08/08/2020

Global Warming Is Driving Polar Bears Toward Extinction, Researchers Say

New York TimesHenry Fountain

By century’s end, polar bears worldwide could become nearly extinct as a result of shrinking sea ice in the Arctic if climate change continues unabated, scientists said.

A polar bear near the coast of Spitsbergen, Svalbard Islands, Norway. Credit...Peter Barritt/Superstock, via Alamy

Polar bears could become nearly extinct by the end of the century as a result of shrinking sea ice in the Arctic if global warming continues unabated, scientists said Monday.

Nearly all of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, from the Beaufort Sea off Alaska to the Siberian Arctic, would face being wiped out because the loss of sea ice would force the animals onto land and away from their food supplies for longer periods, the researchers said. Prolonged fasting, and reduced nursing of cubs by mothers, would lead to rapid declines in reproduction and survival.

“There is very little chance that polar bears would persist anywhere in the world, except perhaps in the very high Arctic in one small subpopulation” if greenhouse-gas emissions continue at so-called business-as-usual levels, said Peter K. Molnar, a researcher at the University of Toronto Scarborough and lead author of the study, which was published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Even if emissions were reduced to more moderate levels, “we still are unfortunately going to lose some, especially some of the southernmost populations, to sea-ice loss,” Dr. Molnar said.

The fate of polar bears has long been a flash point in the debate over human-caused climate change, used by scientists and environmentalists as well as deniers in their arguments.

By rough estimates there are about 25,000 polar bears in the Arctic. Their main habitat is sea ice, where they hunt seals by waiting for them to surface at holes in the ice. In some areas the bears remain on the ice year round, but in others the melting in spring and summer forces them to come ashore.

“You need the sea ice to capture your food,” Dr. Molnar said. “There’s not enough food on land to sustain a polar bear population.” But bears can fast for months, surviving on the energy from the fat they’ve built up thanks to their seal diet.

Arctic sea ice grows in the winter and melts and retreats in spring and summer. As the region has warmed rapidly in recent decades, ice extent in summer has declined by about 13 percent per decade compared to the 1981-2010 average. Some parts of the Arctic that previously had ice year-round now have ice-free periods in summer. Other parts are now free of ice for a longer portion of the year than in the past.

Dr. Molnar and his colleagues looked at 13 of the subpopulations representing about 80 percent of the total bear population. They calculated the bears’ energy requirements in order to determine how long they could survive — or, in the case of females, survive and nurse their cubs — while fasting.

Combining that with climate-model projections of ice-free days to 2100 if present rates of warming continue, they determined that, for almost all of the subgroups, the time that the animals would be forced to fast would eventually exceed the time that they are capable of fasting.

In short, the animals would starve.

“There’s going to be a time point when you run out of energy,” Dr. Molnar said.

Compounding the problem is that a longer fasting time also means a shorter feeding period. “Not only do the bears have to fast for longer and need more energy to get through this, they also have a harder time to accumulate this energy,” he said.

A polar bear and her cubs on pack ice in the Olga Strait, Svaldbard. Credit...Paulette Sinclair/Alamy

While fasting, bears move as little as possible to conserve energy. But seaT-ice loss and population declines create new problems — having to expend more energy searching for aF mate, for example — that could further affect survival.

Even under more modest warming projections, in which greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2040 and then begin to decline, many of the subgroups would still be wiped out, the research showed.

Over the years, polar bears have become a symbol both for those who argue that urgent action on global warming is needed and for those who claim that climate change is not happening or, at best, that the issue is overblown.

Groups including the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization that challenges aspects of climate change, have called concerns about the bears unwarranted, arguing that some research shows that the animals have survived repeated warm periods. But scientists say during earlier warm periods the bears probably had significant alternative food sources, notably whales, that they do not have today.

Poignant images of bears on isolated ice floes or roaming land in search of food have been used by conservation groups and others to showcase the need for action to reduce warming. Occasionally, though, these images have been shown to be not what they seem.

After a video of an emaciated bear picking through garbage cans in the Canadian Arctic was posted online by National Geographic in 2017, the magazine acknowledged that the bear’s condition might not be related to climate change. Scientists had pointed out that there was no way of knowing what was wrong with the bear; it might have been sick or very old.

