Arctic thaw quickening threatens trillion-dollar costs - report

[webfact]

Arctic thaw quickening threatens trillion-dollar costs - report

By Alister Doyle

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO: Residents view the first iceberg of the season as it passes the South Shore, also known as "Iceberg Alley", near Ferryland Newfoundland, Canada April 16, 2017. REUTERS/Greg Locke/File Photo

 

OSLO (Reuters) - The Arctic's quickening thaw is melting the permafrost under buildings and roads from Siberia to Alaska, raising world sea levels and disrupting temperature patterns further south, an international study said on Tuesday.

 

The frigid region's shift to warmer and wetter conditions, resulting in melting ice around the region, may cost the world economy trillions of dollars this century, it estimated.

 

The report by 90 scientists, including United States experts, urged governments with interests in the Arctic to cut greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. President Donald Trump doubts that human activities, led by use of fossil fuels, are the main driver of climate change.

 

"The Arctic is warming faster than any other region on Earth, and rapidly becoming a warmer, wetter and more variable environment," according to the study, which updates scientific findings from 2011.

 

"Increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary underlying cause," they wrote in the study commissioned by the Arctic Council grouping the United States, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland.

 

Arctic warming could have cumulative net costs from 2010-2100 of between $7 trillion and $90 trillion, it said, with harm exceeding benefits such as easier access for oil and gas exploration and shipping, it said.

 

The period 2011-2015 was the warmest since records began in 1900. Sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, which shrank to a record low in 2012, could disappear in summers by the 2030s, earlier than many earlier projections, it said.

 

ACCELERATING MELT

 

"The Arctic is continuing to melt, and it's going faster than expected in 2011," Lars-Otto Reiersen, head of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) which prepared the report, told Reuters.

 

Among signs of harm, thawing permafrost has triggered more landslides at Russia's Bovanenkovo gas field in Siberia. Rare warmth and spring floods closed the highway to Alaska's North Slope oilfields for three weeks in 2015.

 

Further inland in Alaska, though, there have been drier conditions, meaning wildfires were worse there now than at any time in the past 10,000 years, it said.

 

Rising temperatures are threatening livelihoods of indigenous hunters and thinning sea ice vital to wildlife such as polar bears and seals.

 

The Arctic is warming fast partly because snow and ice reflect the sun's faint heat into space. The thaw exposes ever more darker-coloured sea water and ground that absorb more of the sun's heat, in turn accelerating the melt.

 

Walt Meier, a NASA scientist who was among the authors, said there was also new evidence since 2011 that the thickest Arctic sea ice, which survives multiple summers, was breaking up.

 

"Multi-year ice used to be a big consolidated pack. It's almost like a big thick ice cube versus a bunch of crushed ice. When you warm the water, the crushed ice melts a lot quicker," he told Reuters.

 

Among recommendations, the report said Arctic states and those interested in the region "should lead ... global efforts for an early, ambitious and full implementation" of a Paris Agreement in 2015 among almost 200 nations to limit warming.

 

Reiersen at AMAP said that appeal for action was similar to ones issued in the past by Arctic governments. The eight Arctic Council nations are due to hold a meeting of foreign ministers in Fairbanks, Alaska, on May 11.

 

But it is unclear if the scientists' advice will be heeded in the conclusions of the U.S.-led meeting.

 

Trump threatened in his campaign to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and has sometimes tweeted that global warming is a hoax, preferring to bolster the U.S. fossil fuel industry.

 

(Reporting by Alister Doyle; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-25

 

[boomerangutang]

All deniers can deny any news like that.  Here are some of their flaccid points:

 

>>>  the sun is getting brighter

>>>  CO2 is good for plants, so why worry.  

>>>  Just because 96% of scientists say so, doesn't mean it's true

>>>   Scientists are only bellyaching about GW 'cause it garners more funding

>>>   It's a liberal tree-hugger plot to hurt fossil fuel corps.

>>>   It's a plot by the Chinese (thank Trump for that zinger)

>>>   Climate has changed for tens of millions of years, so what's the big deal?

