This is how an ecosystem dies. The extent of summer sea ice across the Arctic recently reached the lowest point on record, according to satellite measurements from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
If the polar meltdown continues at this pace, some experts say, the Arctic sea could be ice-free for a day or more by 2020. For polar bears and many other amazing Arctic animals, this is the beginning of the end. They depend on sea ice for survival. If we allow the ice to vanish, they will go with it.
But as devastating as those extinctions will be, the consequences won't stop there. The death of the Arctic is likely to affect you personally -- whoever you are and wherever you live.
That's because, while Arctic sea ice is a victim of global warming, it's also one of the planet's most important defenses against the climate change that results from pumping more than 30 gigatons of man-made carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere every year. And that defense is about to fail.
The exact consequences are hard to predict. But here are three possible outcomes that could wreak havoc from Boston to Bangladesh:
1. More extreme weather.
Call it the Earth's air conditioning. Or the planet's sun hat. Whatever metaphor you use, Arctic sea ice plays a critical role in regulating the world's climate and ocean by reflecting most of the sun's energy back into space and keeping the polar region cool.
As the ice pack melts, more of the sun's energy is absorbed by the underlying seawater, spurring the Arctic to heat up at an ever-faster pace. Recent studies (like this one and this one) have linked melting sea ice and accelerating Arctic warming to changes in the jet stream that increase the frequency of extreme weather events in the United States and other mid-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. That means more droughts, more floods, more heat waves and more extreme snow events.
The United States has already suffered an onslaught of recent weather weirdness - including a devastating drought that has destroyed thousands of acres of crops - attributed by prominent scientists to climate change. As the Arctic melts and the jet stream changes, we can expect more and worse.
The harm to our economy, our infrastructure and even our personal safety will be severe. And because North America is a breadbasket to the world, our rising risk of crop failures will have global consequences.
2. Massive new oil and gas drilling.
Until now, the Arctic Ocean has mostly been off limits to offshore drilling. But in a dire sign of what's to come, the Obama administration just gave initial approval to Shell Oil's plans to begin controversial and dangerous oil drilling in Arctic waters near Alaska.
The Arctic contains massive oil and gas deposits. As the sea ice melts, more and more will become accessible to oil companies around the world.
That's especially disturbing because carbon dioxide levels over the Arctic recently reached 400 parts per million (or ppm). For perspective, consider that scientists say we need to reduce atmospheric carbon levels to 350 ppm to avoid catastrophic climate change.
That requires transitioning quickly to clean energy sources - not rushing to extract every last drop of carbon-rich fossil fuel buried in the dying Arctic.
3. Unleash the clathrates!
They lie deep beneath the surface of the Arctic Ocean -- small, icy structures called "clathrates" that collectively contain a huge volume of methane, an incredibly potent greenhouse gas.
That methane is safely caged -- for now. But as the Arctic sea ice melts, the ocean warms. And eventually that warming will release the methane. A related danger: As the Arctic warms, we may see massive permafrost melt leading to releases of huge amounts of methane and carbon dioxide.
How quickly these vicious "climate feedbacks" will develop is no easy thing to predict. But methane is already being emitted from thousands of sites in the Arctic, according to research published earlier this year in the journal Nature Geoscience. And a new study in Nature finds there may be far more carbon escaping from permafrost in Arctic Siberia than previously thought.
Such methane releases have been linked to massive climate changes in the earth's past. These "climate bombs" have the potential to trigger runaway climate change. Their fuses may be long or short. But by melting the Arctic sea ice, we are launching a high-stakes climate experiment. The results could be devastating.
A Wake-up Call
None of this is inevitable. This year's unprecedented sea ice decline could be the wake-up call our society badly needs.
Despite the posturing and inaction of politicians, Americans realize that climate change is a growing threat. But we need to help our leaders understand that it's time to move from debating the climate crisis to doing something about it. We should demand, for example, that the Environmental Protection Agency move much more quickly to use the Clean Air Act to cut greenhouse gas pollution.
We have to act fast. If we don't, we'll have even more to mourn than the death of the Arctic.
