From the University of Maryland: Looking to the past to predict the future of climate change
FROSTBURG, MD (August 5, 2013)—Climate changes how species interact with one another—and not just today. Scientists are studying trends from fossil records to understand how climate change impacted the world in the ancient past and to identify ways to predict how things may change in the future, according to a new study by University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science researcher Matt Fitzpatrick and colleagues published in the August 2 issue of Science.
Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. Knowing how climate change altered the interactions between plants and animals in the past may help us understand whether there are identifiable patterns that could give us clues into what will happen in the future.
“Looking to the past is one of the few ways ecologist have for understanding how natural systems respond to climate change,” said Fitzpatrick of the Center’s Appalachian Laboratory. “When we look to the fossil record, from hundreds of millions of years ago to near present day, we see episodes of climatic change and biological upheaval, and we see similar patterns.”
For example, changes in temperatures may force certain animals to move to different territories and new predatory-prey interactions my result. Some may go extinct. Changes in carbon dioxide levels may make it easier for new plants to take over the landscape, such as more shrubs growing in the Arctic. All of these changes shake up how the ecosystem and food webs work.
“Because these patterns emerge repeatedly and largely regardless of place and time,” Fitzpatrick says. “It suggests that similar underlying processes drive how natural systems respond to climate change and provides a glimpse of what could be in store for the future.”
The worry is that the rate of current and future climate change is more than species can handle naturally. “People are comfortable with the way things are now – we know where to plant crops, where to get water,” said lead author Jessica Blois of the University of California, Merced. “We want to know how to respond to the changes that are happening, but if the future is highly novel, then it’s also hard to predict.”
“Climate Change and the Past, Present and Future of Biotic Interactions” is published in the August 2 issue of Science. Authors include Jessica Blois of the University of California, Merced, Phoebe Zarnetske of Yale University, Matt Fitzpatrick of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and Seth Finnegan of the University of California, Berkley.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science unleashes the power of science to transform the way society understands and manages the environment. By conducting cutting-edge research into today’s most pressing environmental problems, we are developing new ideas to help guide our state, nation, and world toward a more environmentally sustainable future through five research centers—the Appalachian Laboratory in Frostburg, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons, the Horn Point Laboratory in Cambridge, the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology in Baltimore, and the Maryland Sea Grant College in College Park. www.umces.edu
* * *
For anyone whose interested here are just a few changes of climate over the last 10,000 years. It makes today’s climate look positively benign. Do these people ever actually look beyond the Medieval Warm Period?
About 12 700 years ago temperatures went dowen several degrees in just a few decades. A thousand years later they went up even more, also in just a few decades.
Almost every species of plant and animal on this planet survived both those changes. So we live on a planet where the wildlife has been specially selected to be insensitive to abrupt climate change.
I say “almost all species” because a few species, mostly plants, have evolved through hybridization or polyploidy since then, These few species have not been proof-tested for climate robustness yet.
“the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer”
“very rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.” in: IPCC TAR vg1 report
Well, the abrupt warming at the end of the Younger Dryas occurred some 11,500 years ago, which is longer than 10,000 years indeed. However, observed warming in the past 50 years is only 0.74°C, according to HadCRUT 4.2. Now, can we say 10 “far exceeds” 0.74 or not? Of course we can, it is more than an order of magnitude (13.5 times) bigger, after all.
Was the end of the Younger Dryas natural or anthropogenic? Have some species survived it? Place Your Bet$.
Looks like Matt Fitzpatrick et al. are cherry picking deniers, going against consensus science settled by the IPCC once and for all.
“…the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer.”
I’m sure there are no proxy records of 10,000 years ago with the resolution to show blips of 1 degree over a hundred-year duration (like our current one). Are there?
Maybe yes on short term geologic scales but no on longer term scales. I’m sure I’m wrong here but I vaguely recollect that over 98% of species that ever live are now extinct. From what I recollect extinction is the rule not the exception. PS I am a skeptic as you might have gathered.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/litu/07_1.shtml
http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Saving-Reptiles-and-Amphibians/Science-Ideas-and-Concepts/Extinction
Jimbo on August 5, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Just my point @ur momisugly 9:36 am and more spieces are actually discovered every year compared to the number that disappear.
Nothing new under the sun. Why worry about the future?
Retreat!
“… we are developing new ideas to help guide our state, nation, and world toward a more environmentally sustainable future …. .”
I only read the summary above, but found no mention of HUMAN CO2 emissions. The CAGW campaign is over.
REJOICE!
Yes, they have fallen back on their “Plan B – Sustainability,” but it is a weak, weak, position. We are not even CLOSE to running out of coal or fossil fuels and nuclear energy is ready-and-willing. We are not even CLOSE to needing the silliness of “sustainability” (such things as cute-but-stupid “Small houses” [Bing it — it’s hilarious; the latest way to be holy, live in a little holy house, parking your holy (hybrid) car beside it, eating only holy foods like “organic” fruits and tofu and algae, of course) measures.