>>>   Billionaire fossil fuel company execs don't believe the data, so that proves it's false.

>>>   Millionaire Republican politicians, including Trump, don't like the data, so it must be false.

[Thunder26]

First of all it's true that the climate is changing which is normal. It changes all the time since the beginning of earth. Furthermore, why is global warming bad? Plants like warmer temperatures. Cooling I think is bad. Freezing causes inability to grow any crops!

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, Thunder26 said:

First of all it's true that the climate is changing which is normal. It changes all the time since the beginning of earth. Furthermore, why is global warming bad? Plants like warmer temperatures. Cooling I think is bad. Freezing causes inability to grow any crops!

 

Global warming doesn't necessarily mean warmer weather for everyone.  Melt enough glaciers to stop the Gulf Stream conveyor, and Europe could go into another ice age...

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

 

Of course, there's going to be winners and losers.  But stability isn't to be under-rated.  The global economy is pretty fragile anyway, and any abrupt changes could result in even more refugees who look a lot more like economic migrants.  Great if you live in a gated community and need cheap labor to fund your billionaire lifestyle.  Not so great if you're looking for a job.

[boomerangutang]

46 minutes ago, Thunder26 said:

First of all it's true that the climate is changing which is normal. It changes all the time since the beginning of earth. Furthermore, why is global warming bad? Plants like warmer temperatures. Cooling I think is bad. Freezing causes inability to grow any crops!

                   Here we go again.  Yes climate changes.  Yesterday it was raining, today it's sunny.  That's not the issue.  Similarly, the Earth has gone through severe glaciation and severe droughts.  Again that's not the issue.  The issue is the relatively fast changes toward a warmer planet being mostly human-caused.

 

                   People are mainly concerned about people (mostly their families).  At least half the people on the planet are living tenuously in micro-environments that will suffer large economic impacts- if there's a big swing in climate.  People in N.Africa, for example, are experiencing greater droughts.  There are whole cities of ragged tents in places, with tens of thousands of miserable people barely surviving.  

 

                     They fight every time a water truck comes nearby, which is about once per week.  An American environmentalist just got shot in the stomach (she's 91, but may survive).  She's been residing in Kenya for decades.  Cattle herders in Kenya are so desperate for grassland, that they're invading parks and private properties, destroying resorts and shooting people - just to get grass for the herds.  That's just a tiny microcosm of what's can happen with quick-warming planet.

 

The biggest repercussions are mass migrations.

[jerojero]

                   Here we go again.  Yes climate changes.  Yesterday it was raining, today it's sunny.  That's not the issue.  Similarly, the Earth has gone through severe glaciation and severe droughts.  Again that's not the issue.  The issue is the relatively fast changes toward a warmer planet being mostly human-caused.
 
                   People are mainly concerned about people (mostly their families).  At least half the people on the planet are living tenuously in micro-environments that will suffer large economic impacts- if there's a big swing in climate.  People in N.Africa, for example, are experiencing greater droughts.  There are whole cities of ragged tents in places, with tens of thousands of miserable people barely surviving.  
 
                     They fight every time a water truck comes nearby, which is about once per week.  An American environmentalist just got shot in the stomach (she's 91, but may survive).  She's been residing in Kenya for decades.  Cattle herders in Kenya are so desperate for grassland, that they're invading parks and private properties, destroying resorts and shooting people - just to get grass for the herds.  That's just a tiny microcosm of what's can happen with quick-warming planet.
 
The biggest repercussions are mass migrations.

The biggest repercussions are mass starvations.

[habanero]

36 minutes ago, jerojero said:

The biggest repercussions are mass starvations.

I agree the earth is getting warmer. But I don't blame GW for mass starvation.  I blame the world population. 

 

During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now. 

[darksidedog]

I think it is very difficult for anyone to truly know exactly what will happen as the planet gets warmer. The general consensus seems to be that there will be many problems, that will dramatically change weather patterns, which in turn impacts food production. The wise course of action I believe is to try to prevent rapid changes from taking place, at least while further analysis is ongoing. We have the technology to dramatically reduce CO2 production, which is the prime driver. Failing to do so really should not be an option. We only have one planet to live on. We can not afford to destroy it, so gambling that the 2-3% who deny warming are correct is plain dumb.

