The Effects of Global Warming: Case Study of the Changes in the Arctic

NASA states, “in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and
retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the
modern climate era.” Global warming will affect the Earth’s lithosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere,
and atmosphere drastically. The effects of global warming on the Arctic region will be examined
in this essay. To truly understand the magnitude of global warming, the functions of Earth’s
layers and how these layers interact must be noted. Possible solutions to global warming on a
national and international scale will be discussed. To understand the effects of global warming,
global warming itself must be exemplified.

Since the industrial revolution, global temperatures have increased dramatically in ways unseen
in history. Global temperature rises yield all sorts of negative outcomes for Earth’s processes; the
glacial retreats are increasing, ocean acidification is rising, there in an increase in extreme events
caused by atmospheric disruptions, and sea ice and overall surface area with ice cover is
declining (NASA). Increases in global warming is causing a positive feedback system for
atmospheric processes that can be detrimental to the environmental long term. An example of a
positive feedback system is when volcanic build up produces lower temperatures for a few years
that allows snow build up. High-albedo snow surfaces reflect insulation to enhance the Earth’s
cooling system creating a positive feedback loop. The fluctuations of greenhouse gases have a
similar effect on Earth’s atmosphere and can trigger higher or lower global temperature. Starting
with the lithosphere, the effects of these global warming facts on all major processes of Earth
systems will be covered.

Warming in the Arctic occurs when, as snow and ice melts, darker land and ocean surfaces
absorb more energy. A higher percentage of the trapped energy goes into warming rather than
evaporation creating a positive feedback loop. The atmospheric layer needed to warm the Arctic
surface is shallow, meaning the same amount of heat energy would result in more warming in the
Arctic compared to other parts of the world. As sea ice retreats the solar heat absorbed by the
ocean is released in higher concentrations into the atmosphere increasing overall global
warming. Global warming affects sea level rises, an observed increase of 17 centimeters has
already been measured (Shaftel, 2015).
Glaciers have snowlines, which are the lowest elevations where snow can survive year round,
that are declining with global warming (pg 410). Alpine glaciers, glaciers in mountains, valley
glacier, river of ice confined within a valley, and cirque glaciers, a mountain snowfield in a
cirque often times feels a valley glacier, will all be altered if warming continues. Warmer
currents from Bering strait will spill down well into the Canadian basin. Near Iceland, water
flows downwards into ocean from surface, while Greenland dumps a lot of cold water into the
Atlantic through glacial ice sheets melting. Greenland valley glaciers will deposit cold material
into the Atlantic which will travel to Europe and could start another ice age (lecture two).

Continental glaciers are ice sheets, 80% of Greenland and 90% of the Antarctica are made of
these sheets. Ice caps, by definition, cover an area of less than 50,000 km squared (pg. 412).
Volcanoes lie beneath ice caps, and can produce large quantities of melted glacial water and
floods upon eruption (pg 412). Sediments, snow and firn, are pressured and recrystallized into a
dense metamorphic rock known as glacial ice in Antarctica. This process can take 1000 years
due to dryness of the climate and is reduced by several years in wetter climates. In the Arctic it
will get wetter with increased warming therefore glacial ice might increase, however, tundra will
decrease and melting overall might halt process of ice forming or crystallizing.

Positive net balances grow during cold periods with adequate precipitation, while negative net
balance shrinks due to the equilibrium line moving up the glacier, when glacier starts retreating.
Global warming throws off the equilibrium balance of glaciers which drastically affects rising
sea levels. “The percent wastage (ice loss) from alpine glaciers worldwide is thought to
contribute over 25% to the measured rise in sea level” (pg. 423). Water saturated layer of
sediment and the soft bed of the Glacier can not bear the weight of moving ice and it increases
the glacier surges (pg 416). Glacier surges double as ice-mass loss increases. Meltwater works its
way into the underlying soft beds of clay inside the basalt layer of glaciers delivering heat from
the warmer surface waters, which increases basalt melt rates (pg 415). Meltponds create a
positive feedback system as they absorb heat and create more meltponds. Ablation zones, which
include meltwater, sublimation, evaporation, aeolian processes, avalanches and blowing snow,
increase due to global warming. Increasing ablation zones result in massive ice losses overall
throwing off the balance of ice packs to meltwater feeding global oceans, consequently altering
global climate.

