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.”
AndyG55 says: @ur momisugly 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
SUICIDEto 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.Doubting Rich says: @ur momisugly 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.
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.
davidmhoffer says:
August 1, 2013 at 5:03 pm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
_________
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.
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.
“…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.
@Wayne Delbeke says: August 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm
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.
@ur momisugly 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
@taobabe says: August 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm
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.
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
@ur momisugly 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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
OK. Then you will like these graphs.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
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
The current climate change does not look “orders of magnitude” more rapid than this climate change:
“High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5889/680.abstract
Maybe instead of 65 million years, only 12,000 years should have been claimed.
Here is the full text of the warming events/younger dryas paper. The change does look more abrupt than today’s “rapid” climate change.
http://epic.awi.de/17919/1/Ste2007b.pdf