polar bears research
4 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Emma Hood from Sustain Our Earth
Scoop.it!

The Effects of Global Warming

The Effects of Global Warming | polar bears research | Scoop.it
The consequences of global warming are expected to be far-reaching, long-lasting and, in many cases, devastating.

Via SustainOurEarth
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Emma Hood
Scoop.it!

Wildlife advocates want more polar bear protections - Summit County Citizens Voice

Wildlife advocates want more polar bear protections - Summit County Citizens Voice | polar bears research | Scoop.it
Wildlife advocates want more polar bear protections Summit County Citizens Voice “If the Obama administration doesn't make a plan to save polar bears, in a few decades we'll be writing their obituary,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the center's...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Emma Hood
Scoop.it!

The Arctic This Week: 11 May 2013 – 17 May 2013 - The Arctic Institute

The Arctic This Week: 11 May 2013 – 17 May 2013 - The Arctic Institute | polar bears research | Scoop.it
The Arctic Institute The Arctic This Week: 11 May 2013 – 17 May 2013 The Arctic Institute With many major oil companies taking a pause in their exploration of Alaska's Arctic, Unger looks at the impacts of climate change, regulation and the threat...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Emma Hood
Scoop.it!

Greenhouse effect and global warming

Greenhouse effect and global warming | polar bears research | Scoop.it
............Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming.....Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming, to limit climate change in the long term, the most important greenhouse gas to control is carbon dioxide, which in the United States is emitte...
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Emma Hood from Inuit Nunangat Stories
Scoop.it!

Scientists have found a shark in greenland that eats polar bears and can live up to the age of 200 - via @WTFLifeFacts

Scientists have found a shark in greenland that eats polar bears and can live up to the age of 200 - via @WTFLifeFacts | polar bears research | Scoop.it
RT @JadeJela Scientists have found a shark in Greenland that eats Polar Bears and can live up to the age of 200... http://t.co/yOjUpmV0

Via Northern_Clips
more...
Scooped by Emma Hood
Scoop.it!

Surprise! A Happy Ending for Kali the Orphan Polar Bear Cub - TakePart

Surprise! A Happy Ending for Kali the Orphan Polar Bear Cub - TakePart | polar bears research | Scoop.it
TakePart
Surprise! A Happy Ending for Kali the Orphan Polar Bear Cub
TakePart
Inupiaq Alaskan James Tazruk didn't mean to orphan a polar bear cub when he killed its mother on Alaska's Chukchi Sea coast in March 2013.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Emma Hood from Science Fiction Future
Scoop.it!

Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?

Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? | polar bears research | Scoop.it

THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere recently surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science.

Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering.

Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global warming or offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity.

 

But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may lead us into an impossible morass.

While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly deployed.

Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown, and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme, extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries.

But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in length, according to a study by the American Physical Society, as well as huge collection facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground.

 

The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices.

Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate aerosol spraying, each of which now has a scientific-commercial constituency.

 

How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade them to soak up more carbon dioxide — means changing the chemical composition and biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand.

Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its deployment over the melting Arctic now.

Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at cooling the globe, but its impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a billion people depend for their sustenance, is unclear.

 

Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is one lesson we have learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we look at an ecosystem the more complex it becomes. Now we are contemplating technologies that would attempt to manipulate the grandest and most complex ecosystem of them all — the planet itself. Sulfate aerosol spraying would change not just the temperature but the ozone layer, global rainfall patterns and the biosphere, too.

 

Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is classified as a form of “solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term that some of its advocates have sought to reframe as “climate remediation.”

Yet if the “remedy” were fully deployed to reduce the earth’s temperature, then at least 10 years of global climate observations would be needed to separate out the effects of the solar filter from other causes of climatic variability, according to some scientists.

 

If after five years of filtered sunlight a disaster occurred — a drought in India and Pakistan, for example, a possible effect in one of the modeling studies — we would not know whether it was caused by global warming, the solar filter or natural variability. And if India suffered from the effects of global dimming while the United States enjoyed more clement weather, it would matter a great deal which country had its hand on the global thermostat.

So who would be turning the dial on the earth’s climate? Research is concentrated in the United States, Britain and Germany, though China recently added geoengineering to its research priorities.