[nauseus]

The unprecedented rate of (climate change) is the problem. Any possible solution by people depends on how educated, dedicated and capable they are. 

[daveAustin]

3 hours ago, Thunder26 said:

First of all it's true that the climate is changing which is normal. It changes all the time since the beginning of earth. Furthermore, why is global warming bad? Plants like warmer temperatures. Cooling I think is bad. Freezing causes inability to grow any crops!

Unfortunately, it's uninformed tat like this - quoting 'norms' while conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room - that will be our downfall. Cringeworthy stuff. Gen yourself up. 

[daveAustin]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

All deniers can deny any news like that.  Here are some of their flaccid points:

 

>>>  the sun is getting brighter

>>>  CO2 is good for plants, so why worry.  

>>>  Just because 96% of scientists say so, doesn't mean it's true

>>>   Scientists are only bellyaching about GW 'cause it garners more funding

>>>   It's a liberal tree-hugger plot to hurt fossil fuel corps.

>>>   It's a plot by the Chinese (thank Trump for that zinger)

>>>   Climate has changed for tens of millions of years, so what's the big deal?

>>>   Billionaire fossil fuel company execs don't believe the data, so that proves it's false.

>>>   Millionaire Republican politicians, including Trump, don't like the data, so it must be false.

Indeed, though of course the sun is getting brighter and hotter. A billion years hence, it'll be around 10% hotter and the end of us should we have avoided the coming nuke war, still be on terra-firma and in the same orbit.

[Fulwell53]

Donald will go down in history as the president who caused a huge acceleration in the negative aspects of global warming and climate change.

[seancbk]

3 hours ago, jerojero said:

The biggest repercussions are mass starvations.

 

That is a solution.  

[elgordo38]

3 hours ago, habanero said:

I agree the earth is getting warmer. But I don't blame GW for mass starvation.  I blame the world population. 

I rather think they are interlinked. 

[elgordo38]

If GW ever unleashes all the methane gas in the north and under the ocean you can kiss your patootie goodbye. 

[Haecksler]

To discuss with some folks abut global warming is the same as you are masturbating with a cheese slicer.

Ok. Get this:

Even in the unlikely event that 93% of all scientists are wrong I ask you what would you do if you are in the dessert and you have 1000 lit. of clean water and no way to renew it??? ---

Exactly you would save it as much as you can and you would work hard to find any way in order to save the amount of water you have. 

What are we doing with our recurses on our Planet? We are building SUV's with permanent 4-wheel drive and many other essential things in order to move on a concrete road.  Yeahh!! this is what mankind need!!

I mean is it really necessary to get rid of our resources as fast as possible????

And another thing:

All the carbon, whether coal oil peat or other materials was created within billions of years. (For all the deniers - this is a very long time)
The nature and the climate could adopt to the conditions and to the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere.
We convert all this carbon into CO2 within a eye blink in terms of geology. You no need to be very smart to understand that this can not be good at all.
Try to jump into 6°C cold water. No time to adopt no time to protect. You have no more than 7 minutes and you are die. And this is what worries me most of all that the same thing can happen with our planet earth.

I tell you what man kind an all other creatures on this planet need:

Clean water; Clean air; Clean and healthy food and a healthy social environment (I definitely don't talk about face book).  That's it.

Unfortunately there is no money earned hence the fact that nobody cares.

[RickBradford]

As usual, I am guaranteed to be the only person who has actually read the report this silly Reuters' article is based on, and, as usual, the mainstream media is doing its best to scare people.

 

The actual report is much less alarmist, and not even new, as the authors admit:  "The implications of most findings in [the study] are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011."

 

Still, that's good for the media, as they get to scare gullible people twice about the same thing.

 

The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

 

And just like in 2011, the report is based on those infamous computer models, which have gotten everything wrong since they were invented.

