Claim: Climate change is 10x faster than ever before

From Stanford University  comes this breathless missive that sounds just like every one we’ve heard before. No mention of “the pause”, but we do have a “baked into the system” goodness apparently.

climate_speed

Climate change occurring 10 times faster than at any time in past 65 million years

The planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world, and many species will need to make behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations to survive. 

Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already “baked into the system,” how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.

The findings come from a review of climate research by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution. The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.

Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review of scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, and investigated how recent observations and projections for the next century compare to past events in Earth’s history.

For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age. This is a change comparable to the high-end of the projections for warming over the 20th and 21st centuries.

The geologic record shows that, 20,000 years ago, as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, plants and animals recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.

“We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years,” said Diffenbaugh. “But the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That’s orders of magnitude faster, and we’re already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change.”

Some of the strongest evidence for how the global climate system responds to high levels of carbon dioxide comes from paleoclimate studies. Fifty-five million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was elevated to a level comparable to today. The Arctic Ocean did not have ice in the summer, and nearby land was warm enough to support alligators and palm trees.

“There are two key differences for ecosystems in the coming decades compared with the geologic past,” Diffenbaugh said. “One is the rapid pace of modern climate change. The other is that today there are multiple human stressors that were not present 55 million years ago, such as urbanization and air and water pollution.”

Record-setting heat

Diffenbaugh and Field also reviewed results from two-dozen climate models to describe possible climate outcomes from present day to the end of the century. In general, extreme weather events, such as heat waves and heavy rainfall, are expected to become more severe and more frequent.

For example, the researchers note that, with continued emissions of greenhouse gases at the high end of the scenarios, annual temperatures over North America, Europe and East Asia will increase 2-4 degrees C by 2046-2065. With that amount of warming, the hottest summer of the last 20 years is expected to occur every other year, or even more frequently.

By the end of the century, should the current emissions of greenhouse gases remain unchecked, temperatures over the northern hemisphere will tip 5-6 degrees C warmer than today’s averages. In this case, the hottest summer of the last 20 years becomes the new annual norm.

“It’s not easy to intuit the exact impact from annual temperatures warming by 6 C,” Diffenbaugh said. “But this would present a novel climate for most land areas. Given the impacts those kinds of seasons currently have on terrestrial forests, agriculture and human health, we’ll likely see substantial stress from severely hot conditions.”

The scientists also projected the velocity of climate change, defined as the distance per year that species of plants and animals would need to migrate to live in annual temperatures similar to current conditions. Around the world, including much of the United States, species face needing to move toward the poles or higher in the mountains by at least one kilometer per year. Many parts of the world face much larger changes.

The human element

Some climate changes will be unavoidable, because humans have already emitted greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the atmosphere and oceans have already been heated.

“There is already some inertia in place,” Diffenbaugh said. “If every new power plant or factory in the world produced zero emissions, we’d still see impact from the existing infrastructure, and from gases already released.”

The more dramatic changes that could occur by the end of the century, however, are not written in stone. There are many human variables at play that could slow the pace and magnitude of change – or accelerate it.

Consider the 2.5 billion people who lack access to modern energy resources. This energy poverty means they lack fundamental benefits for illumination, cooking and transportation, and they’re more susceptible to extreme weather disasters. Increased energy access will improve their quality of life – and in some cases their chances of survival – but will increase global energy consumption and possibly hasten warming.

Diffenbaugh said that the range of climate projections offered in the report can inform decision-makers about the risks that different levels of climate change pose for ecosystems.

“There’s no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe,” Diffenbaugh said. “However, there are opportunities to decrease those risks, while also ensuring access to the benefits of energy consumption.”

###
About these ads

169 thoughts on “Claim: Climate change is 10x faster than ever before

  1. How the mighty are fallen – even Stanford has succumbed to climatitis. What purulent drivel.
    Of course der Fuehrer and the rest of the alarmies will eat this up.

  2. “For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age.”

    Whaaaaat!? The last ice age ended less that 15,000 years ago as far as I know.

  3. When is the next rocket taking off to another planet. Crazy clams and C02 has been higher then it is now in past 1,000 years. Climate models after climate models has failed over and over again.
    Seem like the claims are coming 10x faster that is all. Has any model or scientist been right?

  4. Oops Clams of C02 has not been as high as it is now in 65 million years. From charts I have seen C02 has been over 400 ppm in last 400 years.

  5. “But the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That’s orders of magnitude faster, and we’re already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change.”

    Evidence?

    As per usual it is not forthcoming – I see or, as the case is – we don’t see.

    Stanford, journeys into the realms of Hollywood fiction, still it’s just what the POTUS wants to hear, and I guess, saying the right thing is better than proving it – via the scientific method and now that Mr. Obama’s presidency has hit reverse gear.

  6. Can you please post up Dr. Easterbrook’s presentation that shows 7 different one-hundred year periods of significantly quicker warming in the past 125,000 years?

  7. The error bars more than swallow up the alleged data line.
    This is recycled, derivative garbage presented as science.

  8. “Some of the strongest evidence for how the global climate system responds to high levels of carbon dioxide comes from paleoclimate studies. Fifty-five million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was elevated to a level comparable to today. The Arctic Ocean did not have ice in the summer, and nearby land was warm enough to support alligators and palm trees.”

    —–

    Uh, kind of blows the “A” out of AGW, huh?

    (But, this is Staaaanford, what do we expect?)

  9. It is possibly the fastest recorded climate change in the history of the universe. That’s because recording didn’t start until writing was invented. Stanford is #1 in the world for weasel words.

  10. They are really piling on the ridiculous.

    I think it is rush to cash in on the grants before the whole scam dries up.

  11. I don’t understand.

    And before anyone decides to flame me again, let me just hasten to add that it is not because I haven’t done any research, but because I’ve been doing too much research for the last few weeks on this subject. There is no consensus! Everybody has a different opinion, and nobody seems to agree on anything.

    Why are there so many wildly differing claims about the climate from scientists of all fields? Some say human-caused greenhouse gases are the main (only) culprit and others say it’s because of the Earth’s natural activities, or cloud cover, or volcanism, or that it’s the Lunar/Jupiter/Saturn connection, or that it’s because of solar magnetism. There is the 9 year cycle, the 11 year cycle, the 22 year cycle, the 60 year cycle, the 200 year cycle, and the 1000 year cycle (did I miss any other cycle?) and that’s just for the sun. The Earth also has her own cycles, not to mention all the other planets have their own cycles.

    So, if we have so many wildly and diametrically opposing viewpoints from scientists who are supposed to be experts in their fields, what/who are we to believe is speaking the truth?

  12. 10 times faster than before? Why not 100 gazillion times faster than before – it’d make about as much sense but afford bigger headlines.

  13. “If the trend continues at its current rapid pace…”

    What if if doesn’t?
    Oh, and what trend?

    And they examined climate models. Uh huh.

  14. So, “10 times quicker” than……. .01? .03? .3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333?

    All “sound and fury, signifying — NOTHING.” [MacBeth, toward the end I can't remember where exactly]

  15. environmental earth system science is designed to hype the models over reality so that the aspirations of the behavioral sciences can change the future.

    Paul Ehrlich and friends do intend to get their “near total revision of human behavior” that they say commenced more than 5 years ago. No deviation allowed. This time they mean it.

  16. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    So, if we have so many wildly and diametrically opposing viewpoints from scientists who are supposed to be experts in their fields, what/who are we to believe is speaking the truth?
    >>>>>

    You are seeking the TRUTH, and you get to BELIEVE what you choose.