The new research did not include projections in which emissions were reduced drastically, said Cecilia M. Bitz, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington and an author of the study. The researchers needed to be able to determine, as precisely as possible, the periods when sea ice would be gone from a particular region. “If we had wanted to look at many models we wouldn’t have been able to do that,” Dr. Bitz said.

Andrew Derocher, a polar bear researcher at the University of Alberta who was not involved in the study, said the findings “are very consistent with what we’re seeing” from, for instance, monitoring the animals in the wild. “The study shows clearly that polar bears are going to do better with less warming,” he added. “But no matter which scenario you look at, there are serious concerns about conservation of the species.”

Of the 19 subpopulations, little is known about some of them, particularly those in the Russian Arctic. Of subpopulations that have been studied, some — generally those in areas with less ice loss — have shown little population decline so far. But others, notably in the southern Beaufort Sea off northeastern Alaska, and in the western Hudson Bay in Canada, have been severely affected by loss of sea ice.

One analysis found that the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation declined by 40 percent, to about 900 bears, in the first decade of this century.

Dr. Derocher said one drawback with studies like these is that, while they can show the long-term trends, “it becomes very difficult to model what is happening from year to year.”

Polar bear populations can be very susceptible to drastic year-to-year changes in conditions, he said. “One of the big conservation challenges is that one or two bad years can take a population that is healthy and push it to really low levels.”

Links

What Can You Do To Fight The Climate Crisis?

The Guardian

Individual acts alone won’t stop the climate crisis, but there are things we can do. We asked experts what they do in their daily lives to make a difference

Composite: Reuters / Guardian Design Team

Panelists
  • Katharine Hayhoe, atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University

  • Adrienne Hollis, senior climate justice and health scientist, the Union of Concerned Scientists

  • Sonia Aggarwal, vice-president, Energy Innovation

  • Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

  • Catherine Flowers, founder, the Center for Rural Enterprise and Environmental Justice

  • Klaus Jacob, special research scientist, Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
As the climate crisis intensifies, scientists and experts agree that systemic change is critical.

But while individual efforts alone aren’t enough to reverse global heating, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can do.

We asked several climate scientists and advocates about individual actions that can make a difference.

What’s one thing you do in your day-to-day life to combat the climate crisis?

Katharine Hayhoe, atmospheric scientist: I have transitioned over 80% of the talks I give to virtual online events (100% these days!), and when I do travel, I bundle my requests and commitments such that I am doing anywhere from 4-5 to as many as 15-25 events in each location that I fly to, in order to minimize the carbon footprint of each individual event.

Adrienne Hollis, climate justice and health scientist: I am being mindful about the water shortage. I like to plant around my deck, and I use my rain barrel to water my plants. It’s a small thing, and it’s a big thing.
I get up at about 6 to water my plants, and I grow my herbs and peppers.
It makes me feel like I am making a difference. And feeling like you’re making a difference is important. It’s finding your way of contributing. It makes you feel like you’re a part of the fight.

Sonia Aggarwal, energy policy expert: I recently found a great deal on a gently used electric car, and I have been loving it for those essential trips when I can’t walk, bike or use public transit.
One thing I didn’t expect: this electric car is the most fun to drive! It’s peppy and quiet and it just feels so good to breeze right past the gas station without a second thought.

Michael Mann, climatologist: I speak out about the climate crisis, and the importance of taking action, using every medium, vehicle, forum or platform that is available to me.

 What can I do in my personal life to address the climate crisis?

Catherine Flowers, environmental justice leader: Use less plastic or no plastic, recycle, eat less meat, reduce our own carbon footprint, build better – there are lots of things we can do.
 Don’t buy unsustainable products, choose something else.
That’s the quickest way to get people to change is to make another choice, then of course the market will adjust.

Sonia Aggarwal: Home energy use is responsible for 20% of US greenhouse gas emissions, between the electricity we use and the fuels we burn on site.
There are some cool new technologies out there that can support the same or better service at home, while reducing energy use and emissions.
Those include super-efficient heat pumps and new induction stoves that are safer than gas and offer the same or better temperature control.
Many utilities and states offer rebates for appliances like these.

