From Aarhus University, and the department of weighted (by the kilogram) peer review comes a really heavy new report. See actual photo caption at right, bold mine, I kid you not. I loved this quote from the press release: ‘Polar bears and the other highly adapted organisms cannot move further north, so they may go extinct’
Arctic biodiversity under serious threat from climate change according to new report
Climate change caused by human activities is by far the worst threat to biodiversity in the Arctic
Unique and irreplaceable Arctic wildlife and landscapes are crucially at risk due to global warming caused by human activities according to the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), a new report prepared by 253 scientists from 15 countries under the auspices of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council.
“An entire bio-climatic zone, the high Arctic, may disappear. Polar bears and the other highly adapted organisms cannot move further north, so they may go extinct. We risk losing several species forever,” says Hans Meltofte of Aarhus University, chief scientist of the report.
From the iconic polar bear and elusive narwhal to the tiny Arctic flowers and lichens that paint the tundra in the summer months, the Arctic is home to a diversity of highly adapted animal, plant, fungal and microbial species. All told, there are more than 21,000 species.
Maintaining biodiversity in the Arctic is important for many reasons. For Arctic peoples, biodiversity is a vital part of their material and spiritual existence. Arctic fisheries and tourism have global importance and represent immense economic value. Millions of Arctic birds and mammals that migrate and connect the Arctic to virtually all parts of the globe are also at risk from climate change in the Arctic as well as from development and hunting in temperate and tropical areas. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems such as vast areas of lowland tundra, wetlands, mountains, extensive shallow ocean shelves, millennia-old ice shelves and huge seabird cliffs are characteristic to the Arctic. These are now at stake, according to the report.
“Climate change is by far the worst threat to Arctic biodiversity. Temperatures are expected to increase more in the Arctic compared to the global average, resulting in severe disruptions to Arctic biodiversity some of which are already visible,” warns Meltofte.
A planetary increase of 2 °C, the worldwide agreed upon acceptable limit of warming, is projected to result in vastly more heating in the Arctic with anticipated temperature increases of 2.8-7.8 °C this century. Such dramatic changes will likely result in severe damage to Arctic biodiversity.
Climate change impacts are already visible in several parts of the Arctic. These include northward range expansions of many species, earlier snow melt, earlier sea ice break-up and melting permafrost together with development of new oceanic current patterns.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: This image shows a sea butterfly (Limacina helicina), a key Arctic sea snail. With the acidification expected in Arctic waters due to the increased concentration of CO2, populations of sea…Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
It is expected that climate change could shrink Arctic ecosystems on land, as northward moving changes are pressed against the boundary of the Arctic Ocean: the so called “Arctic squeeze”. As a result, Arctic terrestrial ecosystems may disappear in many places, or only survive in alpine or island refuges.
Disappearing sea ice is affecting marine species, changing dynamics in the marine food web and productivities of the sea. Many unique species found only in the Arctic rely on this ice to hunt, rest, breed and/or escape predators.
Other key findings
- Generally speaking, overharvest is no longer a primary threat, although pressures on some populations remain a serious problem.
- A variety of contaminants have bioaccumulated in several Arctic predator species to levels that threaten the health and ability to reproduce of both animals and humans. However, it is not clear if this is affecting entire populations of species.
- Arctic habitats are among the least anthropogenic disturbed on Earth, and huge tracts of almost pristine tundra, mountain, freshwater and marine habitats still exist.
- Regionally, ocean bottom trawling, non-renewable resource development and other intensive forms of land use pose serious challenges to Arctic biodiversity.
- Pollution from oil spills at sites of oil and gas development and from oil transport is a serious local level threat particularly in coastal and marine ecosystems.
- Uptake of CO2 in sea water is more pronounced in the cold Arctic waters than elsewhere, and the resulting acidification of Arctic seas threaten calcifying organisms and maybe even fisheries.
- Shipping and resource development corridors are rapidly expanding and may dramatically increase the rate of introduction of alien species.
- There is an enormous deficit in our knowledge of species richness in many groups of organisms, and monitoring in the Arctic is lagging far behind that in other regions of the world.
- The multitude of changes in Arctic biodiversity – driven by climate and other anthropogenic stressors – will have profound effects on the living conditions of peoples in the Arctic.
Contact:
Chief scientist and executive editor, senior advisor DSc. Hans Meltofte
Department of Bioscience and Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University
Chief Scientist and executive editor of the ABA
Tel. +45 8715 8691
Mobile tel. +45 2988 9278
Email: mel@dmu.dk
More predictions based on Playstation Climatology, gawd!
I kid you not. This is the leader of the UK green party demanding sackings of government ministers who deny global warming. Watch the video here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26191047
A quick review of polar bear populations shows there aren’t any recorded populations within the centre of the Arctic Basin (the geographic north pole).
Of course, poley bears live where they do because they got kicked out by the other animals. They’re probably preverts* of some kind, so we’re better off without them anyway.
