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
August 2, 2013 5:51 am

.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?

ferdberple
August 2, 2013 5:59 am

“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.

ferdberple
August 2, 2013 6:16 am

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?

JJ
August 2, 2013 6:38 am

“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.

JackT
August 2, 2013 6:53 am

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

Jimbo
August 2, 2013 6:58 am

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

Pachygrapsus
August 2, 2013 7:16 am

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.

Admad
August 2, 2013 8:36 am

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?

Doubting Rich
August 2, 2013 9:17 am

“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.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/03/Dennis_Avery4.012-thumb-410×307.jpg
Oh, and it’s “geological record”, not “geologic”. Bloody Americans.

JP
August 2, 2013 9:44 am

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.

August 2, 2013 9:47 am

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!

August 2, 2013 10:34 am

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:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/lisiecki_2mio_cycles.gif
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:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ehrlich_plot_1.gif
This is obvious when the Lisiecki spectra is FFT analysed:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/lisiecki_modes.gif
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.

August 2, 2013 10:40 am

They are full of it, this last 100 years has been the LEAST change in climate in at least the past 20000 years! BS .
Look at any temperature graphs going back 20,000 years.

Janice Moore
August 2, 2013 10:41 am

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.

August 2, 2013 10:54 am

From: Salvatore Delprete
To: salmbswx
Sent: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 1:52 pm
Subject: yoiunga dryas temp
Fig.1).

August 2, 2013 11:07 am

PDF][PDF] Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record

August 2, 2013 11:09 am

THEY ARE EITHER FOOLS OR LIARS PROBABLY A COMBINATION OF THE TWO.

TomB
August 2, 2013 12:26 pm

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.

August 2, 2013 12:35 pm

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

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

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.

milodonharlani
August 2, 2013 1:05 pm

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.

Bruce Cobb
August 2, 2013 2:08 pm

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

Gail Combs
August 2, 2013 2:41 pm

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…..

Gail Combs
August 2, 2013 2:49 pm

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!♫

Latitude
August 2, 2013 3:02 pm

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