Arctic

In what its authors admit is almost certainly an underestimate, a new study says the catastrophic climate changes coming to the Arctic will cost at least $2.4 trillion by mid-century. (To put that into perspective, President Obama just proposed a $3.8 trillion federal government budget for next year.)

The true cost is likely to be a whole lot more -- probably in the range of the combined gross domestic products of Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, says the report, which was financed by the Pew Environment Group.

A melting Arctic heats the climate in two basic ways: First, when all the white snow and ice on the land and in the ocean melts, the darker colors underneath absorb more heat instead of reflecting it.

The second thing that happens is that as the permafrost melts, it releases methane -- remember methane, that other greenhouse gas, the one we fingered not long ago for its powerful greenhouse punch?

The researchers came up with estimates of how much both of these effects will have and converted those numbers into carbon dioxide equivalents -- i.e., how much of that better-known greenhouse you'd have to release to create this much climate warming.

Those figures are sobering: The amount of warming to be wrought this year alone by Arctic melting will equal about 42 percent of all the emissions from the United States! That's the equivalent of building 500 new coal-burning power plants.

Editor's note: Subhankar Banerjee caused quite  a stir when an exhibit of his photography of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was pulled at the last minute from a prominent spot at the Smithsonian Institution. The exhibit was moved instead to the basement at the same time debate over drilling in the refuge was raging in D.C. Smithsonian officials denied that they were censoring the exhibit for political reasons, but legions of critics don't believe that.

Banerjee once lived in Seattle, where he was helped by the Blue Earth Alliance, an organization co-founded by Seattle photographer Natalie Fobes. The group's motto: "Photography that makes a difference." (Banerjee serves on the group's advisory board.)

InvestigateWest correspondent Alexander Kelly and videographer Blair Kelly caught up with Banerjee in Copenhagen, where the Indian-born artist traveled to call attention to the plight of the Arctic during the United Nations negotiations on a global climate treaty (for more information, see www.artport-project.org):

What wildlife advocates see as a well-meant U.S. effort to help preserve the polar bear in the face of global warming effectively translates into being fired and losing a cultural icon all at the same time for the  Inuit.

Because the United States decided to protect polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, polar bear skins no longer are allowed to be imported. That's led to a dearth of the American big-game hunters who previously paid the Inuit -- also known as Eskimos -- many thousands of dollars to serve as hunting guides. Collectively, it was thought to be a $3 million-a-year business  and it helped natives who don't have a lot of ways to bring in cash.

Charles J. Hanley's dispatch from Canada's Northwest Territories for the Associated Press takes on heart-rending quality as you read on, with an elderly Inuit man exclaiming:

The ice is melting I'm always wondering, 'What the hell they going to do if there's no more ice in the Arctic?'

Ironically, some native communities are actually seeing more bears now. That, scientists say, is because the bears don't have as much ice to roam on, and so are more likely to be near where people live and hunt.  

Some other native communities say they aren't seeing as many bears as they used to. Scientists acknowledge that trying to count the bears is a dicey affair because they are so far-flung and live in such difficult weather conditions. But, Erik Born, Danish chairman of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, observed:

It's not rocket science. An animal population losing its home rapidly means to me they will be in bad shape.

-- Robert McClure

Wildlife researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey found almost 200 dead walruses on the northwest coast of Alaska yesterday, reports Dan Joling of the Associated Press. Most of the walruses appear to be young, but age and cause of death won't be known until researchers can get on the ground to investigate.

The researchers were on their way to begin a tagging project to determine walruses foraging habits while on shore. Walruses can only swim so far, and in the past used sea ice as a diving platform, getting most of their food off the ocean floor. The recent retreat of sea ice has forced the walruses to choose between staying on sea ice in regions too deep to dive for clams, or stick to the shore. Researchers fear staying on shore could exhaust food within the walrus' swimming range, resulting in a population crash.

The yearling and calf walruses could have been crushed by a group stampede, or be suffering from changes in the species' behavior due to climate change.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service veterinarians are working to reach the site to determine the cause of death, as well as check other regions along the coast where walruses congregate to see if deaths are occurring at other sites.

- Emily Linroth

It's beginning to feel a bit like piling on to highlight the latest scientific study reinforcing the notion that byproducts of the industrialization are causing our atmosphere to warm unnaturally.

But today's news is noteworthy in that a) it comes from the National Science Foundation, not exactly a loony left-wing tree-hugging group, if you know what we mean, and b) is able to use glacial ice cores, tree rings and sediments from lakes, along with computer simulations, to look back at the Arctic's past climate, down to a decade-by-decade scale, going back 2,000 years. Previously, a climate simulation this fine-grained only went back about 400 years.

[caption id="attachment_3515" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Scientists take sediment core in Alaska. Photo courtesy Darrell Kaufman, Arizona State University"][/caption]

Now, Dateline Earthers were reporting as early as 2003 on how global warming already was affecting the Pacific Northwest. But there are still today those who want to discount the notion that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are playing a role in enhancing the greenhouse effect.

The NSF study, though, traces temperatures in the Arctic, showing temps there had actually been growing steadily colder for 19 centuries until the last century -- and why they should have kept getting colder, but for greenhouse gases emitted by modern machinery, farming methods, yadda yadda.

You see, the earth's rotation around the sun is not a perfectly spherical thing.

Alaskan fisheries have a new woe to add to the list: ocean acidification. Research at the University of Alaska Fairbanks indicates Arctic oceans are more susceptible to acidification, reports Douglas Fischer of The Daily Climate. As oceans absorb extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pH levels drop, making them more acidic. Entire food webs are impacted by changing ocean chemistry – organisms like crabs, corals and oysters are unable to pull minerals out of the water to build shells. Pteropods (tiny swimming sea snails) are already having trouble building shells, and since salmon populations depend on these critters to maintain higher body weights, Alaska's salmon runs could be in trouble. The acidification could affect the commercial industry as well as the environment, since more than 60 percent of the seafood in the United States comes from Alaska fisheries.

In a related story by Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke halted the expansion of commercial fishing in the Arctic until a sustainable plan to support fishing and the ecosystem could be developed. Obama administration officials are set to conduct a public hearing in Anchorage today about national ocean policy to develop protections and restoration of coasts, oceans and the Great Lakes.

– Emily Linroth