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 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.”

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/
“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?
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).
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]
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?
============================================================================
Translation: “Stanford climate scientists warn that reality is 10 times different than any model model predicted. It’s worse than we thought!”
“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.
Why not claim 97% faster? It’s as equally scientifically believable.
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?”
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.
And…. here he is! The great Bill Cosby — “Noah Routine”
@ur momisugly Janice Moore says: August 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Thanks for the clip! He is always a laugh riot! Even when you have heard him before.
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 …
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
I bet they are watching just computer screens, not the Nature.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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”.
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 ?
Oooooh Daddy I’ve been a good little scientist. Please pat me on the head.
Sigh. It’s just appalling how this kind of drivel is promulglated/propagated! Stanford! Yeah, just another sewer of thought.
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.
Oh, I didn’t mention the degree was from from Stanford
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”.