CLIMATE TOPIC BRIEF Articles

Take Home Insight 

As the Arctic warms, the Arctic Ocean is becoming thermally and chemically similar to the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists call this process Atlantification and it has dramatic consequences for Arctic inhabitants as well as the flora and fauna in the region.

Background
Warming in the Arctic due to human-caused global warming is resulting in an Arctic Ocean that is warmer and saltier than its historical mean. Data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Pacific Sciences Laboratory shows that temperature of the Arctic Ocean surface has warmed by as much as 5 degrees in some places in the last 50 years[i].

Typically, the Arctic Ocean is stratified with colder fresh water from continental runoff and ice melt sitting on top of warmer saltier water from the Atlantic. The saltier water is heavier than the fresh water, so it remains deeper than the fresh water. As the Arctic warms the top layer of water becomes warmer and the stratification breaks down resulting in mixing of the cooler fresh water and the warmer Atlantic water.

Risk

There are several potential risks that result from Atlantification of the Arctic Ocean. First, warmer Arctic waters will cause the sea ice to recede, exposing dark ocean water that absorbs more solar radiation, thus creating a feedback process that increases warming [CS1] . Many scientists fear that the Arctic will reach a tipping point that will result in a new climatic and ecological equilibrium state.

Second, warmer, saltier water allows phytoplankton to move further north into the Eurasian Basin and Barents Sea. Fish, birds, and mammals not typically seen in the Arctic will move further north changing the marine and terrestrial ecosystem and affecting biodiversity in the region. Sea birds, seals, whales, and polar bears will all be affected.

Finally, there is the possibility that atmospheric and oceanic currents can be altered perhaps affecting the moderate weather enjoyed in Europe compared to the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada at the same latitude[ii],[iii],[iv].

Solution

The most important and most straightforward way to address the global warming crisis is to stop burning fossil fuels. (For more information see the Projects page on the STF2100 website.) This is called mitigation and it is the safest and most effective way to stop warming and the damage that it causes. Also, a climate intervention called Arctic climate restoration may offer a way to potentially reverse the changes occurring in local climates. The effects and effectiveness of these techniques must be carefully studied and assessed. The needs and wishes of indigenous Arctic people as well as international considerations must be considered. Secure the Future 2100 encourages government funding to study Arctic climate restoration technologies. (See National Arctic Climate Restoration Initiative [NACRI] on the STF2100 home page.)

[i] See https://psi.noaa.gov and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
[ii] Stocker, T. (2020). “Surprises for Climate Stability.” Science, vol 367. #6485.
[iii] IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai,  A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. Italics in the original. Oct 2019.
[iv] Riser and Lozier (2013). Sci. Am, Feb. 1, 2013.

Take Home Insight 

As the world has warmed due to anthropogenically-driven global warming, the temperature has risen even faster in the Arctic than elsewhere. This increased Arctic warming not only increases the global average temperature, but also exacerbates many phenomena in the Northern Hemisphere, including droughts, wildfires, and more extreme storms.

Background
A new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study reports that the Arctic has warmed 2-3 times faster than the rest of the planet, a phenomenon known as Arctic Amplification. Arctic amplification is the result of several positive feedback mechanisms.  An example of a ‘positive’ feedback is the sea ice reflectivity (albedo) feedback depicted in the figure above. Anthropogenic global warming warms the Arctic air and sea. This leads to the melting of snow and sea ice. Open ocean absorbs more solar energy than ice or snow. The melting of snow and sea ice then allows more solar energy to heat the ocean. This leads to further warming, setting up a cycle called a ‘positive feedback’.

Risk

Scientists have identified several processes contributing to Arctic amplification. Some of the most important are: (Follow the highlighted links to learn more.)

·  Sea ice reflectivity feedback that accelerates global warming.

·  Land snow and ice reflectivity feedback that accelerates warming and increases sea level rise, 

• Thawing permafrost
• ‘Atlantification’ of the Arctic Ocean that weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Ocean Circulation (AMOC) pattern.
• Boreal forest fires and incursion of pests

Solution

The most important and most straightforward way to address the global warming crisis is to stop burning fossil fuels. This is called mitigation and it is the safest and most effective way to stop warming and the damage that it causes. Mitigation will take be disruptive and take time to implement, but there are several other ways of reducing the impact of global warming that should be considered. Adaptation is the process of adapting our environment to lessen the effects of global warming. Geo-engineering technologies have been presented that can temporarily slow or reverse global warming, but these usually carry significant and unwanted side effects. Finally, there are techniques called climate restoration that seek to reverse the changes occurring in local climates. Secure the Future 2100 is interested in these climate restoration processes because they play a significant role in interrupting the Arctic amplification cycle and potentially can be leveraged to slow global warming.