    At least that is the way it is supposed to work….

  17. I wonder if they’re counting the climate change the planet experienced during the medieval warming period?

  18. For every solution there must be a problem … hence the need for this kind of junk science.

  19. “If the trend continues…” Blah blah blah. Got to love those “ifs”.

    “There’s no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe,” Diffenbaugh said.

    Noah Diffenbaugh clearly hasn’t been paying attention… or is in denial. Or is this just selective amnesia? I thought everyone had admitted the no warming for 17 years or more, including (reluctantly) the IPCC and the usual culprits. WAKE UP, NOAH.

  20. geran, Belief does not necessarily equate Truth. I would like to substantiate my beliefs with some truths. Otherwise, what’s the point in trying to understand anything?

  21. “Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.”

    The obvious diagnosis, Mass Hysteria Hyperventilation Syndrome of The Pinheads…someone quick put a bag over their widdle heads, they need more CO2, now!

  22. “I can’t believe it’s not Doom!”

    Try new Doomette today! Now with 10X more Doom extender!

  23. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    I don’t understand.

    So, if we have so many wildly and diametrically opposing viewpoints from scientists who are supposed to be experts in their fields, what/who are we to believe is speaking the truth?
    **********************************************************************************************
    Nobody who gets their research money directly or indirectly from the government. Politics and Money- corrupts most people. Look around you

  24. I’ve been sticking my head out the window down here in Texas to check the weather for 63 years. It seems the same as it’s always been. But that’s just me.

  25. Steve B,

    R&D is very expensive. If scientists don’t get it from the govt (any govt, be it domestic or foreign), then they may get it from some corporation or some special interest entity. Nobody can work and live on nothing. Are you implying that corporate funding is sacrosanct?

  26. Wow, a nearly linear trend line (albeit with some oscillation about the mean) since the end of the little ice age with no evidence of any appreciable change in slope in 160+ years and in fact with a fairly lengthy flat period here at the last 15 or so years is evidence that we are all going to die (tm climastrology inc). These people have got to quit it. Eventually even the governments are going to realize that this dead horse can’t carry them any closer to one-world socialism and quit funding them to prevent the torches, pitchforks, vats of oil, and sacks of feathers from being used in earnest.

  27. Stanford has fallen into the ranks of the idiocy.. No longer a school of learning but a school of political bull S**t. I wonder if their funding was about to be cut?

  28. Ok, Paul Ehrlich is at Stanford and has obviously been rubbing shoulders with these people.

  29. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:31 pm
    geran, Belief does not necessarily equate Truth. I would like to substantiate my beliefs with some truths. Otherwise, what’s the point in trying to understand anything?
    >>>>>

    You must start with the basic science. And, yes, you must consider the “experts”, and their motives. Just as “belief” does not equate to “truth”, “funding” does not equate to “truth” either.

    Keep studying this site.

  30. Wait, hasn’t the “climate change” for the last 17 or so years been around zero. Thus 10 x Zero = Zero !!! So, I guess the math hols up. ;-))

  31. So this study shows that IF the computer models were right, then the warming would be faster then the PROXIES indicate past warming MIGHT have been. Glad we’re sure of all this then.

  32. Though if this infection isn’t excised soon, even the engineering school will get co-opted.

  33. Used to be footy cards and model vintage cars found in a box of Kornies – now its Climate Science Doctorates.

    Kornies was an Australasian thing.

  34. “There is already some inertia in place,” Diffenbaugh said. “If every new power plant or factory in the world produced zero emissions, we’d still see impact from the existing infrastructure, and from gases already released.”

    I’m glad it’s inertia and not momentum, otherwise we’d be really screwed…

  35. Seriously, how long are we going to have to endure this kind of foolishness invading our respected scientific journals?

  36. The so called researcher for this paper is Noah Diffenbaugh. Not since the Noah of biblical times said t”he world will flood in 40 days of rain” has there been such a panic of a change in the weather. The thing is the Noah of biblical times claims were more likely right, and based less on blind faith than the claims of Noah Diffenbaugh.

  37. So we have to jettison 7/8ths of the world population? I wonder who gets to live? /sarc

    Thanks to davidmhoffer for this link!

    priceless…..

  38. The Key to understanding this PR is BS of the highest order is of course:

    1) Although some of the changes the planet will experience in the next few decades are already “baked into the system,” how different the climate looks at the end of the 21st century will depend largely on how humans respond.

    2) The findings come from a review of climate research by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution. The work is part of a special report on climate change in the current issue of Science.
    =

    So these two clowns do not bring any new results but they sum up the most alarmist papers conclusions and despite that alarmism, WE can still reverse the problem thanks to paying through the nose and living as cavemen. Stanford University? $50,000 a year to support that? Thanks, but my kid will go elsewhere!

  39. Hey, I wouldn’t attack all of Stanford. They still have a fairly good men’s volleyball team.

  40. ROTFLMAO!

    Did any of these idiots ever read any geology?
    “Abrupt Climate Change – Inevitable Surprises”, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002, ISBN: 0-309-51284-0, 244 pages, Richard B. Alley, chair : http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347

    Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. for well over a decade and in 1999 was invited to testify about climate change by Vice President Al Gore. In 2002, the NAS (alley chair) published a book ” Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises” ( 2002 )

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1

    . From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:

    Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most
    of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age.

    Another paper:

    A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception
    … A recent ice core from Greenland demonstrates climate cooling from 122,000 years ago3 driven by orbitally controlled insolation, with glacial inception at 118,000 years ago4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here we present an annually resolved, layer-counted record of varve thickness, quartz grain size and pollen assemblages from a maar lake in the Eifel (Germany), which documents a late Eemian aridity pulse lasting 468 years with dust storms, aridity, bushfire and a decline of thermophilous trees at the time of glacial inception. We interpret the decrease in both precipitation and temperature as an indication of a close link of this extreme climate event to a sudden southward shift of the position of the North Atlantic drift, the ocean current that brings warm surface waters to the northern European region. The late Eemian aridity pulse occurred at a 65° N July insolation of 416 W m-2, close to today’s value of 428 W m-2 (ref. 9), and may therefore be relevant for the interpretation of present-day climate variability.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7052/abs/nature03905.html

    MORE:

    “….The onset of the LEAP [late Eemian aridity pulse] occurred within less than two decades….

    http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf

  41. “Diffenbaugh and Field also reviewed results from two-dozen climate models to describe possible climate outcomes from present day to the end of the century. In general, extreme weather events, such as heat waves and heavy rainfall, are expected to become more severe and more frequent.”
    ———–
    This paragraph says nothing, other than the fact that things are “expected” from modeled results.
    They never verified the models, just “reviewed” them.
    They are lucky that real engineers, pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, get them back and forth, because they don’t know s#*t.

  42. TomRude – If you child is into Engineering they are still a good choice, but Georgia Tech is really good too and has no where near the BS that Stanford and MIT have.

  43. The climate warmed somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster coming out the Younger Dryas, 12K years ago, than the last 50 years.

    I assume that is ignored as not part of the ‘geologic past’. Weasel wording piled on weasel wording.

  44. Warren says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    Seriously, how long are we going to have to endure this kind of foolishness invading our respected scientific journals?
    _______________

    Warren, isn’t Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Hasn’t there already been a scientific process in place to check on the validity of the claims? If this article is completely based on poor scientific theories that don’t stand up to the rigors of scientific process, how is it that Nature is publishing it? If we can’t believe in the modern scientific process, aren’t we standing on seriously shaky ground?

