What are some of the broader implications of the predicted dramatic warming in the Arctic? Think of shipping, ecosystems, permafrost, the fate of Greenland, and sea level.

The good thing about an ice-free Artic would be faster shipping from continent to continent, as well as mineral exploration. There could also become a large boost in productivity in the economy pertaining to better fishing opportunities, etc. The bad part is the albedo of the Arctic Ocean would decrease and this would cause warming in the ecosystem, sea level would basically the same though. This are just things that scientists predicted would happen as well as predicting it would happen in 1979 all the way up to 2015 and now to 2020, 2030, 2050 and so on and so forth.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean.html

Last week, the Supreme Court made an unprecedented stay on federal regulation. The rule in question is the EPA’s effort to reduce GHG emissions through tighter regulations on power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. The enjoinment of a federal rule, before it’s wound its way through the lower court system, has not occurred until now, and it shows that at least four Supreme Court justices clearly had interests in the petitioner’s (27 states that are currently supported by carbon-intensive coal-fired powered plants) claim that the regulation would put undue burden on the states’ economies.

One of those Justices, Antonin Scalia, died on Saturday, leaving a vacancy that many thought would not be available under Justice Ginsburg retired. Now, with an ideological four-four split on the bench, there may be hope that, when the case is heard by the Supreme Court, it will not result in an injunction.

That being said, another historical event may take place in Senate, one which has far-reaching implications for the case. If President Obama nominates someone to fill the vacancy, and the Senate refuses to confirm or reject the nominee before next January, it will be the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history. If the Supreme Court then refuses to hear or make a decision on the case until then, the Clean Power Plan is at least in for a lengthy stay. Although, the current uncertainty is better than the previous strong likelihood of injunction.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060032372

This article explains an investigation into the problem of GCMs producing different results when applied to the same site because of the uncertainty surrounding oceanic and atmospheric shifts. Researchers at the University of Melbourne applied one simulation model to the rate of water runoff in WA’s out-west, the method used rain and temperature projection from a global climate model over southwest regional catchments using the “moderate scenario (A1B).” As we learned in Module 4, the A1B is a more optimistic model that is characterized by rapid economic growth, development, and sharing of technologies. The model generated huge fluctuations because when the physics of the ocean or atmosphere change even slightly the GCM model gave different results. This is where the researchers began to doubt the models accuracy. Results for future projects in south-west catchments suggest a drop in rainfall of between 0-40 %. Although there is concern with the accuracy, researchers said “all of them show reductions in precipitation for the second half of the century, increased temperatures, and reduction of run-off, [which] is concerning.” This was an interesting article about how GCMs are used to predict future scenarios and just like we learned in module 4, they are gloomy predictions.

Reference:

Fernandes, Aaron. “Climate modeling comes into focus as Paris heats up” Science Network. 30 November 2015. Retrieved from http://www.sciencewa.net.au/topics/technology-a-innovation/item/3938-climate-modelling-comes-into-focus-as-paris-heats-up

The article “Study: Rising seas slowed by increasing water on land” was a study released by NASA on how liquid storage’s on land affect the rate of sea level rise.

The study began its origin in Pasadena, California with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The data was collected using NASA’s satellite. What the scientist found was that Earth’s continents were soaking up 3.2 trillion tons of water in its lakes, soils and underground aquifers. This means that rising sea levels are actually decreasing by 20%. Another way this phenomenon is observed is by looking at the water cycle or hydrologic cycle. There have been persistent regional changes within soil moisture and lake level which indicate that the Earth is absorbing more water than the melting rate of the ice sheets and glaciers. This has not been scientifically proven yet with definite numerical values but scientist at NASA believe this adds to the lack of sea level rise.

The article also goes in depth about a second study that was done in 2002 with NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate experiment sector. They had twin satellites that provided the scientist with a distance between the two satellites that could help with quantifying land liquid storage trends. Also, it provides data with Earth’s gravitational pull that can estimate the amount of water on Earth’s surface. With these two studies, it is clear to NASA that at this point in time Earth’s continents are slowing down the rising of sea levels.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2398/

In last week’s blog I discussed how Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at a very fast rate and how the introduction of cold, freshwater could disrupt ocean circulation. I will connect that to this week’s blog as scientists believe an ancient Ice Age dam failure impacted local climate in South America. An ice dam contained a giant lake in South America, and when the dam broke/melted tons of freshwater was released into both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This is believed to have changed rainfall totals and ocean temperatures around South America as ocean circulation was changed.

I can connect this with general climate models because no matter how accurate we can get them, there is always room for error. Unknowns and changes in small things can cause butterfly effects and change a whole climate. That is why every GCM is slightly different.

These scientists used a climate model to predict the impact of dumping all this amount of freshwater into the oceans and they hope it will give them an idea as to what Greenland’s and eventually Antarctica’s melting ice sheets will do to ocean circulation. This could give GCM’s and extra factor to better predict future climates.