* Tip of the cap to Keenan Wynn.
” Col Mosby says:
February 14, 2014 at 8:03 am
So how come polar bears live in Chicago zoos?”
Sorry, bad analogy. They are hand fed in zoos, sometimes giraffes, I think (although I could be mistaken there…).
I once stumped a teacher who was going on about how much of a range predators in the wild need, and how little they get in zoos: “Sir? Maybe that means they need every square centimeter of that range to survive, and are quite content with getting fed thrice-daily”. I believe I almost failed that course for some reason.
Just ask the warmist who raises this “report”: how on earth did they survive the LAST time it was [insert scare-mongering temperature]?
IF they believe in evolution, they would have to consider that natural selection would breed bears that would be adaptable to the new environment.
THAT always stumps them.
None of the arctic doomsayers that I’ve asked have ever been able to answer one simple question:
Q: How much of the floating arctic ice melted during the last interglacial?
A: All of it. Every last ice cubes worth. It is natural, normal, and expected during the peak of the interglacials. Now if it DOESN’T all melt before the next big freeze.. Then we are probably in for some serious trouble on the next cycle…
It’s completely ludicrous to think Arctic biodiversity or humanity is under threat due to human CO2 emissions.
P.S. Marc Morano is on Alex Jones Infowars radio at 1:30 ET,
http://prisonplanet.tv/news/watch_free/free_to_look_audio.php
Unless polar bear food relocates chances are good the bears will stay put. Unless the food polar bear food eats relocates chances are good the bear food will stay put. In any event all these creatures are where they are now because that is the right place for them. It wasn’t always so. If that right place moves again, that is where they will all go. Just like the last time. They weren’t born stupid.
The Fins showed us what happens when the right place moves and you don’t follow it – they froze to death during the LIA. Same thing happened at Greenland.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:30 am
It seems to me that he was talking about hypothetical extinctions, as CACA has not yet produced any extinctions. I suppose that ringed seals might welcome the extinction of polar bears.
Anti-vaccine campaigners seem to want to preserve pathogenic organisms along with cuddly ones.
So, as the arctic becomes warmer and more like tropical rain forests, the most diverse ecosystems on earth, they will exhibit less biodiversity. Sounds like a theory based on intelligent design rather than evolution.
I recommend retraining those polar bears.
Just keep on walking baby , and you will come to a whole new planet, that opens out before you, And the further “north” you go, the more food you will find and more room to raise a family, and it will be a bit more coy than where you are now.
Problem solved
@outdoorrink
Is there anything that CO2 doesn’t destroy?
My current favourite is the UK National Health Service, which has a web site providing medical advice. Under their data for Migrane are the following lines:
Many factors have been identified as triggers for a migraine. These triggers include emotional, physical, dietary, environmental and medicinal factors. They are outlined below.
Environmental triggers
Environmental triggers include:
bright lights
flickering screens, such as a television or computer screen
smoking (or smoky rooms)
loud noises
changes in climate…..
See http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Migraine/Pages/Causes.aspx
But those “flickering lights” and “loud noises” (at low, subsonic frequencies) do NOT include “flickering wind turbine blades” all around a trapped person, all spinning at slightly different rates, do they?
It is widely accepted that low solar activity reduces TSI by a very small amount and has little effect on cooling planet Earth. However, I posit the effect of low solar activity is amplified by increased cloud cover caused by lower magnetic fields allowing more cosmic rays for cloud seeding, resulting in more cloud cover that reflects TSI warming back into space, as shown by the CREN cloud experiment. The following is another study;
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
New paper finds another Amplification Mechanism by which the Sun controls climate, via Water Vapor
“A paper published today in Advances in Space Research finds changes in solar activity during 11 year solar cycles exert control over interannual changes in atmospheric water vapor. In turn, “Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It plays a major role in the dynamics of atmospheric circulation, radiation exchange within the atmosphere, and climate variability. Knowledge of the distribution of water vapor is important for understanding climate change and global warming.”
The authors find precipitable water vapor shows cyclic variations of 10-11 years which are inversely correlated with the ~11 year solar cycles. Although the authors say the mechanism is unknown, perhaps there is some tie to the Svensmark theory of cosmoclimatology, which posits increased clouds [water vapor] result during periods of low solar activity, a similar inverse correlation.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/02/new-paper-finds-another-amplification.html
“””””…..more soylent green! says:
February 14, 2014 at 7:53 am
Two recently articles from the Wall Street Journal I haven’t seen covered elsewhere:…..”””””
I already covered that right here at WUWT.
And NO, they did NOT obtain any net energy, or breakthrough; and they aren’t going to., because electricity “pushes”, but gravity “sucks”.
The sun “makes” fusion energy because gravity sucks.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:42 am
” … Extinctions are always good …”
—-l
“Good” is a very subjective word and and “always” is an extreme term. Are you sure? Would that include extinctions caused by humans?
As an abstract idea: do you think the extinction of humans could be good? If so, then from whose perspective?
