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.”

###
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
1 1 vote
Article Rating
169 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gail Combs
August 1, 2013 5:56 pm

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

u.k.(us)
August 1, 2013 5:58 pm

“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.

Owen in GA
August 1, 2013 6:00 pm

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.

August 1, 2013 6:00 pm

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.

August 1, 2013 6:00 pm

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.

Owen in GA
August 1, 2013 6:01 pm

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

Bob
August 1, 2013 6:05 pm

Absolute hooey

Retired Engineer John
August 1, 2013 6:12 pm

They are out touch with reality. It’s going to get colder not hotter.

August 1, 2013 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: 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.

Fred Jensen
August 1, 2013 6:21 pm

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.

Owen in GA
August 1, 2013 6:23 pm

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.

johanna
August 1, 2013 6:28 pm

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.

dp
August 1, 2013 6:30 pm

It’s a damn good thing they don’t need to prove nonsense like this.

Steve Keohane
August 1, 2013 6:35 pm

Skimmed down until I caught ‘computer models’. Sheer fantasy.

August 1, 2013 6:38 pm

That is what happens when you prostitute yourself for money. You always end up looking foolish.

August 1, 2013 6:39 pm

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.

Sunup
August 1, 2013 6:43 pm

davidmhoffer says:
August 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
’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!

Bill Marsh
Editor
August 1, 2013 6:47 pm

“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.

Janice Moore
August 1, 2013 6:55 pm

D. P. (6:30PM) — LOL

lowercasefred
August 1, 2013 7:06 pm

Faster than Xmillion years?
The real nightmare is that we have a voting population that believes this s#!#.

August 1, 2013 7:06 pm

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

Vangel
August 1, 2013 7:07 pm

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?

August 1, 2013 7:10 pm

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.

David L. Hagen
August 1, 2013 7:11 pm

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.

Latitude
August 1, 2013 7:14 pm

“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