    And no, I am not challenging your statement, I am simply trying to understand why there is such a huge discrepancy between scholars whose life work is to understand the workings of the universe and who are using the exact same scientific processes to explain the world around them.

  45. of course my previous was supposed to say If your child…. sometimes I really need to reread these posts before I send them.

  46. “Some of the strongest evidence for how the global climate system responds to high levels of carbon dioxide comes from paleoclimate studies. Fifty-five million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was elevated to a level comparable to today. The Arctic Ocean did not have ice in the summer, and nearby land was warm enough to support alligators and palm trees.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wait a minute. Where exactly were the continents 55 million years ago and why was the Arctic Ocean so warm: http://www.diercke.com/kartenansicht.xtp?artId=978-3-14-100790-9&seite=173&id=17676&kartennr=4

    http://phys.org/news166715232.html

    Not that any of this sheds light on things, it just shows how little we know and we can’t transpose the past to now since the configuration of the earth was not the same as it is now. People working with blinders on.

  47. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    Warren, isn’t Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Hasn’t there already been a scientific process in place to check on the validity of the claims? If this article is completely based on poor scientific theories that don’t stand up to the rigors of scientific process, how is it that Nature is publishing it? If we can’t believe in the modern scientific process, aren’t we standing on seriously shaky ground?

    If you haven’t already, spend some time reading the climategate emails. That should give you an idea of how these ‘scientists’ feel about peer review and the scientific process.

  48. taobabe,
    If you read back through this site, some of the problems in the peer review process have been hit pretty hard. Climate Audit has also hit that theme pretty hard. Nature has slipped mightily since they began venturing into the climate science realm. There have been a number of articles that were statistical nightmares, where tests that have well-documented underlying assumptions of normalcy were applied to population sets that exhibited anything but. The problem has been the analysis methodology as outlined in the very papers tends to not hold up to scrutiny. It has made several people comment on the sloppiness of the reviewers if they did not note these errors. Steve McIntyre has done a great deal of work on this from the standpoint of a professional statistician (who has had to make his living by using statistical methods to make prediction that his employers could then act on with the confidence that he was correct.) The biggest problem with these errors is it tends to muddy the waters. They could very well have stumbled on to an exact hypothesis, but because their write ups and analysis are so slapdash they are hard to credit. They also never acknowledge a mistake when pointed out. That would probably have softened some of the scorn, but not the analysis of the watchers.

    Another problem noted in climate science is a bad habit of adjusting observation data, sometimes without proper documentation, but many times with documentation that leaves one scratching ones head over the logic. My undergraduate lab days said data was inviolate! It is what was measured. You may do calculations based upon it but you can not change a value because it doesn’t fit your theory. For instance, in the US, the 1930’s were much hotter in the 1980’s then they are now. Every release of the dataset since the 1980’s has cooled the 1930’s even more. Soon there will be no explanation for the dust bowl or the miserable heat depicted in the dust bowl photographs, they will have simply adjusted that inconvenient decade out of the record books.

  49. What has happened to Stanford? I remember when it was the gold standard for engineering, maths and science. Once upon a time, crud like this would have been a fail for a first year aka freshman student.

  50. Usually I can find something redeeming in a study. Sometimes the study itself is good, and it is just the absurd, grand-seeking tie-in to global warming that makes the study look like a heavyweight boxer wearing a pink tutu. However my initial impression of this study is that it is a pink tutu wearing a pink tutu.

  51. davidmhoffer says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    ’nuff said.
    David I totally agree thanks for the link to those very powerful graphs/facts right from the horses mouth.
    Warmist keep on publishing this crap, you are your own own enemy and preaching to a shrinking disinterested pubic!

  52. “broad review of scientific literature ” “This is a change comparable to the high-end of the projections for warming over the 20th and 21st centuries.”

    That’s really all you need to know about this, umm, work. these guys did no new work, examined nothing new. Sad really.

    As I recall from my prior ‘review of scientific literature’, there have been several episodes of rapidly increasing temperatures that exceed the current ‘unprecedented’ rise in just the last millennium.

    What is it they say about negating a ‘specious assertion’? That all you need do is make another specious assertion in the opposite.

  53. Faster than Xmillion years?

    The real nightmare is that we have a voting population that believes this s#!#.

  54. Pure propaganda masquerading as science, spewing from a once revered and great institution of learning.
    Can it get any sadder?

  55. Makes sense to me. A plateau means that the slope is around zero. Ten times faster means that it will move up to zero. So Watt’s the problem you haters?

  56. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    I strongly recommend reading the book by Henry Bauer: Dogmatism in Science and Medicine. This problem in contemporary science is not confined to AGW.

  57. Chicken Little Science Fails
    Diffenbaugh and Field failed to account for the latest evidence on CO2 diffusion.
    Murry Salby developed the diffusion equations for CO2 in ice cores and found that prehistoric CO2 concentrations were way underestimated by about 10x.
    See Murry Salby’s April 18, 2013 Hamburg lecture
    Relax. CO2 is good for agriculture and global biomass. No reason to panic now.

  58. “We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years,”

    Ecosystems can change as fast as a seed can sprout…you dolt

  59. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    “I don’t understand….So, if we have so many wildly and diametrically opposing viewpoints from scientists who are supposed to be experts in their fields, what/who are we to believe is speaking the truth?”
    Acclaimed “experts” and “consensus” have nothing to do with it.
    Fortunately, you only have to go with those scientists who heel to the method and principles of real science: that is, not with the “mainstream” Climate Scientists who merely preach the “tenets” [PNAS] of CO2CAGW almost exactly as any average street huckster or esteemed Evangelist of the next Apocalypse does; while they specifically avoid the principles and practices involved in real science.
    Unfortunately for “mainstream” Climate Scientists, but also quite telling of their effective ignorance of real science, they have agreed to call us “skeptics”, when it turns out that skepticism is at the heart of the practice of real science.
    For example, the Warmist “Believers” – which follows logically from them also calling us “deniers” – appeal to “consensus” instead of successful predictions because they essentially don’t have any successes; and it is significant that this fact doesn’t really bother them, when they should be looking skeptically at their science and hypotheses to see where they went wrong instead of continuously making up excuses and deriding anyone who disagrees with them.
    They appeal to “peer review” by a few select “pal” reviewers at certain Publications such as, yes, Science and Nature, as though this review insures the “given truth” of that which they review, when this idea is diametrically opposed to the concept of skeptical peer review used in real science, such that everyone and their mother should have access to the “materials and methods” used in producing an important study’s conclusion, since these materials and methods are the “science” involved.
    The Believers don’t believe in letting us or anyone else have their materials and methods – and the above Publications have assisted them in violation of their own standards for publication – because we’ll “only try to find something wrong with” the study [Phil Jones], but which is what we are supposed to do in order to even check out simple things like errors in math! And it’s an exposure which will end up getting an author’s scientific ideas provisionally accepted, if it passes all such skeptical tests.
    Right at the start, the “mainstream” Climate Scientists are not skeptical of their own ideas, methods, and data, to begin with, which is again an anti-science practice or at least very unwise.
    Imo, it is possible to best explain what “mainstream” Climate Science does by viewing it as a massive Propaganda Operation.
    Try reading this for a perspective as to how we got into this intended ‘state of confusion’, where all science is molded into political science by would-be thought controllists, associated scammers, and a legion of “save the worlders”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/

  60. “There’s no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe,” Diffenbaugh said. Really? Why is this summer so much colder than last summer, which was colder than the summer before, which was colder than the summer before?