Resources

Pistone, et al. (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea-ice. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 111 (9), 3322-6.

Wadhams 2016. Wadhams 2017, A Farewell to Ice, Oxford University Press.

Take Home Insight

Rapid warming in the Arctic has led to a dramatic loss of sea ice. Arctic sea ice area at the end of summer 2019 was the second lowest since satellite observations began in 1979[i]. (See Figure 1.) The thickness of the sea ice has also decreased, resulting in an ice cover that is more vulnerable to warming air and ocean temperatures[ii]. The Arctic Ocean freezes during the Arctic winter and partially melts during the summer. Within the last several decades more and more sea ice has been lost in the summer months, from July to September. These changes are occurring rapidly. In most simulations of future global warming, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (sea‐ice area <1 million km2) in September for the first time before the Year 2050[iii].

Sea ice reflectivity refers to the difference between the reflectivity of ice and the open ocean. The reflectivity of multiyear (MY) ice, the type of ice that has existed in the Arctic for centuries, ranges from 0.8 to 0.9. This means that 80% to 90% of the solar energy striking the ice is reflected back into space while 10% to 20% of that solar energy is absorbed and heats the ocean. In contrast, open ocean reflects less than 10% of the solar energy, leaving 90% to be being absorbed to warm the ocean. As the Arctic warms, more sea ice is lost and reflectivity decreases further causing additional warming and resulting in even more ice loss. This positive feedback mechanism is called the sea ice reflectivity[iv] feedback. Arctic sea ice plays a pivotal role in driving both global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns and strongly influences climate and weather patterns throughout the globe.  Dr. Ramanathan, Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, has said: “Losing the reflective power of Arctic sea ice will lead to a warming equivalent to one trillion tons of CO2 and advance the 2ºC threshold by 25 years. Any rational policy would make preventing this a top climate priority for world leaders.”[v],[vi],[vii]

Additionally, thermal heating processes are driven by the ability of snow and ice to insulate the 

very cold near-surface air temperature (sub-zero) from the relatively warmer Arctic Ocean water (around 0°C)[viii]. When there is no snow or ice the near-surface air temperature warms to the ocean temperature because water has a much higher heat capacity than air. The warmer air increases the evaporation of water, increasing the humidity of the air. More humid air produces lower pressures near the surface, increasing poleward winds and the formation of clouds as well as producing precipitating weather patterns.

Land Ice Albedo Feedback

Warming Arctic temperatures are melting the snow and ice covering the Arctic land mass. Just as the open ocean has a lower reflectivity than sea ice, so the land surface has a lower reflectivity than snow and ice resulting in more absorption of solar energy and further warming. This is the land-snow-ice reflectivity feedback loop. Today, in midsummer, the Arctic land area covered by snow has decreased by several million square miles compared to five decades ago.

Land has a reflectivity of about 20-30%, much less than snow and ice. Just as in the ocean, decreasing snow and ice leads to more solar radiation being absorbed by the land, increasing the warming of the atmosphere and causing more snow and ice to melt.

The interaction of these Arctic amplification feedback processes has turned Arctic warming from a consequence into a driver of global warming.

 Several studies show that the sea ice reflectivity feedback alone is responsible for a significant fraction of global warming – the equivalent of up to 25% of the warming due to CO2 emissions from 1979 to 2008[ix].  Wadhams[x] estimates that the warming due to the land-snow-ice feedback is roughly equivalent to an additional 25% of global CO2 emissions. These feedback processes are disrupting Arctic atmospheric circulation patterns. As Arctic sea ice continues to disappear with increasing global warming these feedback loops will become even more important. 

[i]  2019 was tied with 2007 and 2016 as the years with second lowest sea ice areas since satellite observations began.

[ii]  NOAA Arctic Program, 2019 Arctic Report Card, https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card

[iii]  SIMIP Community (2020). Arctic sea ice in CMIP6. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL086749. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086749, Also see the article https://nationalpost.com/news/world/new-study-predicts-arctic-ocean-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-by-middle-of-this-century.

