It's warmer now than it has been in 120,000 years, say scientists

A study by a doctoral student at Stanford University predicts the Earth will eventually reach its hottest point in two million years, but other scientists say that's a tough call to make.

Charlie Riedel/AP/File
The sun sets beyond visitors to Liberty Memorial as the temperature hovers around 100 degrees in Kansas City, Mo., July 21, 2016. A new study suggests the Earth is now at its hottest point in 120,000 years.

The Earth today is warmer than it’s been in 120,000 years, and could be poised to break a 2-million-year temperature record, thanks to current greenhouse gas levels that may have already committed Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius over the next few millenniums, according to a new study.

But other scientists say it’s too soon to rule that current carbon levels have sealed the Earth’s fate in terms of rising temperatures.

The study, published Monday in the journal Nature, constructs a 2-million-year-long temperature record to predict future rises in heat. Using 61 sea surface temperature proxies taken from ocean sediment cores from around the world, Carolyn Snyder, who conducted the research at Stanford University and now works as a climate policy official at the Environmental Protection Agency, looked at average temperatures over periods of 5,000 years, finding that changes in temperature coincided with carbon dioxide levels.

Using that relationship, Dr. Snyder predicted that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would create a rise of 9 degrees Celsius over the next few thousand years – a jump high enough to spell serious trouble for coastal cities, coral reefs, and other wildlife.

“This is based on what happened in the past,” Snyder told CBS News. “In the past it wasn’t humans messing with the atmosphere.”

But some prominent experts in the field say the findings aren’t proof of specific temperature increases in the future, and that drawing a line from a past correlation between carbon levels and temperature to make predictions about the future is illogical.

This is simply wrong,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Gizmodo. “The actual committed warming is only 0.5 to perhaps 1 [degree Celsius] – and nothing in the study changes that. You have this chicken and egg situation, where ice changes, which causes CO2 to change, which causes ice to change, and so on and so forth.”

When researchers look back far enough, the effects of the relationship become blurry. “You’re mixing the impact of CO2 on climate, and climate on CO2,” he said.

Snyder’s study cautioned that the records, especially those dating further back where fewer proxies were available, are merely rough estimates with high margins of error. Still, others praised the work, highlighting how useful the temperature records could be for future research.

“Snyder’s work is a great contribution and future work should build on it,” Jeremy Shakun, a professor of earth and environmental science at Boston College, told CBS News.

Previously, scientists had only mapped temperature records back 22,000 years.

Snyder said she didn’t intend for the study to make predictions about climate change, but instead to map the past relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature and project the possibility of a continued correlation.

“This research cannot and does not provide a forecast or prediction for future climate change,” Snyder told Gizmodo. “All we can say is, if we take the past relationship [between temperature and CO2] and translate it forward, this is what we get.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.