  61. taobabe says: August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    It is quite simple to discern the truth from fantasy, taobabe … if the “facts” or “evidence” is created through computer modelling then it is not the truth (97% probability).

  62. From Wikipedia,

    Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40 – 50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration, and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, requiring about a 7 °C (12.6 °F) warming in just a few years.[6][7][27][28] Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).[29]

  63. The authors are both involved with the IPCC. To my mind, that diminishes their credibility. Which is not to say what they write here isn’t poppycock. This is pure balderdash. And it’s nothing more than a review of ‘scientific’ literature. Was John Cook involved in this?

  64. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

    ============================================================================
    Translation: “Stanford climate scientists warn that reality is 10 times different than any model model predicted. It’s worse than we thought!”

  65. “There’s no question that a climate in which every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years poses real risks for ecosystems across the globe,” Diffenbaugh said. “However, there are opportunities to decrease those risks, while also ensuring access to the benefits of energy consumption.”
    —————
    Is saying, “There’s no question…”, the same as saying the science is settled, but with an out ?

    Then we get.. “every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years”, as if our grandchildren might prefer the glacier view.

    Then it just devolves into …….(trying to be nice) grant speak.
    I tried.

  66. No no, Eve, you have it wrong. It’s not the thermometer readings, or “measurements” that count, they’re showing cooling so they must be wrong. It’s the models and the fervent belief that counts. It was all “projected” 20 years ago, so it must be true. Everyone knows that projections made 20 years ago beat observation every day of the week.

    Anyway, 40 days and 40 nights of warming are in store for us.

    I just keep hearing Bill Cosby’s voice…. “NOAH”……. “what?”…… “I WANT YOU TO BUILD AN ARK”…. “what’s a cubit?”

  67. Hang on. Surely according to CAGW rules they can’t comment on an issue like this unless they are “Climate Scientists”!

    They are clearly unqualified! ….. um … hang on … what IS a climate scientist anyway…? …. Oh that’s right, you just need any qualifcation, but must speak our strongly in favour of CAGW doctrine.

    The findings come from a review of climate research by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution.

  68. Diffenbaugh and Field also reviewed results from two-dozen climate models to describe possible climate outcomes from present day to the end of the century.

    They lost me about here …

  69. These so-called “News Stories” and the so-called “scientific papers” on which they are based make me very frustrated, angry and without any confidence that the horrid bad science that is the basis of this entire global warming scare will ever be corrected or discarded. The “News story” accepts the findings of the paper without reservation and gleefully reports “the sky is falling”. The authors of the paper accept as bedrock the radiative forcing forumla that elevates carbon dioxide from a trace gas to catastrphic greenhouse gas and accept the sky rockets atmospheric warming predicted by the models that assume the radiative forcing forumla as a proven, valid basic starting point for their examination of how various parts of our ecosystems will respond to this warming. As they report the sky is falling they become the scientific “Paul Reveres” of the 21st century. They are scientific stars. The money flows; the fame builds. Al Gore and his political followers gain new power and the money flows. The environmentalist organizations take on the challenge of ending our civilization’s fossil fuel addiction to save us from climate armageddon and the money flows. Scientists devise more studies to further the global warming predictions and the money flows. Help.
    We

  70. I’m getting to the point where I really want to see the course lists for the degrees conferred on the “Earth Science” people. Degrees, in and of themselves, don’t mean much anymore.

  71. Seems to me that Stanford and a few of these other academic hallowed halls of learning should conduct an in-depth study on the correlation between intelligence and stupidity.

  72. Anyone here think it’s a coincidence that as temps have been flat and now show signs of actually dropping that the bar is being raised even further in the AGW propaganda?

  73. Perhaps the most glib and ignorant missive from Stanford I have ever seen. They used to have higher standards, but then again so did Princeton, Nature, Science, Scientific American…

  74. Streetcred, JPeden, dave, Owen in GA

    Wow, thanks for all the enlightening reads. I didn’t know the peer review process had degenerated so badly. It is usually the case that it’s quite difficult to get published in journals like Nature precisely because they have a stringent peer review process in place. I guess it’s time to do some general house cleaning before the dust completely breaks the system down and we no longer have a working scientific process.

    Imagine that…scientists fiddling with historical data points to get a desired result. Isn’t that a crime against humanity? Don’t they have some type of scientific police who can prosecute and at the very least, charge them with some monetary penalty for falsifying data and historic records?

    BTW: Where can I go to get the summer temperatures of the last 20 years that Stanford scientists are talking about? I’d like to see for myself if there really is no question that “…every summer is hotter than the hottest of the last 20 years”.

  75. page488 says:

    August 1, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    I’m getting to the point where I really want to see the course lists for the degrees conferred on the “Earth Science” people. Degrees, in and of themselves, don’t mean much anymore.
    ————-
    So why bother if they don’t mean anything anyway ?
    The course lists, of course, I mean.
    Using knowledge is different than knowing it ?

  76. Sigh. It’s just appalling how this kind of drivel is promulglated/propagated! Stanford! Yeah, just another sewer of thought.

  77. Actually, I forgot, I have a nephew who got a Masters degree in “environmental engineering” a few years ago. Talking with him, as far as I can tell, it was nothing more than a year of intense AGW indoctrination. He’s now a radical as to AGW.

  78. The headline is a masterwork of understatement. From the discussion: “… That’s orders of magnitude faster, and we’re already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change.” So, it’s actually FAR worse – 100x, 1000x, maybe even 10,000x worse. As a Stanford grad, I am embarrassed. Are these people idiots, or communists, or what?

    I’ve had the heating system in my house crank up at least twice, maybe three times this SUMMER. It is consistently cool to cold, and raining buckets every time one turns around. The mosquitoes are thriving to an extent I have never seen (bad enough, I suppose, to seriously challenge some other life forms with that “rate of change”.

  79. This is worth a look, set from 5,000 to 15,000 years ago. They must have missed this superb ABC documentary, “The First Footprints”, episode 3 called. “The Great Flood”, where seas rose over 100 metres in just a short period, forcing the original Australians to move rapidly away from the encroaching coastline, in just a few generations.

    You will need to watch the program soon as the ABC removes the link on i-view after about 3 weeks.
    29 July

    http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=12680

    http://www.abc.net.au

  80. taobabe;

    http://ethics.tamu.edu/Portals/3/Case%20Studies/Shuttle.pdf

    The answer to your questions is complex. I suggest you read the above very carefully and understand how some very bad decision making happened in the face of “opinions” about science. One of the most frequent refrains you will hear on this blog is that engineers are shocked at the sloppy science which seems to be far more about a desired political outcome than it is about actual science. You will see engineers repeatedly saying in this forum that they would be fired for the quality of work which is regularly passed off as science. There’s a good reason for that. When engineers get the science wrong, people die. When politicians press scientists for the answers they want instead of the answers that are correct, people die. But if happens every day anyway, and so it has been for hundreds and hundreds of years. That’s the way power, politics and science interface. It matters not if your Galileo, asked to choose between death or recanting your belief that the earth orbits the sun, or if you are one of the 100 German scientists who, under pressure from the Nazi government in Germany, wrote a book “proving” that Einstein was wrong, though the vast majority of them very likely knew he was right. Power, politics and science should not be mixed, but they are inextricably intertwined, often with bad results.

  81. “If the trend continues at its current rapid pace, it will place significant stress on terrestrial ecosystems around the world.”