 

They end with the traditional climate science appeal for lots more money: "The report also identifies many more specific data gaps and research needs..."

 

Still, it gives the usual people a chance to bash President Trump (yawn) and feel all virtuous about themselves by shouting "denier" at everyone.

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

As usual, I am guaranteed to be the only person who has actually read the report this silly Reuters' article is based on, and, as usual, the mainstream media is doing its best to scare people.

 

The actual report is much less alarmist, and not even new, as the authors admit:  "The implications of most findings in [the study] are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011."

 

Still, that's good for the media, as they get to scare gullible people twice about the same thing.

 

The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

 

And just like in 2011, the report is based on those infamous computer models, which have gotten everything wrong since they were invented.

 

They end with the traditional climate science appeal for lots more money: "The report also identifies many more specific data gaps and research needs..."

 

Still, it gives the usual people a chance to bash President Trump (yawn) and feel all virtuous about themselves by shouting "denier" at everyone.

Got a link to that report?  I googled the quote you cited "The implications of most findings in [the study] are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011." and the only source google came back with was your post here.

[RickBradford]

^^

I'm not sure it's online anywhere -- I was sent the report by a friend who's in the environment business.

[ilostmypassword]

We

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

 

Well, then, can you pass it along to me and any others who are interested via PM.

[ilostmypassword]

39 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

As usual, I am guaranteed to be the only person who has actually read the report this silly Reuters' article is based on, and, as usual, the mainstream media is doing its best to scare people.

 

The actual report is much less alarmist, and not even new, as the authors admit:  "The implications of most findings in [the study] are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011."

 

Still, that's good for the media, as they get to scare gullible people twice about the same thing.

 

The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

 

The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

 

 

I'm beginning to doubt that you actually have read the report at all.

Extreme Arctic Melt Is Raising Sea Level Rise Threat; New Estimate Nearly Twice IPCC's

By the end of this century, as some glaciers disappear completely, the Arctic's contribution to global sea level rise will reach at least 19 to 25 centimeters, according to the report by the Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP).

Factoring those numbers into projections about other sources of sea level rise results in a minimum of 52 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100 under a best-case scenario and 74 centimeters under business as usual. "These estimates are almost double the minimum estimates made by the IPCC in 2013," the authors wrote.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25042017/arctic-sea-ice-climate-change-global-warming-sea-level-rise-ipcc

[RickBradford]

My fault, I shouldn't have written "an extra 25 centimeters" - I should have written "an extra 19 to 25 centimeters".

 

Sorry if that's confusing.

[johng]

I agree the earth is getting warmer. But I don't blame GW for mass starvation.  I blame the world population. 
 
During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now. 

Yes too many people nature will eventually find a way to equal the balance....why all the hoo ha about C02 but nothing about population controll ?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

My fault, I shouldn't have written "an extra 25 centimeters" - I should have written "an extra 19 to 25 centimeters".

 

Sorry if that's confusing.

No, the report doesn't say that the seas will rise 19-25 centimeters. It says that will be the Arctic's contribution to sea level rise.  The total rise is projected to be at least 52 centimeters if emissions are curbed starting now.. Storm surges have a magnifying effect on sea level.  We saw what happened to New York and much of the rest of the east coast  with Hurricane Sandy. Much of Florida is already experiencing frequent flooding just from high tides.

[RickBradford]

*sigh*

 

That's why I included the word 'extra'. You know 'extra'? As in 'an extra contribution by the Arctic'?

 

Really.....

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, RickBradford said:

*sigh*

 

That's why I included the word 'extra'. You know 'extra'? As in 'an extra contribution by the Arctic'?

 

Really.....

Well, the extra would make sense construed that way if you hadn't referenced Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

Once again here's your reference in full, "The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion."  

Anyway, where's the copy of this report you were allegedly sent. Should be easy enough to forward. Or did your "friend" deliver you only a printed hard copy?

