Climate Change
Page 2 of 2
Click the image to enlarge.
In some areas, according to Amstrup, a certain degree of warming is likely to bring initial benefits. In the Beaufort Sea, for example, heavy ice and very cold weather have been a limiting factor for polar bears ' heavy ice makes it harder for them to hunt and harder for seals to find breathing holes. When discussing climate change and its potential effect on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea, Amstrup likes to use a "wedge" analogy.
"As the temperature climbs, we could imagine polar bears climbing up one side of the wedge toward improving conditions. It's reasonable to think that, as the climate gets milder, conditions will improve for bears in northerly areas. At some point, however, ice conditions will reach a threshold — the thin edge of the wedge — and bears will start going down the other side, where the continuing warming climate worsens conditions for polar bears."
Some scientists have reported that that threshold has already been reached in the Hudson Bay polar bear population, which lives near the southern extreme of polar bear habitats. And to some, it seems reasonable that the negative changes reported in that region's polar bears may be harbingers of what's likely to occur in more northern environments "IF global warming continues. Would polar bears from the southern regions be able to simply move north? Amstrup says probably not many would, because the habitats they might move into are already full. "Food supply, space, denning habitats, and other environmental requirements may already be occupied."
We won't have the final answers to the big "IF" until the current warming cycle has ended, either by cooling back down as it has in the past or continuing to heat up. But based on Amstrup's ongoing research and the research of climate scientists, we seem to have reached an important decision point for high-level managers.
If increasing numbers of climate scientists are right — that human influences may now have the ability to override natural cycles and keep the warming going, rather than letting temperatures "settle back" as in past cycles ' we may need to change lifestyles and energy-use patterns to eliminate our effects on the climate. If those scientists are wrong, two "camps" propose two different solutions.
One group argues that we should maintain the status quo. An equally vocal constituency argues that even if the scientists are wrong and we have taken the actions anyway, we would have hastened the transition to alternate fuels and away from finite, non-renewable resources such as hydrocarbons — and improved the quality of our air and water in the process. And so the debate continues.
"As the temperature climbs, we could imagine polar bears climbing up one side of the wedge toward improving conditions. It's reasonable to think that, as the climate gets milder, conditions will improve for bears in northerly areas. At some point, however, ice conditions will reach a threshold — the thin edge of the wedge — and bears will start going down the other side, where the continuing warming climate worsens conditions for polar bears."
Some scientists have reported that that threshold has already been reached in the Hudson Bay polar bear population, which lives near the southern extreme of polar bear habitats. And to some, it seems reasonable that the negative changes reported in that region's polar bears may be harbingers of what's likely to occur in more northern environments "IF global warming continues. Would polar bears from the southern regions be able to simply move north? Amstrup says probably not many would, because the habitats they might move into are already full. "Food supply, space, denning habitats, and other environmental requirements may already be occupied."
We won't have the final answers to the big "IF" until the current warming cycle has ended, either by cooling back down as it has in the past or continuing to heat up. But based on Amstrup's ongoing research and the research of climate scientists, we seem to have reached an important decision point for high-level managers.
If increasing numbers of climate scientists are right — that human influences may now have the ability to override natural cycles and keep the warming going, rather than letting temperatures "settle back" as in past cycles ' we may need to change lifestyles and energy-use patterns to eliminate our effects on the climate. If those scientists are wrong, two "camps" propose two different solutions.
One group argues that we should maintain the status quo. An equally vocal constituency argues that even if the scientists are wrong and we have taken the actions anyway, we would have hastened the transition to alternate fuels and away from finite, non-renewable resources such as hydrocarbons — and improved the quality of our air and water in the process. And so the debate continues.
Page 2 of 2