Sustainability: “Tranquil” – “Like a Little Village” — Freedom? Not so much.
Amusing, attractive to some people, but weak, very weak. Joe and Maria voter are not going to vote for the Hippy Commune candidate. Scientists for Truth 1 — Fantasy Science Club 0.
(Note: from above video, the sane ones leave and become free market entrepreneurs. LOL)
Janice Moore says:
August 5, 2013 at 5:04 pm
“Yes, they have fallen back on their “Plan B – Sustainability,” but it is a weak, weak, position. We are not even CLOSE to running out of coal or fossil fuels and nuclear energy is ready-and-willing. We are not even CLOSE to needing the silliness of “sustainability””
Just to head off any Club of Rome lurkers, we also are never going to run short of metals and other subsurface resources because of three main things: a) all the metals we have mined are still here, the gold from the middle ages is still here. We are getting better at accumulating and re-using them over and over and b) the demand is not for Zinc, its for anti-corrosion materials – zinc is largely used as a coating on sheet iron for barn rooves, culverts, etc. etc. but we have many other materials. An engineer friend of mine once said that you could make a radio out of concrete, quartz crystal, steel wire and I can’t remember all of it but they were abundant. Heck, radios aren’t even much used anymore and the ones that are weigh a few ounces or even a few grams. c) we have gotten better and better at finding more and more – like we’ve just pushed peak oil and gas off a century or more and coal can even be made into both.
Thanks, Gary Pearse (5:40PM), for supplementing my low-information post with a LOT of great information.
Apparently it makes one use commas in strange places.
“Climate change has occurred…”
Climate change is constantly taking place on Earth… as well as on all astronomical objects in the universe that have an atmosphere.
It’s fine (and commonplace) for researchers to try and provide support for their pet theory. But there is a limit to the delusion one is allowed to build into a hypothesis.
Globull-warming propaganda out of Frostburg. The irony burns.
“but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. ”
WHAT?
Have I missed something?
Satellite temperature records since 1979 trend, quite slowly, upwards, Trends in sea level changes are slowly upward. All this temp/SL rise is consistant with the slow steady rises we’ve enjoyed since the end of the Llittle Ice Age. I can’t see a carbon signal in this empirical data.
Also, the predicted “Troposheric Warm Zone” does not exist. Millions of weather baloons show this. EMPIRICALLY.
Please tell me how I am mistaken.
Further to the above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean-pages/ocean/
“””””……B. Baak says:
August 5, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Nothing new under the sun. Why worry about the future?…….””””””
Well I worry about the future; I’m planning to spend the rest of my life there !
“””””…..Jimbo says:
August 5, 2013 at 3:19 pm
tty says:
August 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm…………
Almost every species of plant and animal on this planet survived both those changes. So we live on a planet where the wildlife has been specially selected to be insensitive to abrupt climate change.
Maybe yes on short term geologic scales but no on longer term scales. I’m sure I’m wrong here but I vaguely recollect that over 98% of species that ever live are now extinct. From what I recollect extinction is the rule not the exception. PS I am a skeptic as you might have gathered………””””””
I believe half of the people who have ever lived in America are still alive. (along with about 5% of all of the humans there ever was.)
“””””…..DirkH says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:18 am
“Climate change has occurred repeatedly throughout Earth’s history, but the recent rate of global warming far exceeds that of any previous episode in the past 10,000 years or longer. ”
That’s false. Why didn’t the reviewer notice?……””””””
I thought that the recent rate of global warming was zero; for the last 17 years and some odd months in fact.
So I think you are correct Dirk.
“””””……Dr. Lurtz says:
August 5, 2013 at 9:55 am
I wonder if they publish this stuff to see how much of a response [how high we jump] they can get.
I didn’t even make it to this gem: “Changes in carbon dioxide levels may make it easier for new plants to take over the landscape, such as more shrubs growing in the Arctic.” Correct use of the word “may” so that there can be no rebuttal!
“”””””……. Correct use of the word “may” so that there can be no rebuttal!……”””””
Actually NOT The word “may” bestows permission.
There usage could be the correct usage of “might”, but it is not correct usage of “may”.
Roy, I wish you wouldn’t use the meaningless phrase, so called ‘climate change’. We have climate only and that covers all changes within its’ cycles.There is no such thing as climate change, a redundant phrase that is bereft of scientific meaning and contains propaganda value only. It’s just a red hot political button meme. All too many skeptics have carelessly taken to using this meaningless propaganda phrase that only speaks of unscientific and illogical nonsense.