Klaus Jacob, geophysicist: It’s fine to put solar panels on our roofs and take only a three-minute shower instead of a 10-minute shower.
But what is really needed is that the individuals participate and communicate in neighborhood actions where you have the best chance to make a difference.
I live in a small village on the Hudson river.
As sea level rises, so does the Hudson.
Over the last two decades, I have made sure that our village is one of the most aware that it is losing a good portion of its housing before the year 2050.
We already have flooding on our streets.

 What one thing would you like to see happen politically to make progress? And what is the most important political action individuals can take?

Catherine Flowers: Vote – that’s the most basic thing.

Michael Mann: Reducing your carbon footprint via climate-friendlier lifestyle choices is certainly important.
It sets a good example for others and can help make a dent in the problem.
But the most important thing you can do is demand policy action and systematic change.
Individuals can’t provide subsidies for clean energy or put a price on carbon, but governments can.
We need politicians who will support climate-friendly policies.
And we need to get rid of those who won’t.
Voting is one critical way to do that, and if you live in the US, it’s absolutely critical that you vote on climate in the upcoming general election – from president all the way down to dogcatcher.

Adrienne Hollis: We need to be more proactive in conversing with our elected officials about renewable energy and the climate crisis.
We also need to recognize the importance of our votes.
Really ask yourself, “Who cares about me and the planet?” That doesn’t cost you anything, and it’s worth a little time especially if you don’t have money.
You have your voice.

Katharine Hayhoe: The US needs a national plan to cut carbon across the economy.
In my opinion, that plan needs bipartisan support, to ensure it doesn’t just turn into a hot potato as administrations change.
And it must address the injustices and inequities inherent to fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts.

Sonia Aggarwal: I have been heartened to see increased alignment on the essential policies and actions we need to reduce carbon across the economy and support good, family-sustaining jobs in the process.
The most important political action we can each take is to get out and support local, state and federal leaders who will prioritize clean energy action – by voting and campaigning for these folks.
Another often overlooked political opportunity lies with your Public Utilities Commission (PUC), a body that oversees electricity choices in each state.
Each state PUC is led by just three to seven individuals – meaning only about 200 people preside over some of the most important questions facing America’s clean energy transition.
Check out a PUC hearing and make your voice heard.

Links

Seven Things To Know About Climate Change

National Geographic - Kennedy Elliott | Jason Treat | Rob Kunzig | Ryan Williams

It’s not a myth, hoax or a conspiracy among scientists. As we argue about the path we take, let’s recall the facts that compel the journey.


1. The world is getting warmer.
Earth’s temperature goes up and down from year to year — but over the past half century it has gone up a lot.


Global temperature, difference from 20th century average, in degrees Fahrenheit
SOURCE: NOAA


The heat in 2016 broke the historic record set in 2015, which broke the one from 2014. Last year’s average global surface temperature, compiled from measurements made by thousands of weather stations, buoys, and ships, was 1.69 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th-century average.

Satellites probing the atmosphere also have documented a clear warming trend.

2. It’s because of us.
Carbon dioxide warms the planet, and we’ve increased the amount in the air by nearly half, mostly since the 1960s.


Atmospheric carbon dioxide, 1800-2016, in parts per million
SOURCES: NOAA, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

El Niño added to last year’s temperature record by temporarily releasing heat from the Pacific. But no natural cause explains the half-century warming trend. The sun’s output cycles up and down every 11 years; volcanic eruptions sporadically cool the planet.

Only CO2 and other human-emitted greenhouse gases have gone steadily up, forming a thickening blanket that traps heat at the Earth’s surface.

3. We’re sure.
More than nine out of 10 climate scientists agree: Our carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.


A 2013 review of 4,014 research papers found that 97 percent
(and 98 percent of the authors) said humans cause global warming.
SOURCE: Cook et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. 2013.

We’ve known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800s. Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius even predicted in 1896 that carbon dioxide from coal burning would warm the planet. He saw it as a good thing—and just how bad it will turn out to be is still a matter for debate.

But it’s real, and it’s dangerous.

4. Ice is melting fast.
Arctic sea ice is shrinking, and glaciers are retreating worldwide. Seas could rise three feet by 2100—or maybe more.