Follow Kassie Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CBD_Climate
Au contraire. If we terminate CO2 emissions by 2050, we'd face 0.8C temperature increase over pre-industrial realized, plus say 0.6C already in the pipeline, plus say 0.7C from output by 2050, summing to 2.1C. Then there is the accompanying loss of the sulphate parasol, which the median of Hansen's finding puts at a 110% increase, raising 2.1C to 4.41C. With a 20 to 40yr timelag after 2050, this would give a realized warming in say 2080 of 4.41C. Large scale destruction!
This is a very conservative estimate; none of the major feedbacks are included. As the article shows, we are already experiencing rapid increases of methane release in the Arctic based on 0.8 C temperature increase, and much more is expected as temperature increases. But, even if we terminated CO2 emissions today, the above three effects would give a temperature increase of about 3 C by 2030. Almost all serious analyses I've seen don't believe we can stabilize temperature much above 1.5 C because of the feedbacks. Unless we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere now, and re-cool the Arctic, the die is cast. The clock has run out.
I have lost all faith that they will not drill there. They will stop at nothing to make it happen. Shoot, they prolly got huge heaters blowing out there just to make it melt faster.
I'm so glad I am my age and more than likely won't be here for the devastating effects. Oh, they forgot to mention the rising sea levels, which will effect the poor the most.
Mankind is a poor steward for the earth, because the majority are trying to leave the biggest carbon footprint they can, before their lives are over.
Those of us who do care about the world, that we leave for future generations, are drowned out by those who don't.
Want to use the god theory your Eden awaits.
But another fear which is taught to us from a young age whether we realize it or not is to fear technology, I can’t think of many science fiction books let alone films that don’t betray technology as the enemy or used by the enemy, so if your told it is bad over and over again you automatically think it, it’s human nature so if you take the fear of technology and spin it around and embrace it it becomes a tool to benefit mankind and will help man build new technology that could really help us.
Technology is based in science so automatically you have a conflict with religion because science is based in reason not religion, so religion loses it’s power, what is the biggest organization in the world, religion.
You have to wonder why the far right are pushing religion just because it goes against the constitution, is the church trying to make a comeback by praying on peoples need for hope especially these days
Now most roads lead back to one organization that has been in the confidents of nearly every leader in the world, the church.
Technology helps us not hinders us ,it allows to explore ,!
back to technology,heres the thing when we view technology in the work place or anywhere we see it as replacing humans from a social-economic stand point because that’s what we are taught,
technology is doing what it’s created for to do help us produce >now this means that we actually have more time to do things we enjoy in our free time,>the reason why the unemployed aren’t out enjoying themselves is they do not have the money to>.if they had money to do that they would realize the benefits of technology as a method of gaining more time to enjoy the family, friends and the planet. This works because of sharing
money dictates everything in our lives from how much food we can buy to how much gas we can put in eg affecting distances we travel to work and on
Money is manmade and has no bearing on the planet system, we are the only species to use it, it does not benefit any other species than us because man created it so take all the social and economics out of it and the fear of scarcity and not being able to afford stuff and technology and machines become useful by allowing us to enjoy life to the fullest,
Truth be told , it will require huge changes. One thing that would help a lot is if people would adopt a plant based diet. And no I'm not suggesting that for health reasons, although there are huge health benefits to it. I'm suggesting it for environmental reasons. People don't care. A person could get out of surgery for lung cancer, and the first thing they'll do is light up a cigarette. I don't understand people.
Our rooftops are baking and sprawling, and PV panels alone could reduce cooling loads by 38%, not counting the enormous amount of energy they produce, when and where it's needed, so why is Gang Green trying to kill the Mojave for LESS efficient solar instead of fighting hard for solutions that will actually make a difference to climate change?
Instead of lecturing us about what we need to do, maybe you should take a meeting with your colleagues and teach them about German style feed in tariffs for ROOFTOP solar, about passive heating/cooling and about sustainable, not deadly energy generation? Maybe then CBD would start working for solutions that will help, rather than moving the problem to our deserts, ridgelines and grasslands...
The problem with this hyperbole is that it negates any potential validity to her argument.