I think that using the theory of evolution to justify the extinction of any specie is a mistake. There are better reasons for wiping out a specie, as milodonharlani pointed out.
I would still like to hear from jakee308 which current extinctions he had in mind that could have positive effects for humans.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:26 am
In English, “species” is both singular & plural.
I’m OK with the bacterium Yersinia pestis, the tropical rat flea & some rat species going extinct, too. But they won’t.
Negrum:
If you could point out the positives of the current extinctions I am sure you could convince people to accept them.
Please advise which species have gone extinct due to AGW.
At 2.9 kg the 253 scientist authors clearly did not think about the environment when they got the book printed. A lot of trees needed to be cut for that project, loads of energy used to turn them from a living organism into paper. What is the effect of all that on the Arctic? I do hope that they have planted enough trees to absorb the same amount of CO2 that the ones that were cut down did plus enough to absorb the CO2 created in the process to turn them into printed paper. And that is not even thinking about all the CO2 created by them having to get there (and be there for extended periods), assuming that all 253 people plus support teams actually went there to look at this which would have had to happen over a number of years to verify evidence for their hypothesis.
Why not keep it to an e-report if they are really as concerned about the environment as they make out to be? (It is not as impressive on the coffee table).
Personally, I find it very depressive to even think about those poor living trees that lost their lives to be turned into paper to have this printed on it. Think of it, they were still happily blowing in the wind absorbing lovely growth giving CO2 even just a few months ago, now they are all gone. Sniff.
milodonharlani says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:11 am
—-l
I consider anti-vaccine campaigners very dangerous to everyone around them and a perfect example of how a theory can be put into practice without foresight.
“I’m OK with the bacterium Yersinia pestis, the tropical rat flea & some rat species going extinct, too.”
I’m very happy as well that I can make it to the subway station without being hunted by a sabre-toothed cat. Would love to see one in a zoo, or know that there is a healthy breeding population somewhere in the wild in a reserve, where they can eat mammoth and giant sloth.
Whenever this debate comes up, and maybe its just the bean counter in me, but I always ask: is that loss of species gross, or net? “Huh?”, will come the response from whatever WWFPeace-type I’m confronting.
Well, are you taking into account all those species we’ve newly “discovered”, THEN deducting the “extinct” ones? “Huh?” will be the response.
Do you take into account that many of these species are (barely) different on the DNA level from robust populations of similar species? “Huh?”…Etc.
Maybe they can move to the South Pole where the ice is growing (-:………………or maybe we can just wait a couple of decades and see that they do just fine, long after the alarmist charades are over and the gravy train for biased scientists has dried up.
“Hans Meltofte of Aarhus University, chief scientist”
may disappear up his own Aarhus Hole IMHO !!!
This is absolute poppycock in his report and it is
the biggest load of tripe I have seen in years, since
the Charles Monett “Bowhead Whales” debacle …..
outtheback says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:33 am
” … Please advise which species have gone extinct due to AGW. …”
—-l
Please snip, mods, if too far off topic.
You might have misunderstood my position. I made no such claim, nor do I think any specie has gone extinct due to CAGW, nor do I think any will, since the theory has been demonstrated false to my satisfaction. As to the publication format, I am not particularly concerned about trees dying, provided there are enough to replace them.
The discussion concerns extinction from an evolutionary point of view and I am interested in people’s views as to what lengths should be done to preserve a specie (unless our survival is threatened, in which case the question becomes moot :)) or at what point humanity should destroy a specie (if within our power) or just let it die out. I feel that using the evolution theory to justify such decisions is incorrect.
To avoid any misunderstanding: I have no problem with the evolution theory, which I consider the most likely of those I have come accross, but I wonder to what extent humanity and human behaviour is still defined by the evolution theory. The Darwin awards come to mind, but it seems like a very small corrective action for such a large group 🙂
I was under the mistaken impression that what matters most to polar bears is Spring sea ice.
Here are some polar bears which could not move further north during the Arctic ice-free periods of the Holocene Hypsithermal.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/global-warming-climate-change/#comment-1366283
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:26 am
I already explained why. Perhaps you should have read the part you snipped off.
As far as humans going extinct, we will. This may happen sooner or later, but it will happen. From an evolutionary point of view this would be good, because we were not suited to the conditions. From a human point of view (I can speak authoritatively here, since I have been a human for more than ½ of my life) it would not be very good, since being dead goes against the point & driving principle of life.
From an evolutionary point of view, your only job is to survive & pass on your genes. If you fail to do this, then you have done correctly as well, since failure is supposed to not pass on its genes. If some humans want to destroy their own species (perhaps because they’re insane, enviro nutjobs) it would be best if they didn’t reproduce, since they are in fact defective. But from an outside view, if they succeed in destroying humanity, then humanity was very poorly suited for survival, QED.
Since we can’t know the future, we can only do our best to eat & hump lots because that’s our job as living organisms. The other living organisms have to do the same job, & good luck to them!