
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.
![]() |
||||
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

Will the biodiversity be in its maximum if we have just ice and snow? Global minimum biodiversity can be found in the tropics?
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm
” … I see, so you ask a question, & then get all huffy when someone answers …”
—-l
A bit of projection there ? The only huffiness I see is from you when someone does not automatically accept that you have all the answers and does not immediately bow to your insight. The sneering tone is not helping either.
You seem not to have grasped that characterising and insulting does not help you to convince someone in debate, no matter how much you feel you might benefit from it. If you are trying to convey information, you might do better if you took note of milodonharlani’s and other regular posters’ style.
Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 6:35 pm
” … I see, so you ask a question, & then get all huffy when someone answers …”
—-l
A bit of projection there ? The only huffiness I see is from you when someone does not automatically accept that you have all the answers and does not immediately bow to your insight. The sneering tone is not helping either.
You seem not to have grasped that characterising and insulting does not help you to convince someone in debate, especially not skeptics. It makes them wonder if you really have any point worth making. If you are trying to convey information or convince someone who has strayed from what you consider to be the truth, you might do better if you took note of milodonharlani’s and other regular posters’ style.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Sorry, I’m on deadline & have already played hooky here too long. I’m not sure that discussion of whether extinctions are “good” or “bad” is off-topic however.
CaligulaJones says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:48 am
Some paleontologists think that human occupation of the Americas might have been delayed by the short-faced bear & other fearsome predators not found in the Old World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-faced_bear
There was however overlap here between humans armed with advanced weapons & this gigantic carnivore.
[quoting article] “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 …. ”
Just the fact that all those birds and mammals migrate to and from the Arctic is testimony to the fact that the Arctic was “ice free” many eons ago or those birds and mammals would never have started migrating “north for the summer”. It is the “hours-of-daylight” that triggers the “start” of their migrations …. and it is the snow/ice on the surface that determines how far north to go.
And if all the Arctic ice/snow melts ….. the Polar Bears will just be getting fatter because all the female seals will no longer be able to give birth and hide their pups in “snow caves” atop the surface ice. And the migratory bird population should explode because it will open up hundreds of square miles of new nesting and feeding areas
Similarly, in Antarctica, just the fact that those Emperor Penguins will trek 60 to 100 miles across the ice to their nesting site is testimony to the fact that area in Antarctica was “ice free” many eons ago or those Penguins would never have gotten into the “habit” of returning to a “birth site” that far inland from “open” water.
Just my learned opinion and you can take it for what its worth.
Comments much crazy, must smokem peace pipe with Chief Hans for enlightenment.
Chief Melting Hans is off the reservation.
The entire tribe is off the reservation seeking wampum beads, kidnapping our children, and pillaging science.
***
Jim Steele says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:26 am
All the data shows that the whole food web has benefited from the recent loss of ice from plankton, to cod to seals to bears.
***
Thanks for your posts. I’ve wondered if whales have lately been taking advantage (thru the Bering Strait) of the extended open water in the Chukchi Sea?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/11/giant-mass-extinction-may-have-been-quicker-than-previously-thought/#comment-1568666
Comment from another thread which bears on issue of whether extinctions are “good” or “bad”. Most catastrophic extinction of the Phanerozoic Eon made possible the evolution of, for instance, birds & mammals, along with the rest of the wonderful Mesozoic/Cenozoic fauna & such spectacular flora as flowering plants.
These are valid points though:
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.
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.
“Stark Dickflüssig says:
February 14, 2014 at 11:34 am
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.”
You are a nutcase!
“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 :)”
By all means, continue. This has been an edifying discussion., I love the smart people this magic electronic wonder has been able to find.
Gary Pearse says:
February 15, 2014 at 5:41 pm
OK, my two cents-worth on extinction:
It’s not good or bad, just natural. Humans might think that humans going extinct is bad. We might also think that reduction in the diversity of other organisms with which we share the planet is also bad, except for species harmful to us & not important components of any ecosystem. Greenies who hate humanity might OTOH wish for more rather than fewer lethal pathogens in our environment.
Earth is about halfway through its complex large organism phase. So far in the Phanerozoic Eon, the planet has been able to bounce back from major & minor extinction events, & normal background extinctions have given rise to lifeforms better adapted to changed conditions or able to take better advantage of existing conditions.
Think of humans. Was it a bad thing that australopithecines & other hominids went extinct, to be replaced by members of genus Homo? Was it good or bad that H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, Neanderthals & Denisovans were replaced by anatomically modern humans?
Complex life on Earth survived even the Mother of All Mass Extinctions, the End Permian. But it won’t survive what’s coming in the next 500 million to five billion years, unless our descendants or some other even more capable species can colonize the galaxy or figure out how to keep the solar system habitable for multicellular organisms or life at all despite the big changes that will naturally occur in it as the sun nears the end of its Main Sequence development.
Despite big setbacks like the mass extinction events, biodiversity has increased during the Phanerozoic, but the time is coming in which the trend will be down, then out, if nature takes its course. But then humans & intelligent life in general are also part of the natural world, so who knows? Maybe life in this & other galaxies will evolve to keep the universe from ending in either a whimper or a bang.
PS: Of course right now humans can’t even significantly affect the climate of Earth, so engineering the solar system & the galaxy or universe is a bit of a stretch.
Sooo…..as long as the warming happens naturally, as it has during every interglacial since Earth became colder some two and a half million years ago, then everything is fine. But if the warming is manmade, then all those species that survived warmer past interglacials will suddenly vanish?
Sooooo…….it is pretty much a given fact that the earth’s climate will return to “ice age” conditions, or even maybe a “snowball” earth. But, it is my opinion that, it is extremely unlikely that the earth will ever morph into an extremely “hot age” simply because the vast amount of liquid water that is resident upon the earth. Atmospheric H2O vapor is a bi-directional thermal energy buffer.
116 comments and no-one has told any Aarhus jokes?
http://www.holdet.dk/da/forum/other/threads/229610
http://www.fun4all.dk/humorsiden/aarhus-historier.htm