nonsense.

    Thirdly, Humlum argues that OHC is a better measure of global temperature which all would agree is true.

    So, stripped of its nonsense, Humlum's quote is not supporting your suggestion that there is "some uncertainty around the long term rate of the warming," that is uncertainty beyond that declared within the work that created them.

  • CO2 lags temperature

    scaddenp at 12:45 PM on 15 January, 2015

    Well anything from climate4you is likely.misinformation. This is discussed here and here.

    You might like to put "humlum" into the search box to see other stuff.

  • Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist

    scaddenp at 09:02 AM on 12 January, 2015

    "As for false information being spread, surely it is just being put out there for discussion. Isn't it?"

    No. Plain and simple. The "misinformation" only seems reasonable to those who would like to believe it and without sufficient domain knowledge to spot it is wrong. Scientific discussion takes place in journals. Tom has given you an example of Drapela. Can you be seriously defending his position? Another example here. If you want an academic discussion on this outside of journals, then you would repeat this type of presentation to your peers at a conference. Happens all the time in genuine scientific debate. Got an example of a climate misinformer repeating their stuff to a room full of climate scientists?

  • 97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

    KR at 01:20 AM on 9 September, 2014

    Donny - That's one of the most misrepresented data sets on the climate blogosphere. See the Crux of a Core series here on SkS.

    Long story short: it's a local record of a particular location in Greenland, not a global proxy, often mis-graphed with incorrect proxy endpoints, and shown with a noteworthy lack of the most recent temperatures:

    GISP2 data with most recent instrumental temperatures


    Good data, deceptive presentations, ridiculous interpretations. 

  • Temp record is unreliable

    Dikran Marsupial at 00:52 AM on 8 February, 2013

    Kevin, climate4you is run by Ole Humlum, who has written a number of deeply flawed papers on climate science, so pointing out that the plot originates from climate4you rather than WUWT does not make it any more authoritative.  This doesn't mean that the plot is incorrect, but it is good cause to be skeptical.

  • CO2 is plant food? If only it were so simple

    Rob Painting at 06:58 AM on 13 February, 2012

    layzej - "Of the three positions, I'm inclined to trust......"

    Not a very scientific approach eh? How about reading those studies I linked to? Full copies of all are freely available online - at least they used to be, that's how I got hold of them.

    The crux of the issue is that the CO2 fertilization effect, i.e a net increase of global land-based vegetation biomass, doesn't seem to be panning out in the real world. So the climate model simulations could be drastically underestimating the amount of warming we're likely to get. Scarily so, because the CO2 fertilization effect is a biiig negative feedback in the simulations.

    That John Nielsen-Gammon suggests that net land biosphere CO2 uptake should be prima facie evidence of the CO2 fertilization effect underscores his lack of research on this topic. He's failed his own litmus test.

    I think you'll be surprised about where a lot of that CO2 we emit is ending up. You shouldn't really be, if you think deeply about the amount of new buildings we humans erect.
  • Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum

    KR at 03:10 AM on 5 October, 2011

    ...Regarding previous comment - But of course, you knew that, since we're commenting on the Crux of a Core thread in the first place.

    I have to be more careful about context when following recent comments - sigh.
  • Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum

    KR at 03:09 AM on 5 October, 2011

    citizenschallenge - That site, and Ole Humlum in general, have been discussed here. Search on "Humlum", which will take you to here, here, or here.

    Ole Humlum has repeatedly focused on the GISP2 core (a local record), leaving out or incorrectly matching the recent instrumental record, cherry-picking short time frames, and in general making a hash of the data to support his "it's not happening" points.

    Rob Honeycutt's Crux of a Core series addresses this topic quite thoroughly.
  • Hockey stick is broken

    Eric (skeptic) at 04:03 AM on 21 September, 2011

    #93, CBDunkerson, we appear to be talking about two different things. In my post 91 I demonstrated that the analogy that the "Yamal 12" (referring to 12 cores post 1988) are analogous to crack cocaine by pointing out the other data sets that were available with 30 or more cores during the same period.

    Divergence is a discrete phenomenon that causes some trees in some places to show slow growth due to non-temperature factors. But it is certainly not valid to claim that trees that don't show divergence (i.e. are not overtly impacted by those unknown factors) are sufficient for reconstructions "because we all know it has gotten warmer". The last part in quotes is ture, but the first part does not follow. It is equally possible that those faster growing trees are impacted positively by another unknown factor.

