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
But if you’re asking what we should do about other species, I say kill & eat them. If they taste good, then we farm them. If they taste bad or they’re too difficult to farm, then just let them die off or let the PETA-fruitcups farm them at their own expense.
squidlyrumskadoo says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:04 am
“. . . hokey stick . . .” ???
Greetings squidly,
I suggest you start here: [easy to read and gives you the background]
http://climateaudit.org/?s=ohio
Then on the left side of Steve’s top page is a list called “Pages” – 2/3 of the way down is a link to “Hockey Stick Studies.” Try that. This stuff is starting to get old and some links may not work – computer crashes, changes, and so on.
Steve’s blog is referred to as CA and the A stands for “audit” and that means some hard slogging for those not trained in math/stat.
Also, here on WUWT there is a search box at the top right. In that box, type this single word: Yamal
Start reading.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 11:29 am
” …I already explained why. …”
—-l
I did not find the explanation sufficient, since “good” in terms of evolution is not necessarily good for humanity, which is what I am more interested in. I am familiar with the evolution theory and snipped what I considered to be irrelevant.
—-l
” … From an evolutionary point of view …”
—-l
I think that this is where we differ. I look at the universe from a human point of view and do not consider the evolution theory adequate guidance as to what is good or bad.
If I understand you correctly, you feel that there is no point in preserving any species that has no immediate or obvious use? If so, this sounds remarkable like the philosophy of savages, where the pursuit of science is not considered a priority.
—-l
” …As far as humans going extinct, we will …”
—-l
Not being able to forsee the future, I am not so convinced as you are of this “fact” 🙂
—-l
” But if you’re asking what we should do about other species, I say kill & eat them. …”
—-l
That is certainly one of their uses. In case you are also under a misapprehension, I consume other animals (preferably not alive) without any qualm or twinge of conscience and I am no treehugger 🙂
milodonharlani says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:33 am
” … species…”
—l
Thanks. My mind was otherwise engaged – I will not make the mistake again 🙂
Correct. If they can survive, they are good. If they fail at surviving then it’s better in the long run that they don’t. I’m not suggesting we try to figure out which ones we need to kill off (that’s a foolish waste of resources), I’m arguing against spending any time or money preserving useless dead-ends. I have no problem with people wasting their own time, & money they’ve actually earned, diddling poley bears (or blasting cocaine up their noses, or rolling around naked in a blackberry bramble, or watching Woody Allen movies), but I certainly hope you don’t mind that when you publically express some ridiculous urge, I express disdain for it.
As soon as they mention increased ocean acidification I know they’re talking B.S.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:26 pm
” … I’m arguing against spending any time or money preserving useless dead-ends. …”
—-l
It’s not always so easy to predict which are the useless dead-ends, hence conservation (often funded by governments). I don’t think your approach would have contributed much to the growth of civilisation or the progress of mankind.
Your disdain indicates more about yourself than you think. Sneering is not the best way to make your point.
Makes me wonder, how much will the combined court documents weigh?
In the fullness of time, forced by public rage, these charlatans will see their turn in the dock.
CAGW has cost more than WW2, the victims were mostly unarmed and the guilty parties just as unlovely as those tried at Nuremberg.
Right now the bankers of the world are engaged in panic mode, trying to save face and fortune.
CAGW was cause or cover? I don’t know.
However massive public treasure has been looted and wasted, the fools and thieves who infest our civic infrastructures are exposed.
Once the banks implode, or admit the losses, the public will be most unhappy.
Seems to me there may be some species curtailment coming.
But these species are part of the human condition, they will never be extinguished.
john robertson says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Ah, then this explains why then SkS goons felt compelled to dress up like German WWII soldiers, if not fact SS Nazis, their namesakes. Thanks. I wondered.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Humans will eventually go extinct or evolve into something else, same as all other species on our planet.
Personally I favor conservation efforts for the rhinos, even though their once dominant order, the perissodactyls (odd-toed ungulates) is clearly on the way out. In it are left only the horse family, tapirs & rhinos. Compare & contrast with the vibrant, more newfangled artiodactyls, which order includes not only the huge variety of cud-chewers but the whales. As today’s few remnant rhinos suffer from human activity & have economic if not also ecological value, I’m OK with trying to save them.
milodonharlani says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm
” Humans will eventually go extinct or evolve into something else, same as all other species on our planet. …”
—-l
I think you are far too gloomy about the future – for a species at one point on the edge of extinction we have not done too badly to progress to the point where we can wipe out all other life on the planet – ourselves as well 🙂 I would say the biggest risk now ( apart from an inconvenient meteorite) is the madness of crowds.
