At 00:58:53 UTC on Sunday, 26 December 2004, an undersea megathrust earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean which caused a tsunami which killed 250,000 people.
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. Projected precipitation and temperature changes imply possible changes in floods, although overall there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods. Confidence is low due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex, although there are exceptions to this statement.
To be sure, there are some paragraphs in which they have medium or high confidence of this or that, for instance more people are killed by natural disasters when they occur in poor countries. Well, smack my ass and call me a monkey, good thing the UN spent millions on a showy conference in Africa to tell us that. It was in Africa of course, because that's where they want the rich countries making all the CO2 to send trillions of dollars. That is the purpose of the UN (if most of the members were honest enough to tell you).
Opportunities exist to create synergies in international finance for disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change, but these have not yet been fully realized (high confidence)
You can see the report for yourself here: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
Too bad. Not very useful for making your claim.
Wikipedia claims "In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day" during the Holocene climatic optimum (my emphasis), but admit that the optimum did not occur at the same time in the northern and southern hemispheres.
PS. Good catch regarding the speleotherm data, but the graph based on it sure looks a lot like the one you linked to on Wikipedia, and both indicate a general downward trend (with the Medieval Warm Period as a slight deviation), and in fact, looking Wikipedia's 5 million year chart, there is clearly a long term downward trend during this current ice age, as well.
Whether the conclusions of those are true or false is not something that hiring committees will delve into too much
Rightly so. False conclusions are good for science, as long as they're honest. The pursuit for something new will eventually lead to the correct answer.
It's good that the protagonist of the article (Schooler) recognizes and admits the problem.
The people above who are focussing on pharma are missing the point, which is also the failure of the article. The author carefully avoids widening the perview which might then include other sciences which are hot topics these days.
The article is about selective reporting of results, publication bias, and "collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs".
Doesn't that fit the blind acceptance of the CO2 hypothesis despite evidence to the contract, exactly?
it's now warmer than at any time in the past 12,000 years
and in fact, supports what I said. Did you mean to include a different link, or am I missing something?
Rather than trusting a political organization or whoever wrote that in Wikipedia, I prefer to look at the data myself. A zip file containing speleotherm data has thoughtfully been provided here:
When I look at his graph, it sure looks like it's getting colder to me.
In addition, the following paper makes it clear that the warming since 1800 is a "rebound" from the little ice age with a multi-decadal oscillation superposed, and that we have now entered a downward swing in said oscillation, yet the underlying linear "rebound" continues.
And this paper has an explanation for the power spectra of the temperature oscillations which fit the data better than CO2 based models:
I have no argument about what you point out. Mainly, because it doesn't seem relevant in light of the facts. Namely that our current temperature is almost back up to what it was 1000 years ago, but not yet back to what it was 5000 years ago. Apparently we are still below the average temperature for our current interglacial period. There are all kinds of implications here.
- The Earth has been cooling since about the time of Christ. Shouldn't the people who claim CO2 is the boogey man explain that trend first?
- We're starting to warm back up to conditions in which civilization best flourished: The Holocene Thermal Maximum allowed the beginning of civilization and agriculture, the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, and the Mediaeval Warm Period were times of plenty and advancement. Considering how well humanity did in warmer times than this, a finer grained assessment of the risk vs. rewards should be made, as opposed to a Hollywood scare treatment for the ignorant masses. That reeks of an ulterior motive.
- And given the most of the Holocene has been warmer, any life forms which take longer than 10,000 years to evolve obviously have no problem with warmer temperatures than now, so what's with the crap about polar bears becoming extinct?