    If the trend continues at its “current” rapid pace of zero warming, the only ones under stress will be the authors of this paper and all the other climate doomsayers who make their living by scaring the public.

  82. taobabae;
    BTW: Where can I go to get the summer temperatures of the last 20 years that Stanford scientists are talking about?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You could write them or Nature directly, good luck with that. Most data is available online though, two great resources are Wood For Trees and KNMI Climate Explorer:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1800/to:2012

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere

    Two points:

    1. You’ll have to learn both the interface and a lot about data manipulation to load and graph the data you are looking for.
    2. The claim is one of those “1/2 right” claims. If you consider that the earth has been warming more or less at the same rate for the last 400 years, then if the temps stay exactly as they are right now, ie no more warming, zero, nada, the statement could still be correct. In fact, we could have slight cooling for the next 20 years and the statement could still be correct. I\m not saying that it is likely, just that it is possible. If I walk up a hill, taking my altitude at every step, I could be right at the top and claim that my next 10 steps will be among the 20 highest in my record. Perfectly true, but my next ten steps are still downhill.

  83. This posting has the wrong title. It should be:
    BullS#$% is 10x more than ever before.
    While the trend is not totally new I have noticed that the Government has now corrupted virtually every Government agency and most private organizations with either $$$, regulation, or arm twisting.
    Here is a partial list :
    Science like this posting
    Climate (non) Science
    Energy
    Alternative energy promises, hype, non existent car batteries, and Solyndras
    Ethanol mandates
    Quality of public education
    EPA (massive regulations impacting industry, and productivity)
    State Dept- make up phony video stories to cover up incompetence
    CO2 is a pollutant
    Gun Running- fast and furious
    IRS scandal- targeting political enemies
    Universities: cost and bias teaching
    Food stamp increase
    Free phones
    Border patrol
    High unemployment,
    MSM in the tank
    Healthcare
    Huge debt and deficit spending
    Cities going bankrupt

    I have probably missed a lot!
    Could we be beyond the tipping point?

  84. It’s bizarre to find how many people (that should know better) are so obstinately committed to a hypothesis of such brutal scope and complexity. I mean, even if it were to have some merit, wouldn’t a modicum of caution and humbleness be called for? I am more tentative (and expect so of my advisees) on infinitely more trivial matters.

  85. Thanks davidmhoffer. I am reading the Shuttle pdf now. I will take a look at those links you sent me as soon as I am done with the pdf. Much appreciate the info.

  86. Excellent agit-prop!
    Using the argument of authority (it’s from Stanford, can you think of being critical?) and avoiding any reference to any verifiable data, this is clearly not a scientific contribution. The media can use it “as is”, they love this.

    The authors of the “report” are not specilazed in paleoclimate; one studies weather changes and the other grassland evolution. But never mind, they have the imprimatur.

    Are they useful idiots or do they belong to the core party?

  87. Chris Field, a professor of biology and of environmental Earth system science and the director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution.

    Hmmm … Chris Field, eh? Would this be the same “Dr. Chris Field of the United States” who is the Co-Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group II, the Technical Support Unit of which just happens to be housed at “housed at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, USA.”? (Source)

    Whether it is or it isn’t (but I’m 97% certain that it is), I believe that Richard Tol called this a few days ago via Twitter:

    IPCC WG2 AR5 deadline is this week: Time to get your scare stories in. Science will go major stupid on Thursday.— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) July 30, 2013

  88. How can one possibly know the rates over the past 65 million years? How far apart are the data points? I see echos of the Marcott nonsense, comparing data measured every day with data points 300 years (minimum) apart.

  89. It is all very well for these idiots to complain that 2.5B people suffer energy poverty when it is their policies that caused that problem.

  90. Just come across this item, and so have not been right through everything folks have commented, so this could have already been remarked on. Interesting phrase, this …
    “……. Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review of scientific literature on aspects of climate change that can affect ecosystems, ……”
    What do we take from “targeted but broad” in this context I wonder?

  91. Nature shows not maximal values but cycles.

    All ice age events of about 8K are locked to resonant cycles of well known length in time periods and integer modes to the Sun:

    The main period of events like the little ice ages is locked to solar tide periods and integer modes as the Steinhilber data shows

    Science is not to direct the finger to the foolish mind; science is to recognise coherence, also, if it is not popular in the scetptic community.

    I am also done.

    V

  92. Seems they didn’t have a look at the temperatures above the 80. North this year! For the first time in 20? years they do not reach the long term mean since 10. of April! Loss of sea-ice is also yery low! Let’s see what we have got in the end of September!
    I bet we’ll hear :” Cooling in the polar-regions is because of global warming!”

  93. I feel sorry for Leif, surrounded by such intelligentsia !

    u.k.(us) said on August 1, 2013 at 7:55 pm +1

    “However, there are opportunities to decrease those risks,”

    Yes, it’s called ‘adaptation’.

    The implied suggestion that reducing co2 will have any affect is deliberately misleading and a total load of snip.

  94. Stanford climate scientists like other university climate ‘scientists ‘ are more than fully aware that AGW has been both a funding gravy train and massive boost to their acedmic career.From a poorly known and little cared about relation to the physical sciences , climate ‘science’ has grow massively with lots of tenure position up for grasp , the real holy grail . There not about to let that go easily and if they can keep using models to generate scares then that is what they will do, especially has it worked so often foe them in the past.

  95. Couple more PhDs to asterisk, ho-hum.

    Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001) says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:09 am

    IPCC WG2 AR5 deadline is this week: Time to get your scare stories in. Science will go major stupid on Thursday.— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) July 30, 2013

    Richard Tol has formulated some kind of law with predictability! I thought AR5 deadline was last May for which the Marcott paper was rushed in. This is just horrible! IPCC does this because it is in trouble and needs this kind of stuff. Chris Field author and IPCC editor answered the desperation call on time since IPCC’s recent pickings are a bunch of papers on lowered climate sensitivity and no signs of global warming. No time for original research, even the bogus kind, so they do a literature survey and find that things are warming 10x as fast as the papers they reviewed even detected. How come this wasn’t ballyhooed already by the MSM if it has already been published? Probably Chris originally said 100x as fast but ‘cooler’ heads said no Chris, that’s a bit over the top, let’s make it 10x! Oh and the hottest temperature of the last 20 years is 1998 (after much care, attention and massage by the Records Enhancement Secretariat it was lifted above 1937’s high for the last century using what I have dubbed the Thumb Tack Method – insert the tack at mid 1940s and rotate the temperature record counterclockwise until the secretariate says ’nuff). 10x – they have even abandoned the logarithmic response of temp to CO2 and gone for the exponential – but hey we’re talking an important deadline here.

    It is noteworthy that even the usual trolls haven’t been able to take up pen on this. Comon Nick, Ryan, Jai… here’s your chance to be a little outraged at your own camp – it’s time for you guys to do a little rehab before it’s too late. Gavin? can we hear more from you? I’m sure this kind of stuff is all being logged for a future book of shame by some sane persons.

  96. The Stanford claim depends on a resolution of 100 years in a 65 million year baseline. This is something they utterly failed to show. The work depends on extremely accurate proxy data over 65 million years. They fail to show the data. They fail to reconcile their claims with the established evidence over the past 1 million year time line of periods where temperatures changed by multiple degrees in the ~100 year range. These changes are much greater, and much faster, than anything we have experienced in the historical record. This report seems to written for something besides advancing science, since there is very little, if any, science present in the report.

