The news doesn’t get better. Again, science works to explain why things happen, but any sailor or farmer could have told the scientists this was happening.
Glacial ice melt in Greenland alone means sea water levels will rise from at least 3 inches to more than 10 inches by the end of this century. If I live my expected life span of 10pm years, I will have witnessed sea level changes that alter the costs and borders of the globe. Average air temperatures will rise, and much of the now inhabited earth will be underwater or desert. It’s not as if suddenly, in 2100, sea level will jump from what it is now to 10 inches more. The next eighty years look to be a rapid loss of habitable areas, killing humans, animals and plants.
It will take huge effort and dedication of resources to even slow these changes by a small amount. So far, those resources have not been committed to saving anthropogenic Earth.
Glaciers in Antarctica are crumbling at a faster pace, with mess less new ice cover than needed to sustain the glaciers. Glacial ice locks up water, protecting the sea level from rising. As glaciers on the southernmost continent melt, sea levels rise, causing coastal flooding throughout the world.
In recent decades, the warming in the Arctic has been much faster than in the rest of the world, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. Numerous studies report that the Arctic is warming either twice, more than twice, or even three times as fast as the globe on average. Here we show, by using several observational datasets which cover the Arctic region, that during the last 43 years the Arctic has been warming nearly four times faster than the globe, which is a higher ratio than generally reported in literature. We compared the observed Arctic amplification ratio with the ratio simulated by state-of-the-art climate models, and found that the observed four-fold warming ratio over 1979–2021 is an extremely rare occasion in the climate model simulations. The observed and simulated amplification ratios are more consistent with each other if calculated over a longer period; however the comparison is obscured by observational uncertainties before 1979. Our results indicate that the recent four-fold Arctic warming ratio is either an extremely unlikely event, or the climate models systematically tend to underestimate the amplification. Over the past four decades, Arctic Amplification – the ratio of Arctic to global warming – has been much stronger than thought, and is probably underestimated in climate models, suggest analyses of observations and the CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations.
— Read on www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3
The youngest son in the powerful FSB family is gaining control over key assets on the Russian Arctic shelf.
— Read on thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2022/08/patrushev-family-lays-heavy-hand-arctic-energy
As Russia tries to increase its oil drilling presence, these ruthless corporations are drilling and repositioning rigs for higher production. Russia has little interest in sustaining the Arctic if it means a profit. At the same time, Russia is expanding its military forays into the Arctic Ocean, and strategizing its land drills near the Scandinavian borders. Meanwhile, here in the West, we are composting our coffee grounds.
Polar_Bear_-_Alaska_(cropped).jpg 563×565 pixels
— Read on upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Polar_Bear_-_Alaska_(cropped).jpg
The expert views expressed in this article seem simplistic. Loss of sea ice – more wildfires. Increments of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels and by other factors such as industrial release of warm water are major principals of this climate. There is no evidence that this is a natural cycle produced by stellar or meteorological events. It is human generated, with a breath-taking lack of foresight and willful ignorance. It’s not that we have until the complete loss of sea ice to get this straight. We are already past that point. In my view, we passed it last November when sea ice failed to form enough to support the winter survival of polar species.
The hard news, bluntly, is that humans must stop burning fossil fuels and raising the temperatures of the bodies of water that sustain us. Thus, nuclear power is not a good option, as it takes vast amounts of water to cool the core. Traditional power plants, including hydro electric, also require water to cool turbines and other heat generating equipment, which is released into waterways. I did a science project on this more than 50 years ago.
Although a report about Arctic climate change was filed by the U.S. government in 1922, a later addition seemed to predict rising sea levels and the flooding of cities. This addition has nothing to do with the original report.
Also, great short video about endangered polar bears. We will continue to lose sea ice over the next few decades even if air temperature trends are halted or reversed. Polar bears will either starve because they are stranded too far from sturdy ice, or if they cannot reach ice fields. The third possibility we are now seeing is that polar bears will take to land again, hunting and scavenging in human occupied terrain.
Locals tried to free the young female bear from her predicament, but it took vets to release her. She was returned to her habitat with sustenance.
The correlation is measurable. As Arctic ice caps melt, the sea level rises, along with salinity dropping. Greenland and Svalbard, among other glacial land masses, are losing fresh water ice at faster rates than before the 2000s. It will take drastic measures, such as eliminating carbon emissions, to stop this dangerous trend.