Ask yourself if an office complex, apartment building or parking lot can release oxygen; maintain the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, naturally regulate and moderate the climate, provide the climate cooling water cycle; naturally take care of the greenhouse gases for Earth and man; provide the entirety of Earth's biogeochemistry; create and renew a life yielding soil at the base of the ecological pyramid;
purify the air and water, provide decomposition; seed dispersal and pollination, 75% of new medicines, 99% of all pest control and the control and checking of human disease pathogens that cause epidemics.
Land surface changes impact regional climates. When they plowed the Great Plains grassland ecosystem for agriculture that climate heated up, and cities have hotter climates too. Skinning ecosystems feedsback to a hotter and drier climate and also re-releases the sequestered greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere. We are destroying what naturally takes care of the climate warming gases or Earth's natural and wild ecosystems that cool the climate with water transpiration.
We now know that the oil we burn was laid down during brief periods of extreme warmth and ocean anoxia. The anoxic oceans (dead areas with no oxygen) contributed to extinction events. The worst Ocean Anoxic Event (OAE) occurred during the Permian/Triassic extinction event when 95% of all species died off.
Since the oil was laid down during those OAE periods, aren't we reversing the process that put the oil in the Earth? Are we then creating the conditions for another Ocean Anoxic Event? Are we creating the conditions that will disrupt all food chains on the planet?
In the Bible, Jesus said "Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do." Maybe he was more right than we know.
---
With 640 acres per square mile, and the drought in the US dropping certain grain production figures by about 25%, and those grain production areas are many thousands of square miles, a more reasonable ballpark of the crop areas destroyed by the drought would be MILLIONS of acres.
Remember when the global warming religionists demagogued Katrina stating it was just the beginning and we would see more in 2006 and beyond? What occurred in the following two years? No major hurricanes hit the US and since then nothing bigger than a cat 2.
Now, it’s safe to assume looking how perfectly the ecosystem works it has built controls for all species
Man does not consider itself an animal, but in the eyes of the planet we are just another species
So climate change to cull the growing population, droughts brings famine and disease, bacteria thrives in warmth.
Climate change melts the icecaps leaving less resources and land, so now crowded together, disease spreads much more easily.
I can go on and on and on
But my point is that population growth is killing us maybe we have stretched the planets resources too far and now it is reducing the population of the dominant species. We don’t view the planet as living organism but when you look at how the ecosystem is meant to work its damn close and it’s been protecting its self since the beginning of time,
Maybe we are procreating ourselves out of existence!
There’s holes but not to many.
time to look at this answer in another section but it kind of makes sense
These would all change the game completely.
man is not logical in fact far from it,we put value on money etc>>>>> above life and the life support system,ask yourself what species would destroy the one thing that keeps it alive it's not in any way logical.
we assume the planet is meant fit man, heres' the problem, the planet built on logic has been around before man,following logic shouldn't man fit into the planets scheme not the other way around.
we don't fit and that's the problem ,it's all about perception.we don't view it the correct way!!but there's hope,the perfect planet would not introduce a species that would intentionally hurt it,we have to change our perceptions and see that we are the problem not the planet.that worked perfectly well till man can along.we're meant to co-exist with it,maybe we are not the smartest species after all!!!!We have to share to survive and we start now by putting the problem on every front page
we have to use it to fit into the planets scheme not ours!
why have a brain if you don't use it to develop limitless possibilities and work with the planet,our brain has the ability to make the impossible possible!
We haven’t learned to harvest the earth properly; we extract more than is replenished in fact we don’t even allow that to happen so the resources are diminishing
Now include climate change = droughts, extreme weather, less land, less resources from climate change (it does not matter who caused it, it’s real and it’s happening).
the problem becomes huge.
Maybe we are procreating ourselves out of existence.
Maybe it is time to explore
or even
And agriculture? The red zones in this graphic show areas of the world that will experience regular droughts as bad or worse than the one that afflicted the MidWest this summer (and that has doubled grain prices across the World):
http://tinyurl.com/6snrvmo
Gee, whats not to love?
BTW, Google.org commissioned a study on clean energy and what they found was that every five years that we delay a move to green energy actually COSTS this country $3 trillion dollars by 2050.
Link: http://www.google.org/energyinnovation/growth.html
So much for 'the benefits way out weigh the downside'