  97. Gary Pearse says:
    “IPCC does this because it is in trouble and needs this kind of stuff.”

    If the IPCC uses this little piece of fantasy, as the global temperatures start to head back downwards, they will find themselves in even more trouble.

    The best way for the IPCC to avoid looking like TOTAL FOOLS over the coming years is for them to get back to some sort of reality.

    Can’t see that happening though, not until its way too late for them to redeem themselves.

  98. “By the end of the century, should the current emissions of greenhouse gases remain unchecked, temperatures over the northern hemisphere will tip 5-6 degrees C warmer than today’s averages. In this case, the hottest summer of the last 20 years becomes the new annual norm.”

    Say 5.5 degrees C divided by 87 years = 0.63 deg C per decade rise by 2100.
    Currently the warming is 0 deg C per decade.

    Over the past 87 years it has warmed 0.56 deg C according to Hadcrut4 so dividing by 87 = 0.06 deg C per decade.

    So they are suggesting that the average rate of warming will increase by a factor of 10 over the next 87 years vs the last 87 years.

    Wow I’m impressed. They could well argue that climate change will happen 10x faster in the next 87 years vs the past 87 years, based on these numbers. When do they expect to see this sudden acceleration of warming start to happen from zero at present?

  99. Just once I would like to see what the models say what the climate is supposed to do if atmospheric CO2 levels stayed at the pre 1900 levels. I’m sure they would project static temperatures for 1000 years.

  100. .63 deg per C of warming per decade by 2100

    We have actually seen 0.9 C of warming in last 120 years. (BEST)

    This comes out to 0.075 C of warming per decade. This invalidates their main premise which states that we have never witnessed warming at this rate in the last 65 million years and viola, I found it just by looking at recent data. My question for everyone: wouldn’t this be the first thing you WOULD check? What about the journal editors and the peer reviewers? Why didn’t anyone not find this glaring error in their work where they make a claim that is not even supported by data in the last 100 years, much less 65 million? Do we simply not apply common sense? The only conclusion I can come up with is that this guy is a moron, the peer reviewers are morons, and whoever publishes or supports this guy is also a moron.

    Who in their right mind does not make that kind of check before publishing something? If I can disprove it that easily with BEST, are they either unread on this subject material or just ignorant? I am kind of curious at this point now. How do people with a PHD lack so much intelligence?

  101. “We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years,” said Diffenbaugh.
    =================
    actually you don’t “know”. there were no thermometers thousands of years ago. no written records of any kind. 20 thousand years ago life was harsh and brutal.

    what we do know is that there was a mile of ice covering most of the cities of the developed word 20 thousand years ago. now there is no ice. and no fossil fuel was involved in that warming.

  102. Tom Harley says:
    August 1, 2013 at 10:09 pm
    This is worth a look, set from 5,000 to 15,000 years ago. They must have missed this superb ABC documentary, “The First Footprints”, episode 3 called. “The Great Flood”
    ==============
    the flooding of the Black Sea 5000 years ago likely gave rise to the Noah Flood myth. A farmer escaped with his family and breeding pairs for his livestock. this certainly would have changed the climate over a wide area. we have nothing comparable in modern history.

    further back, the flooding of the Mediterranean a few million years ago would have led to massive climate change. again, nothing comparable in modern history.

    yet somehow modern climate change is unprecedented? Wait for one of the earth’s super volcanoes to erupt as they do from time to time. that will be climate change. wait for the ice to once again cover most of the cities of the developed world, that will be climate change.

    Wait for the peasants to roll out the guillotine and start lopping the heads off the aristo’s because the crops have failed and there is no bread. That will be climate change. The politicians should be thanking their lucky stars that the earth has warmed since then and food is today plentiful.

    History shows, all that stands between the politicians and the pit is a full belly. Thus politicians are forever seeking to place the blame on everyone else when things go wrong, and take the credit when things go right. Climate Change is the ultimate scapegoat for a failure to plan.

    Why if the government knew there was global warming and sea level rise, why did they not build the sea walls higher in New York prior to Sandy? Why did they not build the dykes higher in New Orleans before Katrina?

  103. “Diffenbaugh and Field, both senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, conducted the targeted but broad review …”

    Targeted but broad? So … they picked their cherries from many trees.

    I’m willing to bet quite a lot that these two “senior fellows at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment” have income and assets significantly in excess of the national average. Yet they risk none of that when they tell their scary stories. You’d hear a whole lot less of this bullshit if they were required to put their money where their mouths are.

  104. Not science here, only political science. Observations and model failure be damned! (i.e., wingnuts)

  105. I found this co2 spike via Hockeyschtick some time back. It seems to show 400ppm since the end of the last glaciation. It’s probably a proxy problem that led to the spike.
    Fig 7

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.02.003

    The Stanford pieces talks about the Arctic and rapid climate change. Creatures did just fine during the rapid Arctic warming which started in the 1920s. Fish stocks were boosted, seals became fat and polar bears frolicked.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.02.011

  106. Their conclusion makes perfect sense.

    Look at it this way. They start with the premise that the temperature anomaly in 2100AD will be around 6C. It’s the same number they projected 15 years ago, but because we’ve made no progress so far, a greater rate of change will be necessary to get there. Each year it will get worse and before too long they’ll be able to claim rates of change approaching infinity.

    What’s scary is that, in their “scientific opinion”, climate change is happening faster because it hasn’t been happening at all.

  107. So they used models (unspecified) to predict (i.e. their own modelling) what might happen if those models are correct? Models all the way down… again?

  108. “The geologic record shows that, 20,000 years ago, as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, plants and animals recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.

    “We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years,””

    What about 12,000 years ago when some of the most enduring temperature reconstructions suggest 4 degrees of warming over a period of around 1000 years? Warming which coincidentally came just before the beginning of known human civilization. That’s of the order 0.4 degrees per century. 0.7 degrees since the 1850s (I am not even taking into account the exaggerations due to UHI, poor station siting and ‘adjustment’ of old records; nor do I consider the vagaries of the 1850s temperature records) is about 0.43 degrees per century. Not really so very different, is it? In fact each figure is well within the error margin of the other.

    Oh, and it’s “geological record”, not “geologic”. Bloody Americans.

  109. What else can these people do? Besides it’s summer, and what better time to publish “The Earth is Burning” narrative. I get the feeling that a memo has gone out to all Alarmists stating not only to continue to be stuck on stupid, but double down. I imagine there could be snowfall in July on the Riviera and the Alarmists will continue to churn out studies like these. It’s all they know how to do.

  110. Now I understand all of the ‘whoop de poop’ over;

    “…

    “Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science.”

    He goes on to explain that science is all about “credible theories” and “best explanations” and his gosh-darn critics supposedly don’t offer up any of those…”

    I was amused to see the full court press trying to keep people arguing over ‘proof’ and away from Manniacal’s sheer lack of ‘evidence’ to make CAGW theory ‘credible’. Or that Manny completely fails the ‘best explanation’ evaluation for his ‘horse hockey artificial stick’

    That’s because this fecal foolishness research was hitting the fan.

    I’m reminded of a phrase I read on someone’s blog recently where the CAGW ‘consensus’ (IPCC?)was expecting a critical piece of research to be released soon to validate their soon to released assumptions. I sure hope this is it…

    ‘Credible theory’, hah!