Resource: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113412583/massive-ancient-ice-age-dam-failure-impacted-local-climate-pacific-ocean-021316/

The Arctic is warming the fastest of any area in the world.  Since the Arctic is warming so faster the changes there are expected to be more dramatic.  The permafrost is thawing faster and is causing a system of positive feedback, where as the frost thaws it releases methane a greenhouse gas.  The greenhouse gas causes more warming causing a cycle.  Less permafrost will mean more plant life in the Arctic region shown by in the increase in shrubs in recent years by 2100 shrubs and trees will take over the land which is now covered in grass.  Shipping routes will be faster if there is less ice, ships will no longer have to go though the Panama and Suez canals.  The fishing industry will also have a new place to fish.  There are also many untaped energy sources in the Arctic that would become available.  Ecosystems will be affected by migration patterns being less important as areas are warmer throughout the entire year, for example gray whales stayed in the Beaufort Sea instead of traveling to the warmer California coast starting in 2004.  Although many animals will suffer from the change of climate some may benefit such as bowhead whale, the musk ox and the barren ground grizzly bear.

Although the Arctic will continue to warm for centuries no matter what we do, the future does not have to be so bleak.  If we move away from fossil fuels eventually the Arctic environment will  begin recover.  The economic benefits also are not worth it as the Arctic has no way to clean up large oil spills form ships or oil drilling.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-end-and-beginning-of-the-arctic-18407

In Module 4, Global Climate Models (GCMs) are discussed and analyzed to show how climate predictions can be made in our future.  Along with GCMs, three models are analyzed in particular known as SRES A2, A1B, and B1 models.  These models differ by the path that humans choose to lead based on economic and environmental concerns in the upcoming future.  A2 is the most pessimistic and economic driven, while B1 is very optimistic and environmentally driven.  During the article I have chosen to blog about, titled “Supreme Court Blocks Obama Carbon Emissions Plan” by The New York Times, the United State Supreme Court have taken steps in leading us down the A2 road.  During President Obama’s campaign he has made great strides in trying to curb carbon dioxide emissions and last week had introduced a strategy in combating climate change for the United States.  However, the Supreme court has voted against the plan “to grant a request by 27 states and various companies and business groups.”

In my opinion, this is a very important time and scary situation for the United States to be in.  Big companies and business groups should not be influencing the decisions made with climate for our future.  This Supreme Court ruling shows that leaders and representatives instilled in the core of our country are making decisions based on the money instead of the well-being and health of the future.  Leaders should be looking to help future generations instead of their current monetary situation.  I am hoping to see rapid change within the decade towards environmental concerns and am glad to read that although the set back last week, Obama and the EPA are still very optimistic about the passing of the plan in the near future.

Hurley, Lawrence, and Valerie Volvovici. “Supreme Court Blocks Obama Carbon Emissions Plan.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/02/09/us/politics/09reuters-usa-court-carbon.html>.

In July of 2013, NASA published an article about the impacts of significant warming in the arctic.  The article is interesting because it offers a first-hand account from an agency that is collecting data on Climate Change and observing the changes in Arctic temperatures.  The thesis seems to be that, on the whole, the Arctic functions as an early-warning system for climate change and will experience the most drastic changes.

There are several important points that are made in the article that are relevant to the current Modules on Climate Change.  First, the nearing reality of ice-free summers have two primary and relevant implications.  First, less light would be reflected at the sun (as discussed in my last post and in Module 3).  The NASA scientists point out that the oceans will instead have to absorb this energy, thus significantly warming the planet.

Secondly, and very interestingly, are the changes to ecosystems that would accompany an ice-less summer.  An example of these changes would be an increase in the phytoplankton population.  The Director of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Ocean and Climate Change Institute, which is located on Cape Cod, described the other changes that have already begun to accompany changing ocean temperatures.

This particular citation draws my attention, as I have grown up spending every summer on Cape Cod and have continued to love it, but grown to understand and explore it.  The increase in warm-water species and decline in cold water species is often mentioned, particularly by conservation groups on the Cape.

A final connection that I made through the NASA Article on arctic melting was a link to the Agency’s Climate Change data time machines.  These interactive pages were very interesting, and easily portrayed temperature, sea level, CO2 level, and Ice sheet data over the course of recorded history.

Arctic Melting NASA Article:http://climate.nasa.gov/news/958/

Climate Time Machine Data: http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

In module 4 we are learning about Global Climate Models (GMCs) and how they can help predict the future climate that our world will be facing in the next century. We studied three specific models: A2, A1B and B1. These three different models all focus on different outcomes surrounding environmental and economic decisions of the world. I thought that the Paris Climate Talks would be an extremely appropriate topic to discuss seeing as though we are learning about the outcome of our climate depending on the participation of our world.

195 countries were involved with the Climate Talks and all came to an agreement to lower their carbon emissions and set reasonable and manageable 5-year goals. There have been many other programs set in place by countries, such as the United States “Mission Initiative” to double the funding for alternative energy research. Even the founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, has begun a program (Breakthrough Energy Coalition) doing research on clean technologies. It has been shown already that companies who are focused on climate change and sustainable living have experienced an incredible economic growth rate.

Although there is still much work and research that needs to be done, it is looking like our world is coming together and following the route of model A1B. This model demonstrates a world that is willing to work together to make our actions more sustainable and less permanent on the surface of the Earth. If the A1B model is followed the temperatures will rise but not as drastically as if we continued to live our daily lives normally before the Paris Climate Talks, like the “business as usual” model, A2. One of the factors that does not match the model would be the population. The article states that we will have 9.7 million people on this planet by the year 2060, but the model states that the world will peak at 9 million in 2050 and begin to decrease in the years to follow.

References:

Norwood, Graham. “Beyond the Paris Climate Talks: What Was Achieved and What Remains to Be Done.” Wilson Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Feb. 2016. <https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/beyond-the-paris-climate-talks-what-was-achieved-and-what-remains-to-be-done>.