This is not even up to Pseudo-Science level. Ice extent and thickness is the arctic is increasing fast and temperatures are down. Polar Bears are highly adaptable and their numbers more than doubled in the past 50 years. There was a Polar Bear called Liya who recently gave birth to a baby Polar Bear at Sea World on the Gold Coast. Temperatures up there are frequently over 30 degrees Centigrade. The Polar Bears get ice blocks in the warmer weather but are generally very happy. The Polar Bears in the arctic do not need to go north, south, east or west.
David Dodds @ur momisugly 12:41 – Are you the Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation guy?
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm
We lack the power to wipe out all life. All other life however has the power to wipe us out.
An animal species typically lasts about two million years, although there are a few “living fossils” which at least superficially beat this term substantially. We’re only less than ten percent into a normal run. Even if we successfully take control of our evolution & don’t go extinct, we’ll most likely evolve into daughter species.
Unless humans or our descendants engineer the solar system somehow or manage to leave it, we & all multicellular organisms are doomed within about a billion years & even microbes a few billion after that.
milodonharlani says:
February 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm
—-l
Your comments are interesting. Would you like to continue the discussion off the blog? I think it is getting too far off topic for the post and might irritate some of the less tolerant readers 🙂
Indeed, your fumbling attempt at psychology indicates quite a lot, as well. Have a nice day.
It is a sad indictment of our education system, the people doing this study have had their logic circuits shorted by propaganda and an overwhelming faith in science from authority.
They have lost control of their own brains, and can no long think for themselves, like sheep
they follow the great oracle.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Since you felt compelled to comment on my “ridiculous urge” I thought it only fair to return the favour 🙂
—-l
” … Have a nice day.”
—-l
You might not be aware that sarcasm does not assist your point in debate. If it was not intended sarcastically, please ignore the advice.
I find it absolutely amazing, unfathomable that this “scientific” report didn’t once mention the enhancements to bi-diversity and all biology due to the increase in plant food aka carbon dioxide.
How is it possible to not mention one of the greatest improvements to our world of the fertilizer effect of elevated CO2 in a document that appears to be largely about this very life giving gas?
I forgot to mention, the last time I ranted about the lack of acknowledgment of the benefits of CO2, there appeared several articles about the benefits. I don’t know if its the red car syndrome, where when you are looking for a vehicle with certain characteristics, they suddenly appear everywhere, or if my ranting had some effect.
Anyways, we should be bringing up the subject of CO2 benefits far more often.
Hey friend, did you know you might have a problem with elephants? Yes, elephants. If you just wear this button, no elephants will take up residence in your house. If you don’t, they might just show up one day. I can offer it to you for just $10 a month. Do you know how much damage elephants can do to a house? Listen, this is a really good deal. I absolutely guarantee this button will work. I will return all your money if elephants do start living in your house while you are wearing this button. How much is your peace of mind worth to you? Remember, just $10 per month. Isn’t that worth it?
Oh, and for another $25, you can have a bag of crushed crystals. If you scatter them around your yard, they will prevent glaciers from forming on your lawn. If enough of your neighbors buy some, you’ll never have to worry about another Ice Age, ever. And you get the same satisfaction guarantee as the button – a full refund if a glacier ever does grow on your property.
And what could it hurt? Could you donate a couple of bucks to fight climate change?
@Hoser 5:57
Unicorn fencing too, amazing stuff invisible, effects only unicorns, guarantee you will never be gored by a unicorn, while paying off the fencing.
Perhaps it is time to surrender.
If a person buys into CAGW, why not sell them a bridge or two?
If we deliberately separated these idiots from their money, they would be less able to damage our freedoms and society.
This of course will be the major scam artists defence in court.
By defrauding the federal government of billions, for unworkable “alternate energy” schemes, we saved the taxpayer from even worse harm.
Who knew Al Gore is a patriot.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 4:11 pm
I see, so you ask a question, & then get all huffy when someone answers. You sound extremely well-balanced & reasonable there. Have a nice day.
So,,,,,,once again we see the 2 degree guarantee.
Who came up with that number anyhow?
It seems they know the next decades lottery numbers already.
“Shakes head and walks away”
Whew! That’s a relief. As at least 97% of global climate change is not caused by humans,
the Arctic biodiversity is under threat from natural causes only!
We are in an ice age, the Quaternary or Pleistocene Ice Age. We are in an interstadial in
that ice age and have been for the last 10-12 kYs. Previous interstadials lasted about 10kYs
and the previous one, the Eemian, made 16,000 years. Much of today’s lifeforms survived
the previous stadial, and a few didn’t survive man. Most could be expected to survive the
next one. In other words: most life forms are well adapted to such change. They evolved
with such change as a given.