    The crux of the problemn with Briffa 2000 is not divergence but inadequate numbers of cores.
  • Hockey stick is broken

    KR at 01:25 AM on 21 September, 2011

    Jonathan - Not one of your references supports your assertions.

    The Ljungqvist data directly contradicts you, see the New temperature reconstruction thread. Current temperatures are higher than anything in the last millenium.

    From your second link, Oppo 2009, the abstract states - "Reconstructed SST was, however, within error of modern values from about ad 1000 to ad 1250, towards the end of the Medieval Warm Period. SSTs during the Little Ice Age (approximately ad 1550–1850) were variable, and approx 0.5 to 1 °C colder than modern values during the coldest intervals." (emphasis added)

    The Greenland GISP2 data is interesting, and very limited. See the entire discussion at Crux of a Core, multiple parts. Primarily, that is not a global record.

    Please - read the works you link to. Currently you appear to just be making stuff up.
  • Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming

    Rob Honeycutt at 04:22 AM on 21 June, 2011

    Camburn @ 103... We all know that climate has changed in the past. No one ever contradicts this. If climate had changed little in the past then there would be little chance that we could change it today. The central issue is how we are changing climate today.


    When I see this diagram of the CO2 record then I become very concerned about the stage we are setting for ourselves.

    I also think there is a fundamental misunderstanding that goes on with regards to extreme weather events. What we're looking at today is likely the result of adding just 4% more moisture to the climate system. It's looking pretty clear that even this small amount is resulting in changes in extreme weather events. Not yet outside the realm of what has likely been experienced in the past 10,000 years... but getting there.

    The question becomes, if this is what we get from 4%, what will we be seeing when we've added 40% more moisture to the climate system? It's my understanding that this is the problem we face.

    Is that extreme climate (extreme relative to today) something never on this planet? Probably not. But probably unseen for many many millions of years. Certainly unseen by any species existing today. Certainly unseen by human civilization.
  • Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming

    Norman at 09:51 AM on 20 June, 2011


    The Greenland temps was only a side argument for Paul D. My major question on this thread is to establish concrete links for what seems correlated weather data showing rising extremes.

    But I linked to Crux of the Core part 1 and looked at the Holocene temp graph. For 4000 years the temperature was warmer than it is today. And Greenland's temp is significant for the "melting away of its ice" concept. Greenland was 3 C warmer than today. I am reading that significant ice has been lost since 1979. If a 30 year period of warming can cause such a devestation to the Greenland ice sheet how could it withstand a much higher temp for much longer periods...there should be no Crux of the Core as the glacier should not have existed during those hot phases.

    So during that 4000 year warm period were the floods more devastating? More tornadoes, droughts, heat waves? How did man survive the weather extremes? Why didn't this 4000 year warm cycle melt the permafrost and release all the stored methane gas locked in methane hydrates?
  • Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?

    KR at 01:33 AM on 2 June, 2011

    J. Bob - I thought some of the data on the climate4you site looked familiar. It's run by Ole Humlum.

    See the two threads on Humlum's previous work here and here. His data is heavily cherry-picked to present a particular point of view, which is exceedingly poor science.

    As you yourself have noted, it's worthwhile to consider the presenter and the quality of their scientific endeavors. Sites like climate4you, jonova, co2science, WUWT, ClimateRealists, ClimateAudit, and the like are much less credible as a result - their past work (to put it somewhat politely) stinks.
  • Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall

    SRJ at 22:31 PM on 20 April, 2011

    I am not sure if this is mentioned in the comments for this or some or they other Crux of a core posts, but I see another problem in comparing ice cores with instrumental records. Ice cores have another sample rate than instrumental records.
    Instrumental records have a temporal resolution of 1 month or year while ice cores have measurements seperated in time in the magnitude of decades.
    For GISP2 the shortest interval between to measurements is 2.7 years and the largest is 79.67 years.
    This especially a problem when one looks at warming rates, as it is done in this blog post.

    I am interested if you guys here agree on my point?
  • Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum

    Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 1 April, 2011

    Tom Curtis... I don't disagree. Humlum has been very nice in my exchanges with him so I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

    You're right, though, I think it's silly to use GISP2 as a definitive proxy for the Holocene. Even as a local measure of temperature I think it's dicy at many points. I seem to remember Dr Alley saying that there are parts of the record that are reflective of other things like snow drifts, and I believe Grootes 1993 (pointed out in Crux of a Core 2) states "The small Holocene O18 fluctuations of 1-2 occur too frequently to allow an unambiguous correlation between the cores."

