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
Tom Harley
August 1, 2013 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”, 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

August 1, 2013 10:13 pm

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.

Louis
August 1, 2013 10:38 pm

“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.

August 1, 2013 10:39 pm

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.

Catcracking
August 1, 2013 10:39 pm

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?

Txomin
August 1, 2013 10:44 pm

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.

August 1, 2013 10:51 pm

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.

August 1, 2013 11:12 pm

‘Global Warming’ arrives in old England with a bang, 2.8C above 20 year average !!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Dmax.htm
Olympics, jubilee, royal baby and finally some dissent summer weather, the nation is overjoyed

August 2, 2013 12:04 am

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?

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

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

DrJohnGalan
August 2, 2013 12:14 am

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.

August 2, 2013 12:32 am


Chris Field is indeed co-chair of IPCC WG2. I have yet to read his latest paper.
My “major stupid” refers to the Hsiang paper of which I had seen a copy earlier this week.

johnmarshall
August 2, 2013 2:00 am

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.

Otteryd
August 2, 2013 2:20 am

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?

August 2, 2013 2:32 am

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:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ehrlich_plot_1.gif
The main period of events like the little ice ages is locked to solar tide periods and integer modes as the Steinhilber data shows
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/calibration_plot.gif
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

alacran
August 2, 2013 2:57 am

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!”

J Martin
August 2, 2013 3:20 am

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.

J Martin
August 2, 2013 3:30 am

Hilary (but I’m 97% certain that it is)
Nice. I’m going to use that everywhere.

knr
August 2, 2013 3:40 am

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.

August 2, 2013 4:23 am

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.

hunter
August 2, 2013 4:32 am

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.

John
August 2, 2013 4:33 am

The people that make false claims like these have no shame. Facts mean nothing.

AndyG55
August 2, 2013 4:54 am

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.

son of mulder
August 2, 2013 4:55 am

“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?

LT
August 2, 2013 5:48 am

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.