[iv]  Scientists typically refer to surface reflectivity as albedo. The word reflectivity is used here because it is more common to the non-scientist. In the science literature this is referred to as the sea ice albedo feedback.

[v]  Monroe, R. (2019), Research Highlight: Loss of Arctic's Reflective Sea Ice Will Advance Global Warming by 25 Years, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-loss-arctics-reflective-sea ice-will-advance-global-warming-25-years

[vi]  CO2-equivalent is the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or warming, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a greenhouse gas (greenhouse gases) or a mixture of greenhouse gasess.

[vii]  The 2ºC threshold refers to the goal set by the Paris Accord to limit global warming to 2ºC above pre-industrial average temperatures, the temperature above which most scientists agree will cause increasingly disruptive warming. 

[viii]  Vihma, T. (2014) Effects of Arctic Sea Ice Decline on Weather and Climate: A Review. Surv Geophys (2014) 35:1175–1214 DOI 10.1007/s10712-014-9284-0.

[ix]  Pistone, et al. (2014). Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 111 (9), 3322-6.

[x]  Wadhams 2016. Wadhams 2017, A Farewell to Ice, Oxford University Press. 

Take Home Insight 

We are reminded daily of the damage caused by global warming, and we see increasing evidence of the effects on our water and food security, as well as national security. What can be done? We can slow global warming by switching to renewable fuels and returning biological systems to their historic role of absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. This Topic Brief will discuss these mitigation strategies. Subsequent briefs will discuss other solutions such as carbon dioxide removal and climate intervention. 

Background

Global warming is caused by two major human activities: the emission of Green House Gases (GHG) through the burning of fossil fuels and the conversion of land-based biological systems from their historic role of absorbing carbon from the atmosphere to emitting carbon into the atmosphere (called land-use change). 

Risk

The world is already feeling the effect of a warming climate in more extreme weather (heat waves, stronger storms), sea level rise, and the acidification of the oceans. Some of the science and effects of global warming are discussed in previous Topic Briefs. Some  symptoms of global warming can be addressed by adaptation, for example, by building levies. While these adaptations will not stop the root cause of global warming it will allow us to continue to live as we have and hopefully begin concerted efforts to address the mitigation issues described above. 

Recent government policies, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, move the U.S. toward a zero-emission future, but our efforts so far have not been large enough or fast enough to stop or reduce global warming. Most scientists agree that we must also remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The damage done by global warming may become so intense that people, or governments, or societies at large may decide that some sort of climate intervention should be used to alleviate the damage.

Solutions

There are many things that we can do as individuals to combat global warming. Ultimately, it will take large-scale government programs and shifts in economic and energy technology priorities to undo the damages of global warming. In these STF2100 Topic Briefs we focus on these programmatic types of policy and energy solutions. The most straight-forward solution to this problem is to stop and reverse these two harmful human activities. This is called mitigation. For example, societies can stop burning fossil fuels by transitioning to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.  They can stop deforestation, that is converting land that had historically absorbed GHG into land that emits harmful GHG. An example is the Amazon rainforest that is being transformed to farmland through slash and burn policies. By regrowing forests these lands can be returned to being natural carbon sinks – areas that absorb harmful carbon dioxide.

The chart below[CS1] [AS2]  shows the percentage of global GHG emissions by economic sector. We see that the energy used to run buildings, in transportation, in industry, and leaks in these various systems makes up 72% of GHG emissions. That is why so much effort and time are spent on these sectors. Mitigation in these sectors is achieved by switching to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. Recently we have seen the reliability of hydro power come into question as much of the word is experiencing severe drought. 

Agricultural practices, deforestation and other land use practices may make up an additional 20% of GHG emissions. Practices such as no-till farming, planting deep-rooted perennials, and reforestation can help reduce these emissions and even take GHG out of the atmosphere. (TB needed)

Finally, emissions from waste, such as landfills, and direct industry, such as cement and steel production combine for 8% of emissions. Harvesting[CS3] [AS4]  the emissions from landfills and running cement and steel plants on renewables will help eliminate these emissions. There are also technologies in development that sequester CO2 in concrete and steel. 

There are many tools at our disposal to help fend off the damages of global warming. There is no one ‘silver bullet’. While there is much debate about the best mix of solutions to combat global warming, one thing is clear – the world has not exhibited the political will to take serious action to reverse warming and we are rapidly running out of time*.  STF2100 encourages you to become involved and advocate for climate action. Contact your local and federal policy makers and urge them to act forcefully and quickly to address the climate crisis.