    In other words, as far as I understand it, GISP2 is a fantastic record to study events like the Young Dryas but trying to infer Holocene temperature is more of a stretch. And that's pretty much my objection to almost every use of GISP2 that I see out there in the blogosphere. People, Dr Humlum included, are using GISP2 in an inappropriate manner.
  • The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.

    Rob Honeycutt at 05:12 AM on 14 March, 2011

    Robert... I think you're one of the experts in this field who frequents SkS. Do you think it's fair to say that Bond events suggest that heat is frequently redistributed around the planet?

    I definitely got from the reading I did that this is a very complicated topic. In fact, global temperature during the Holocene, in general, seems to be a very complicated topic. I did two other posts (Crux of a Core 1 and 2) talking about the error of pointing to a single proxy as evidence of what global temperatures were. I wanted to use Bond events to start to paint a larger picture of the Holocene.

    What we don't see is various proxies going up and down in unison. We see somewhat chaotic signals where it's difficult to pinpoint why and how heat is being redistributed from one place to another. Correct?

    From the perspective on someone deep into the science of these events it's controversial. The exact why, how, where, are up for debate. From the perspective of the more general public it seems to me Bond events suggest that the Holocene is very stable compared to glacial periods, but still involves redistribution of heat around the planet.
  • Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall

    scaddenp at 12:28 PM on 2 March, 2011

    Charlie A, put your serious skeptical hat on and closely read that post yourself. Spot the switch from absolute to anomaly? Perhaps read the papers instead of the quotes.

    As for "the only substantive point was..". Ho, ho.

    The zero point of 1855 isnt a substantive point? The actual temperature measurements? Does the original article still make sense when you look at the correct construction. (eg in #14 )
  • Various estimates of Greenland ice loss

    Tom Curtis at 12:01 PM on 2 March, 2011

    Climatewatcher @15, that graph is currently being discussed on the Crux of a core thread.

    Essentially its problems for your use are that the most recent temperature from the ice core itself is actually 1855. The red spike at the end is supposed to show global temperature increases to the present, but they do not show global temperatures since 1855, and nor should global temperatures be compared with regional temperatures.

    Based on a recent analysis of Greenland temperature records, the decadal average of temperatures in Greenland has increased by approx 1.5 degrees C since the 1850's, so current tempertures on that graph should be around -30.5 degrees C, or about the peak of the MWP. 2010 temperatures are another degree warmer than that, or about equivalent to the peak of the Roman Warming. That means the current warming in Greenland is unparalleled in magnitude and abruptness in the last 6,000 years.

    What is more, the overall decline in Greenland temperatures evident in your graph has a well known cause, the decline in arctic summer insolation related to the Milankovitch cycles. Summer insolation is still declining. To what, then, do you attribute the sudden reversal of thousands of years of cooling?
  • Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall

    Charlie A at 11:35 AM on 2 March, 2011

    The author of the post being rebutted has a "rebuttal to the rebuttal" posted at

    If you have an open mind and would like to be informed, I suggest clicking on over and taking a look.
  • Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall

    Berényi Péter at 09:32 AM on 27 February, 2011

    Daniel Bailey, would you explain how Comments Policy was violated by this post? I suppose you thought it was, because you have deleted it.
  • Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?

    Daniel Bailey at 00:09 AM on 4 October, 2010

    Re: tobyjoyce (82)
    "Finally, I get to the point. The more I read your logic, the more I am convinced (and by other evidence also) that the climate science - denier debate is at its core political, and is really concerned with the political and economic impacts of global warming. Faux-scientific "debate" is just the first line of defence favoured by fairly powerful economic agents, as it was in the minor case of nicotine abuse. I believe we are now seeing a fallback to the second line (a grudging, fighting retreat) by denialism - that the problem is exaggerated, climate change may be beneficial etc. etc."
    Well-spoken, sir. You unerringly strike at the crux of the science/"skeptic" debate @ expose its heart to the light of day.

    Deny, Delay, Mitigate, Adapt...or Die. The longer we take to reach the Adapt stage with our way of life, the more likely the option becomes closed to us & we then pass to the final stage.

    In the end, it may be that our descendants will have little say regarding us and these times as there may well be none left to judge us.

    The Yooper

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us