Some geoengineering schemes are sufficiently cheap and uncomplicated to be deployed by any midsize nation, or even a billionaire with a messiah complex.

 

We can imagine a situation 30 years hence in which the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power is threatened by chaotic protests ignited by a devastating drought and famine. If the alternative to losing power were attempting a rapid cooling of the planet through a sulfate aerosol shield, how would it play out? A United States president might publicly condemn the Chinese but privately commit to not shooting down their planes, or to engage in “counter-geoengineering.”

 

Little wonder that military strategists are taking a close interest in geoengineering. Anxious about Western geopolitical hubris, developing nations have begun to argue for a moratorium on experiments until there is agreement on some kind of global governance system.

Engineering the climate is intuitively appealing to a powerful strand of Western technological thought that sees no ethical or other obstacle to total domination of nature. And that is why some conservative think tanks that have for years denied or downplayed the science of climate change suddenly support geoengineering, the solution to a problem they once said did not exist.

 

All of which points to perhaps the greatest risk of research into geoengineering — it will erode the incentive to curb emissions. Think about it: no need to take on powerful fossil-fuel companies, no need to tax gasoline or electricity, no need to change our lifestyles.

 

In the end, how we think about geoengineering depends on how we understand climate disruption. If our failure to cut emissions is a result of the power of corporate interests, the fetish for economic growth and the comfortable conservatism of a consumer society, then resorting to climate engineering allows us to avoid facing up to social dysfunction, at least for as long as it works.

 

So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While the Pentagon “weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist, has proclaimed, “We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble climate scientist, Ronald G. Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has asked, “How can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”


Via James Keith
more...
Cid Alves's curator insight, February 7, 2014 8:48 PM

From praying to playing GOD!?!

Scooped by Emma Hood
Scoop.it!

Climate Change Impacts Ripple Through Fishing Industry While Ocean Science ... - Huffington Post

Climate Change Impacts Ripple Through Fishing Industry While Ocean Science ... - Huffington Post | polar bears research | Scoop.it
Climate Change Impacts Ripple Through Fishing Industry While Ocean Science ...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Emma Hood
Scoop.it!

Biodiversity Day: The Arctic - Deutsche Welle (blog)

Biodiversity Day: The Arctic - Deutsche Welle (blog) | polar bears research | Scoop.it
Deutsche Welle (blog) Biodiversity Day: The Arctic Deutsche Welle (blog) A homeland to some, and a harsh if not hostile environment to others, the Arctic is home to iconic animals such as polar bears Ursus maritimus, narwhals Monodon monoceros,...
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Emma Hood from Coffee Party Election Coverage
Scoop.it!

Steven Amstrup says it's not too late to save polar bears – and ourselves

Steven Amstrup says it's not too late to save polar bears – and ourselves | polar bears research | Scoop.it

by YVONNE ZIPP

 

With apologies to "The Tipping Point" author Malcolm Gladwell, there is no tipping point – at least, not when it comes to global warming and sea ice.

 

Steven Amstrup, a senior scientist at Polar Bears International, has led a team of researchers that discovered that, contrary to expectations, even if all the sea ice in the Arctic disappeared, once the planet cooled back down, it would return.

 

"That was one of the great discoveries that allowed us to continue to instill hope in people that we could do something," Dr. Amstrup says. "Human nature is such that, if you think there's nothing you can do, you don't do anything. So this was a really important find."

 

That scientific discovery, published in 2010 in the journal Nature, is just one of the reasons that Amstrup was honored with this year's Indianapolis Prize, which is awarded every two years to a leader in the field of animal conservation. The winner receives $100,000 and the Lilly Medal. [MORE]


Via Michael Charney
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Emma Hood from The Peoples News
Scoop.it!

Save whales, sea lions, and polar bears: Protect the Bering Sea!

Save whales, sea lions, and polar bears: Protect the Bering Sea! | polar bears research | Scoop.it
Polar bears, fur seals, sea lions, walruses, whales and millions of sea birds make their home in the Bering Sea, and beneath the surface abundant life thrives in the Bering Sea Canyons– larger than the Grand Canyon itself. The importance of this...

Via Lon Hope
more...
No comment yet.