  111. Dr. L. Lisiecki has reconstructed the temperature proxies from d18O isotopes not only for the last 100 years, but for the last 5.3 Million years with corresponding temperature saw tooth like cycles of about 8K amplitude in the last million of years. (http://www.lorraine-lisiecki.com/stack.html). The last temperature increasing phase has happened at the end of the last Ice Age ~ 20 ky ago, and is now on a slighly relaxing phase still on a high level:

    Despite the sceptic of A.W. on a relevant relation between solar cycles and the global climate tides, it was shown here that the oscillation pattern measured from d18O isotopes in the last 5.3 million years can be explained by resonant diffusion modes in the Sun, as Bob Ehrlich has found out:

    This is obvious when the Lisiecki spectra is FFT analysed:

    The periods of Ice ages over millions of years have common scientific based oscillations with fixed stable time cycles, which easily can be calculated from the knowledge about physical modes in spherical bodies.

    Quo vadis WUWT?

    V.

  112. @ Phil Jourdan (9:34AM) — You’re welcome. My pleasure (I watched it twice, lol). And, THANK YOU for so eloquently defending my proper use of quotations a couple days ago to that JERK who shall remain nameless. Much appreciated.

  113. taobabe says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    So, if we have so many wildly and diametrically opposing viewpoints from scientists who are supposed to be experts in their fields, what/who are we to believe is speaking the truth?

    The one’s not standing around with their hands out asking for huge grants.

  114. I think that the entirety of their “research” came from studying “An Inconvenient Truth.” Same ol’ hysteria without any basis in fact.

  115. So what is the official SI unit of “” Climate Change “” that they are able to quantify the change in the rate of change in the past 65 million years. So to say that 65 million years ago; presumably before the big Alvarez rock crash happened; the rate of climate change was 1.0 SI units, and today (2013) it is 10.0 SI units. That’s a totally remarkable achievement if you ask me; well don’t ask me, I think it’s bs, to suggest they know that.

  116. george e. smith says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    As the “Climate Change” unit, I propose the Lamb, which is the rate of global temperature change observed for the 30 years, AD 1910-40. Or maybe the basic SI unit should be the KiloLamb, ie change from 1050 BC to AD 1950, which of course is a negative number.

  117. Surely they must be mistaking our planet for whatever planet they are from. Easy mistake to make.

  118. taobabe says: @ August 1, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    …. isn’t Nature a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Hasn’t there already been a scientific process in place to check on the validity of the claims? If this article is completely based on poor scientific theories that don’t stand up to the rigors of scientific process, how is it that Nature is publishing it? If we can’t believe in the modern scientific process, aren’t we standing on seriously shaky ground?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Very shaky ground. It is called “Post Modern Science” (Which isn’t science at all but the “there is no real world it is all in your head” Hegelian Philosophy.)

    Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement So the Hegelian Philosophy is now prevalent in universities. (I had it shoved down my throat and I am a chemist)

    This means scientists now cheat because they do not believe there is such a thing as hard facts.

    Scientific fraud and the power structure of science

    US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    …the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded….

    A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct….

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    That is the tiny tip of the iceberg, I have a whole folder full of science fraud articles and studies.

    The websites documenting science fraud are now under siege BTW:

    http://www.science-fraud.org/

    It has now been 4 months since the rather unpleasant day on which a (still unknown) individual blew my cover as an anonymous blogger, in an email encouraging everyone who was written about on this site to sue me. …. [A US government watchdog perhaps??? U.S. Govt Snooping in Email Servers]

    …The intention of these threats was to silence me, in classical SLAPP fashion, and it worked….

    …It seems science-fraud.org is not alone any more; both Copy/Shake/Paste and retraction watch (more than once) have recently been targeted with legal threats. While these sites chose to stick it out, I don’t have the resources (time/money/will). This doesn’t mean I think the legal threats leveled at science-fraud.org have any basis in fact, it’s just I have more important things to deal with. Things that pay the bills. Things that don’t result in strange envelopes showing up at my home address. Things that don’t affect my sleep…..

  119. philjourdan says:
    August 1, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    That is what happens when you prostitute yourself for money. You always end up looking foolish.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    But ….
    ♫My God [Oh, Lord; My word], how the money rolls in!♫
    ♫Rolls in, rolls in, my God, how the money rolls in, rolls in!♫
    ♫Rolls in, rolls in, my God, how the money rolls in!♫

  120. it’s happening too fast….
    …and these are the same morons that talk about different species moving already

  121. AndyG55 says: @ August 2, 2013 at 4:54 am
    ….The best way for the IPCC to avoid looking like TOTAL FOOLS over the coming years is for them to get back to some sort of reality.

    Can’t see that happening though, not until its way too late for them to redeem themselves.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    They have to keep the heat on because they need the USA (and Canada) to commit SUICIDE to a carbon tax. A carbon tax allows the government to tax ALL productivity in the country. Also they want to a tax that gives the United Nations the ability to tax countries directly and thereby move it closer to a super-nation like the EU.

    From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit

    New York City, 2000: The United Nations Millennium Summit, Sept 6-9
    What is this Summit all about? ….From above document and others on the website we can glean that the following are on the agenda:

    1.)A global “peacekeeping force,” publicly endorsed Wednesday by Bill Clinton. He told the gathered dignitaries that the UN needs “a rapid deployment force of well-trained and well-equipped solders capable of projecting u2018credible force’ into trouble spots.” Along these lines, a Republican, Constance Morella (R-MD), has introduced a bill calling for a United Nations Rapid Deployment Force, which would turn 6,000 American soldiers over to the UN, which would mean that Americans would be taking orders from non-Americans. Seven other countries have already signed aboard with similar pledges. The UN is ready to create its own “standing army” of the sort the U.S. Constitution forbids.

    2.)An International Criminal Court – …U.S. citizens could, in principle, be tried before tribunals of non-Americans.

    3.) A global system of taxation: [the Forum urges the United Nations] “to introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies, and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication.”

    4.) Global coerced redistribution of wealth and income….
    [Governments should] “focus their efforts and policies on addressing the root causes of poverty and providing for the basic needs of all, giving special priority to the needs and rights of disadvantaged and underrepresented.”

    8.) International public education: “provide universal access to u2018education for all,’ prioritizing free basic education and skills training…. [This is what Robin has commented about several times.]

    11.) Universal gun registration: the UN should “expand the UN Arms register in order to show production and sale of small arms and light weapons”

    12.) Strengthening UN power generally: “A major task of the world community in the twenty-first century will be to strengthen and greatly enhance the role of the United Nations in the global context. Governments must recommit themselves to the realization of the goals and mandates of the United Nations Charter. A challenging task is to firmly protect the integrity of the United Naitons, counter the erosion of its role and to further strengthen and augment international institutions capable of implementing and enforcing international standards, norms, and law, leading toward the formation of a new political and economic order. “

    There is, of course, more – much, much more. This is just a sampling….

  122. Doubting Rich says: @ August 2, 2013 at 9:17 am

    …..Oh, and it’s “geological record”, not “geologic”. Bloody Americans.”, not “geologic”. Bloody Americans.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is the ‘progressive language drift’ (Because they can’t spell or even read anymore) I learned geological record from my geology prof. at a US university several decades ago.

  123. 0.7C temperature increase in the last 200 years.

    Hasn’t happened in 65 million years apparently. Funny stuff.

    Of course, they didn’t bother to look up what temperatures have actually been over the last 65 million years but the math would be too hard for them to understand anyway (environmental science people are not really good with numbers). In other words, funny people.

  124. davidmhoffer says:
    August 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    _________

    For some strange reason, I can wrap my brains around this. It really clarifies things in my mind without all the noise and semantics which quite often, obfuscates matters that are already murky even without stirring up the mud from the bottom. I love it when I see graphs and charts that are this clear, that I can actually understand, even as ignorant as I am about this subject matter. I really like science when it’s not such a muddy mess. Thank you David.