*See Topic Brief on Artic Amplification

[CS1]Is this chart referencing global or U.S. sector percentages?  What is the source of the information?

[AS2]Global

[CS3]What does it mean to harvest emissions from landfills?

[AS4]Basicly you put a cap on the landfill that capture the CO2. Sometimes you can get by with putting a pipe into the soil covering the landfill to get most of the CO2. Is there a better way to say his?

Take Home Insight 

The increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels is impacting the photosynthesis process of most plants including food crops.  This results in the reduction of plant nutrients (protein, vitamins, minerals) and will impact drastically the economically challenged populations of the world especially children.  Mitigation actions are suggested.

Background

The main focus of the increase of global atmospheric CO2 concentration has been on the increase of global temperatures.  However, there is another consequence with raising atmospheric CO2– the reduction of the nutritional value of plants including food crops (aka “nutrition collapse”). Biological research

reveals that most major plant crops (e.g., rice, wheat, barley, soybean, legumes, potatoes, tree crops) raised in an elevated concentration of CO2 results in higher yields but with reduced nutrient values in the seeds: vitamins, minerals, protein.  Reduced nutrition values can range as high as 10%.  

In general, the presence or degree of nutrition collapse is dependent upon the type of photosynthesis process for a plant.  Plants with the simplest process (called C3 plants) making up 90% of all plant species, are generally most susceptible to nutrition collapse, are not drought tolerant, and need cooler temperatures for optimal growth (e.g., rice, wheat, barley, soybean, peanut).  Most of the remaining plants (called C4 plants) use two photosynthetic processes - a more complex process in addition to the simple process of C3 plants.  C4 plants are less or unsusceptible to nutrition collapse, need higher temperatures for optimal growth, produce higher yields, and can generally tolerate high temperatures, drought, and saline conditions (e.g., corn, sorghum, millet, sugarcane).  Plants exhibiting nutrition collapse have been referred to as “junk food” – plants which gore themselves on CO2 to grow bigger and faster but contain less nutrition.

The parameters by which the Agriculture Department distributes food to economically challenged populations and school lunch programs must consider the nutrient values of the food and not just consider weight and volume. As CO2 concentrations increase throughout this century, nutrient value will likewise decrease.  

The phenomenon of nutrient collapse is also observed with phytoplankton under high CO2 concentrations in the oceans. Under laboratory conditions nutrition collapse of phytoplankton results in nutritional deficient zooplankton. The impact to fisheries (top of the ocean food chain for human consumption) has not been studied.

Risk

Nutrition collapse will be particularly harmful in populations that are dependent on major plant crops for most of their nutritional intake. Asia and Africa will especially be impacted as well as areas of economically depressed populations in the US.  Many global populations currently live on the edge of economic survival barely affording to purchase the volume of food containing today’s nutrient value.  As the degree of nutrient collapse increases, these populations may not afford to purchase additional volumes of food necessary to maintain nutritional health.  If more plant volume cannot be purchased an increase of nutrition deficiency will result within these economically challenged populations - especially children.  If nutrition collapse impacts the ocean ecosystem this could impact the food source for 10-20% of the world population.

Solutions

Continued research must be conducted to further understand the mechanism of nutrition collapse.  Global major and regional crops, especially C3 plants, must be assessed to determine the extent (if any) of nutrition collapse as global CO2 concentrations rise.  Mitigation strategies would then be necessary for each affected crop.  Mitigation approaches may include plant breeding to produce nutrition collapse-tolerant varieties, genetic engineering to introduce appropriate C4 plant genes, soil maintenance, and modified farming practices. In addition, we must continue research on methods of reducing atmospheric CO2, replacing fossil-based fuels for energy production with renewables (wind, solar) geothermal, hydroelectric, and new generation nuclear energy.  The urgency for mitigation solutions is critical before reaching a tipping point for global warming by mid-century.  Further research and assessment must be conducted to determine if phytoplankton display nutrition collapse with rise of CO2 in the ocean and the potential impact on zooplankton and fish.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Foe further reading: Sugalia, Elena, Vanishing Nutrients: Scientific American, Dec. 10, 2018  (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/vanishing-nutrients/)

For more information on climate change, visit our website: SecureTheFuture2100.org

To contact us: info@securethefuture2100.org