Extent of Arctic ice, September average, millions of square miles
SOURCE: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The Arctic has warmed more than the rest of the planet, and its ice cover has thinned and shrunk. Last September, at the end of the summer melt season, the ice extent was about 825,000 square miles smaller than the long-term average—a loss equal to the size of Alaska and California combined.

That loss speeds the warming, as sunlight is absorbed by dark ocean instead of reflected into space by ice.

Melting sea ice doesn’t raise sea level—it’s already in the water—but melting land ice does. Mountain glaciers are in global retreat. The total sea level rise of eight or nine inches since 1900 has contributed to a sharp increase in flooding along coasts. During Superstorm Sandy, for example, floods and winds caused $68 billion in damage on the U.S. East Coast.

The big threat is the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica. They hold enough ice to raise seas more than 200 feet—and they’re losing it.

When Earth was just a bit warmer, 125,000 years ago, they seem to have lost a lot: Sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher. Such a rise today would swamp coastal cities.

5.Weather is wreaking havoc.
Worldwide, the number of climate-related disasters has more than tripled since 1980.


SOURCE: Munich RE Natcatservice

In the crapshoot that is our weather, climate change loads the dice. It doesn’t cause a particular drought or storm, but it can make such events more likely or intense—a lot more, in the case of heat waves.

The extraordinary heat wave that killed some 70,000 people in Europe in 2003 should have been a once-in-500-years event; at the current level of global warming, it has become a once-in-40-years event, according to a study published last year. In Paris alone, that analysis found, climate change caused 506 excess deaths in 2003.

If it continues unchecked, another recent study said, by late this century people living along the Persian Gulf may face many days so hot that it will be unsafe to go outside.

It’s not just the heat: Global warming adds moisture to the air, removing it from land and ocean. Where rain is lacking, it makes the drought worse. When rain or snow falls, it’s more likely to be extreme; think of the 2016 floods in Paris or Houston.

How climate change affects hurricanes and other tropical cyclones is less certain. But by heating the ocean—the storms’ energy source—it’s likely to make them more intense, if less frequent.

6.Species are being disrupted.
Animals and plants are already vanishing from parts of their range that are now too hot. Extinctions come next.

Of 976 species surveyed in a 2016 study, 47 percent had vanished
from areas they had previously occupied on the warm edge of their range.

SOURCES: John J. Wiens, University of Arizona; Mark C. Urban, University of Connecticut

Rising temperatures are depressing some plant and animal populations, driving species toward the poles, shifting migrations and behavior. Populations of Adélie penguins on the Antarctic Peninsula have plummeted. An Arctic shorebird called the red knot is getting smaller.

Ice loss is forcing walruses by the thousands onto land in Alaska. Entire regions are being transformed: Alpine ecosystems from the Rockies to the Swiss Alps are being squeezed off mountaintops. The exceptional ocean warmth of the past few years has triggered coral bleaching and die-offs at reefs around the world.

There will be winners. For now, humpback whales are thriving in newly ice-free waters off Antarctica. Sea urchins too are proving to be resilient. But climate change isn’t the only threat that spreading human populations impose on other species; we’re also fragmenting and destroying natural habitats.

Some species will adapt to the jarring changes in their world—but how many, and for how long?

7. We can do something about it.
Renewables, the fastest-growing energy source, are projected to triple by 2040.


SOURCES: EIA, Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Free markets are often lauded for their efficient results. In this connected age, there’s something like a free market of ideas. So ask yourself: If climate change weren’t a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to try to keep the warming below 2°C (3.6°F)?

Though shadowed by the new U.S. administration’s threat to withdraw from it, the agreement stands as one hopeful sign. The graph below, right, shows another: The cost of solar energy is plummeting. Even without a carbon tax—the most efficient way to wean an economy off fossil fuels—renewables soon may be cheaper sources of electricity.

Worldwide, they accounted for more than half the new generating capacity in 2015. In the U.S., solar now employs more people than coal, oil, and gas combined.

The switch from fossil fuels is still just beginning. Every little bit matters: Every ton of CO² we emit melts 32 square feet of Arctic ice, according to a 2016 study, which means the average American melts 525 square feet a year.

Every energy-saving building, retired gas-guzzler, and acre of preserved forest helps. But none of it will help much if the world doesn’t switch to a carbon-free energy supply soon.

Links