  125. Gail Combs says:

    Very shaky ground. It is called “Post Modern Science” (Which isn’t science at all but the “there is no real world it is all in your head” Hegelian Philosophy.)

    ______________

    In that case, I think I might take up the mantle of scientist. :-) Dr. Taobabe kinda has a nice ring to it, yes? My research will be on black magic and the power of the supernatural. I’m a good cook. I can make the experiments say whatever the heck I wanna say. Nice tip. Thanks for that learning experience.

  126. “…as the ice sheet that covered much of North America receded northward, plants and animals recolonized areas that had been under ice. As the climate continued to warm, those plants and animals moved northward, to cooler climes.”

    Why make it seem like life picks up and moves out of warmer places to cooler places rather than just saying that life expands to newly habitable places. My house cats, when temperatures get in the 90’s, don’t stay in the less than 80F air conditioned first floor, but head up to the hot 90F plus attic rooms. It seems like some lifeforms seek out high temperatures and flee from cooler environments as do many humans.

  127. @Wayne Delbeke says: August 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    “Some of the strongest evidence for how the global climate system responds to high levels of carbon dioxide comes from paleoclimate studies. Fifty-five million years ago, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was elevated to a level comparable to today. The Arctic Ocean did not have ice in the summer, and nearby land was warm enough to support alligators and palm trees.”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wait a minute. Where exactly were the continents 55 million years ago and why was the Arctic Ocean so warm…

    Their choice of 55M years has been driving me buggy too, because it sure seems to me that apparently from somewhere between about 2M to 5.2M years ago and on back CO2 was comparable to today also (assuming they’re even able to calculate and calibrate proxies from the distant past accurately at all and not significantly underestimate CO2 levels, which I think is questionable), and yet the temperatures weren’t nearly as high as 55M years ago. http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c37fa9895970b-pi

    So the choice of 55M years, which just HAPPENS to look like the peak past temperature for the past 4,600M years seems awfully…. well…. coincidental. e.g., a whopping big bit of cherry picking.

  128. @ David L. Hagen says: August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    In addition, a number of research papers using plant stomata to estimate CO2 levels also shows significantly higher CO2 levels than ice core data does, and they are able to calibrate compared to present day stomata v. CO2 levels, where we’re unable to do so with ice that’s been compressed for ages in glaciers.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

    And then there are the ice core CO2 issues written about by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski:
    Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
    Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation March 2004

  129. @taobabe says: August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    “I don’t understand….So, if we have so many wildly and diametrically opposing viewpoints from scientists who are supposed to be experts in their fields, what/who are we to believe is speaking the truth?”

    Whenever you find this situation, it’s a safe bet that the knowledge level is such that the uncertainty far outweighs any viewpoint – in other words, the default is don’t believe that there is any known “truth” about the situation. The body of science as it stands, in these sorts of cases, is such that no conclusion can be supported. Of course, you can learn enough about the scientific method to toss out obviously poor work (violations of the scientific method, cherry picking, etc.) and try to see if the remaining work supports any conclusion or not… but even then you may find that the experts vary widely in their claims – which means, they don’t know! Either they’re barking up the wrong tree entirely, or there are fundamental issues or drivers that have yet to be discovered, or the field is simply too young yet and the issue too complex, etc., etc.

  130. Chad Wozniak says:
    August 1, 2013 at 4:52 pm
    “How the mighty are fallen – even Stanford has succumbed to climatitis. What purulent drivel.”

    Stanford was actually the birthplace of CO2AGW. And generally the birthplace of most of the problems that plague the reputation of Western science to this day … embodied by the participants:

    1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
    Conference: Where the Global
    Warming Hoax Was Born
    Mead, Schneider, Holdren and Lovelock

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/Fall_2007.html

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf

  131. @ Janice Moore says: August 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Good Lord! (no pun intended ;-) ) Was Bill Cosby EVER that young? (I’m dating myself I suppose). Thanks for posting that skit, hadn’t seen it in ages!!

  132. “Gail Combs says: August 2, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    “Doubting Rich says: @ August 2, 2013 at 9:17 am

    …..Oh, and it’s “geological record”, not “geologic”. Bloody Americans.”, not “geologic”. Bloody Americans.”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is the ‘progressive language drift’ (Because they can’t spell or even read anymore) I learned geological record from my geology prof. at a US university several decades ago.”

    Geologic? Geological? That sounds like a distinction only a professor with a peccadillo stuck in their -*-* would make.

    ‘al’ is a suffix that adds to a word’s meaning or means:
    “-al
    suffix Definition
    -› used to add the meaning ‘connected with’ to adjectives, or ‘the action of’ to nouns: …

    “(Definition of -al suffix from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)””

    So adding -al to geologic means “connected to or the action of” geologic… Big addition to geologic, really expands and defines the meaning, doesn’t it?

    To add another twist to the meaning, ‘ic’ is also a suffix:
    “-ic
    suffix
    /-ɪk/ (also -ical)

    Definition
    › used to form adjectives:

    (“Definition of -ic suffix from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)””

    ‘Geological’ means the same thing as ‘geologic’. Any demands for a person to write geological is a personal decision for additional work that fails to add additional definition or meaning.

  133. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years. ..For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age.

    20,000 years ago is less than 65 Million years ago.

    the researchers note that, with continued emissions of greenhouse gases at the high end of the scenarios, annual temperatures over North America, Europe and East Asia will increase 2-4 degrees C by 2046-2065. ..By the end of the century, should the current emissions of greenhouse gases remain unchecked, temperatures over the northern hemisphere will tip 5-6 degrees C warmer than today’s averages. .

    Now thats an increase of 1 C every 14.5 years. Khartoum which has an average May temperature of 42 will reach boiling point in 841 years along with most of the Middle East. That may not be such a bad thing.

    Time to invest in Real Estate in Greenland and Antarctica methinks.

  134. JCR says:
    August 1, 2013 at 4:53 pm
    “For instance, the planet experienced a 5 degree Celsius hike in temperature 20,000 years ago, as Earth emerged from the last ice age.”

    Whaaaaat!? The last ice age ended less that 15,000 years ago as far as I know.

    Sorry, JCR, the last ice age (the Karoo Ice Age) ended 260 mllion years ago. The CURRENT ice age (the Quaternary) began 2.6 million years ago and is still ongoing, and will continue until the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland ice sheets melt (which, if the past ice ages are any indication, will take at least another 27 million years, or more likely hundreds of millions of years). The last GLACIAL PERIOD ended 11-12,000 years ago. The Earth is not currently in a glacial period, but is still in an ice age.

  135. I seriously doubt the rate of change right now is on par with the Younger Dryas let alone the Great Melt or the previous dip into a glacial. However, wait long enough and … of course the joke will be on the dumb humans … the change will be in the downward direction.

  136. taobabe:

    Your first question in this thread concerned climate data over recent decades, and several people pointed out that past global temperature data is often adjusted. Indeed, although no respondents told you, the GISS and HadCRUT data sets for past temperatures are altered almost monthly and the unaltered data is not archived.

    Subsequently, at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/01/claim-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-ever-before/#comment-1379501

    you say to the excellent davidmhoffer:

    I love it when I see graphs and charts that are this clear, that I can actually understand,

    OK. Then you will like these graphs.

    And if you want to understand the nature of such data sets then I suggest you may want to read this, especially its Appendix B

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Richard

Comments are closed.