[soalbundy]

9 hours ago, Thunder26 said:

First of all it's true that the climate is changing which is normal. It changes all the time since the beginning of earth. Furthermore, why is global warming bad? Plants like warmer temperatures. Cooling I think is bad. Freezing causes inability to grow any crops!

so does excessive heat and drought. Climate change is a normal function which takes hundreds of thousands of years,even millions on a natural basis so life has a chance to adapt. The man made global warming is extremely fast,nothing can adapt. Even rice needs lower temperatures at night otherwise it gets stressed and you have poor quality low yields.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

As usual, I am guaranteed to be the only person who has actually read the report this silly Reuters' article is based on, and, as usual, the mainstream media is doing its best to scare people.

 

The actual report is much less alarmist, and not even new, as the authors admit:  "The implications of most findings in [the study] are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011."

 

Still, that's good for the media, as they get to scare gullible people twice about the same thing.

 

The breathless Reuters line about "rising sea levels" - yes, an extra 25 centimetres by 2100. It won't even lap the front door of Al Gore's beachfront mansion.

 

And just like in 2011, the report is based on those infamous computer models, which have gotten everything wrong since they were invented.

 

They end with the traditional climate science appeal for lots more money: "The report also identifies many more specific data gaps and research needs..."

 

Still, it gives the usual people a chance to bash President Trump (yawn) and feel all virtuous about themselves by shouting "denier" at everyone.

Well, I found a summary of the report - not the report itself which summary I suspect is what you've got hold of - online and it's interesting how you misleadingly truncated that quote from the report. Here it is in full.

"The implications of most findings in SWIPA 2017 are not fundamentally different from those reported in 2011, but are supported by more evidence and in some cases warrant greater concern due to more significant impacts or new knowledge."

Still waiting for the report that you claim to have.

 

[boomerangutang]

 

45 minutes ago, johng said:

Yes too many people nature will eventually find a way to equal the balance....why all the hoo ha about C02 but nothing about population controll ?

People like us, who are concerned about a rapidly warming planet, are concerned about many of the aspects.  One can be concerned about GW and also acknowledge major problems with population explosion of our one species (and accompanying dogs and chickens and rats, but those are side issues).

 

            You've got a point.  I've often thought about how politicians won't touch runaway population issues with a ten foot pole.  It continues to be a taboo topic among politicians, but it can't be hushed up for much longer.    Three primary reasons population issues are not much mentioned publicly: 

 

A.  Developed countries, in particular, think they need ever-burgeoning numbers of new babies in order to provide retirement funds for elders.  It's a dumb reason for most of us, but who ever said politicians were smart?

 

B.   Mention of 'population control' can quickly devolve to non-PC issues like forced-sterilization, gender-preferences (hence; killing female foetuses), and dreaded quota systems.  China was on the right path, but chickened out, and is now back to; 'make as many babies as you can'.   India is soon going to surpass China as the most populated country.

 

C.   Religions have always wanted to increase their numbers, because they're always vying to dominate all other religions, whether officially stated in their jargon, or not.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

People like us, who are concerned about a rapidly warming planet, are concerned about many of the aspects.  One can be concerned about GW and also acknowledge major problems with population explosion of our one species (and accompanying dogs and chickens and rats, but those are side issues).

 

            You've got a point.  I've often thought about how politicians won't touch runaway population issues with a ten foot pole.  It continues to be a taboo topic among politicians, but it can't be hushed up for much longer.    Three primary reasons population issues are not much mentioned publicly: 

 

A.  Developed countries, in particular, think they need ever-burgeoning numbers of new babies in order to provide retirement funds for elders.  It's a dumb reason for most of us, but who ever said politicians were smart?

 

B.   Mention of 'population control' can quickly devolve to non-PC issues like forced-sterilization, gender-preferences (hence; killing female foetuses), and dreaded quota systems.  China was on the right path, but chickened out, and is now back to; 'make as many babies as you can'.   India is soon going to surpass China as the most populated country.

 

C.   Religions have always wanted to increase their numbers, because they're always vying to dominate all other religions, whether officially stated in their jargon, or not.

 

 

 

It isn't just population. It's consumption per capita. I read that 25 average bengalis consume as many resources as 1 average american.

Edited April 25, 2017 by ilostmypassword