Why don't polar bears eat penguins?

The answer, of course, is that polar bears live in the Arctic and penguins live in Antarctica. But within the century there could be another answer: There are no polar bears. Reuters, November 8:

Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation report said on Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere. ...

Arctic temperatures are rising at almost twice the global average and could leap 4-7 Celsius (7-13 Fahrenheit) by 2100, roughly twice the global average projected by U.N. reports. Siberia and Alaska have already warmed by 2-3 C since the 1950s.

Among the effects noted by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland, were

- Sea ice around the North Pole has shrunk by 15 percent to 20 percent in the past 30 years.
- By the end of the century, sea ice could disappear in summer, in which case "polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species," the report said.
- Creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer and snowy owls are experiencing loss of habitat, being squeezed north into a narrower range.
- The melting of glaciers is expected to raise world sea levels by about 4 inches (10 cm) by the end of the century. That doesn't sound like much, but for low-lying areas it could be devastating.
- The thawing of the permafrost has lead to subsidence that has collapsed buildings and destabilized pipelines, roads, and airports.
- Indigenous hunters are falling through thinning ice. The animals they hunt, such as seals and whales, are harder to find.
- Increased UV radiation has been linked to skin cancer and cataracts.

Changes under way in the Arctic "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even (to) the survival of some cultures," the report says.

And the primary culprit is, again, as it's been found to be over and over and over, burning of fossil fuels. And even if you want to shrug it off because who cares what happens to polar bears and the people can adapt or move, remember that

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said the Arctic changes were an early warning. "What happens there is of concern for everyone because Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications," he said,

implications which are already visible in the natural world, as another report released Monday confirms.

North American wildlife species ranging from butterflies to red fox are scrambling to adapt to Earth's rising temperatures and may not survive, according to a study released on Monday.

Heat-trapping greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles, factories and other human activities have boosted Earth's temperatures by 1 degree F over the past century, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said in a report.

To adapt, North American species like the Edith's Checkerspot butterfly, red fox and Mexican jay are moving to colder northern climates that suit their habits, the Pew Center said, citing 40 separate scientific studies.

With global temperatures expected to rise another 2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees F by 2100, "future global warming is likely to exceed the ability of many species to migrate or adjust," the Pew Center said.

These shifts, "spotted in many other birds, mammals, invertebrates and plants," not only affect habitat, they

may alter competition and predator-prey relationships and have other unforeseen consequences

including altering of growing seasons, which can change the O₂-CO₂ balance in the atmosphere. The result could be to

impact the Earth's ability to clean carbon dioxide from the air, the report said.

Alaska's tundra now emits more carbon dioxide than it absorbs because temperatures have risen by 4 degrees to 7 degrees F over the last 50 years, the report said.

And continued warming could continue that trend: More carbon dioxide resulting in more carbon dioxide, generating a feedback loop potentially leading to the runaway global warming climate scientists have feared.

And don't forget that as ACIA Chairman Robert Corell, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society, pointed out, CO₂

typically lingers in the atmosphere 100 years before being recycled.

"If you were to put the brakes on right away, it's still going to take a long time for that supertanker to slow down," he said.

It's gonna be a hell of a century.

Footnote one: The AICA report was not all negative.

Farming could benefit in some areas, while more productive forests are moving north on to former tundra. "There are not just negative consequences, there will be new opportunities too," said Paal Prestrud, vice-chair of ACIA.

Right. Like for cancer treatment centers, relocation services, flood insurance reps, supplies of SPF2000 sun screen, all kinds of opportunities.

Footnote two: The Shrub Society, continuing to eagerly suck up to its corporate partners/masters, had its own spin.

Dana Perino, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said the council's work "is part of the $8 billion the Bush administration has committed since taking office to climate change research. It reaffirms the importance of moving forward with the president's sensible strategy to address emissions in a way that keeps our economy strong."

I can't help but notice the word was "address," not "reduce." A revealing choice, I suspect.

Footnote three: Just for the record, please don't anyone respond "if only Kerry had won." His proposal was to "re-open negotiations" on the inadequate Kyoto protocol even though, having gained Russia's support, it has gone into effect among its signatories. How re-negotiating an established agreement is any more of a corporate-friendly stall than "we need more research" is quite beyond me.