As global warming increases the glacial ice cover is melting dramatically. Previously recorded,
during the Pleistocene Epoch, alterations in the landscape have been observed as glaciers from
the previous ice ages depleted. If glaciers keep shrinking massive changes in current landscape
will be observed. It is difficult to predict to what extent the effects will bear positive versus
negative results. However, it is safe to assume there will be significant differences in biosystems
and ecological systems which will affect the overall atmospheric conditions. Warm water,
beneath the glacier ice packs in the ocean, and warm atmosphere are affecting icebergs from both
sides leading to melting bases on icebergs in water and warming from the atmosphere. Icebergs
that have taken tens of thousands of years to form are melting at dramatic rates due to global
warming. pg 438

Permafrost is created when soil and rock temperatures remain below zero degrees Celsius for at
least 2 years. Global warming throws off equilibrium of permafrost layers as the system responds
in feedback to climatic functions. As temperatures warm, permafrost layers become shallower
and active permafrost areas react by decreasing surface area. Retreating permafrost layers, which
can lead to greenhouse gases being released, lakes drying up due to excessive evaporation, and
active permafrost which is connected to groundwater aquifers and taliks, bodies of water above
or below discontinuous permafrost, all significantly alter the tundra climate. As permafrost
exposes previously frozen organic material and vegetation, the release of carbon dioxide and
methane gas in the atmosphere will increase. An estimated quarter of the Northern Hemisphere is
covered by permafrost, when this layer starts to melt decomposers break down the melted
material and release greenhouse gases. “If the tundra gets warmer and drier, it will likely release
mostly carbon dioxide, models predict. But if the region gets warmer and wetter, more methane
will be released instead of carbon dioxide” (Oksin, 2011). Methane is worse for the environment,
compared to carbon dioxide, but carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere longer (Oksin, 2011).
It is hard to predict what the atmospheric future of the Arctic will be with current global
warming rates.
Global warming could reshape the soil distribution in the Arctic which would lead to an entirely
new ecosystem in terms of vegetation and animals that can survive in that land. Global warming
would cause gelisols to overtake the rockland and ice fields of the Arctic region. “The latest
estimate of the carbon contained in gelisols is 1.7 trillion tons” (pg. 466). As global warming
increases the degradation and melting of permafrost covered gelisols, large amounts of carbon
and methane will be released into the atmosphere. Gelisols are known to undergo processes of
cryoturbation or frost churning where C layer soils are brought to the surface. Loess deposits
were created when the Pleistocene glaciers retreated. Loess material assumes the general
topography of an area, covers various parts of the world, and forms Earth’s breadbasket farming
regions (pg. 451). This could be a positive result of glacial melting but takes a long time to form.
If global warming speeds this up the surface of the Arctic in terms of which type of soil
permeates will change.

Warming might drastically change the community, habitat and niche of organisms and life in the
Arctic region. As temperatures increase, species distribution might shift due to desertification
increases and snow melts. “… with warming of 1.9 to 3 degrees celsius, more than 30% of
species will be displaced and face a risk of extinction” (pg. 473). Ecosystems are constantly
adapting, a state known as patch dynamics. Biodiversity, stability and resilience of an ecosystem
varies (pg. 474). Species able to adapt faster in terms of migration, reproduction, evolution, and
survival determines if they will survive the effects of global warming. Ecosystems are
interdependent. The chain starts from producers that consume carbon dioxide, such as plants and
phytoplankton, to produce oxygen. The organisms that depend on producers, for oxygen and
food, are consumers. Primary consumers are herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores. The ability
of a species to adapt to global warming for resources will determine their survival. Detritivores
are detritus feeders that renew the ecological system by breaking down organic material.
Decomposers are bacteria and fungi that absorb and release nutrients through the process of
decomposing (pg. 485). Global warming would modify the entire ecosystem of a region by
starting a chain reaction in the ability of one species or organism to survive, this concept will be
further analyzed in the changes of biodiversity noted in the Arctic.
Snow and ice depleting creates a “greening” as tundra disappears, warmer conditions and
increased rainfall will occur. High precipitation creates an expansion of forests and grasslands
towards the North Pole. Boreal forest and temperate forest grasslands will expand while polar
semi-desert and polar desert zones will be lost and replaced by the tundra climate as permafrost
declines (Lecture, Unit 5). The composition of future vegetation will alter as tundra moves closer
to the pole. The growing period of vegetation will increase by two to three months which allows
for invasion of species from lower latitudes due to increased rainfall, better soil conditions, and
increased temperatures (lecture two). These kinds of changes will drastically alter the biomes and
ecosystems of the Arctic region.

Polar bears in the Arctic region depend heavily on glacial ice to survive. As temperatures drop,
glacial ice covers, precipitation, and strong cold winds start growing (Polar Bears). After the ice
begins to form, the ocean freezes over in a few days. Polar Bears go out onto the pack ice to hunt
throughout winter, until the end of January when sun begins to reappear (Polar Bears). As glacial
ice retreats, melts, and ruptures polar bears face difficulty finding food. The primary source of
food for polar bears are seals, whom they do not have access to as ice packs are getting thinner
and retreating. As glacial ice melts, killer whales are migrating towards Arctic regions to hunt for
food.

Killer whales are making changes in the Canadian Arctic (Killer Whales). Killer whales are
intelligent predators that adapt their hunting skills in each new climate they migrate to. In the
west coast of Canada they follow the annual salmon, in New Zealand they swim at lower levels
in the ocean to avoid stingrays, and in Patagonia they hunt seals on the beach (Killer Whales).
Bowhead whales are being hunted by killer whales. Bowheads have exceptional hearing so killer
whales have adapted their hunting skills to isolate a mother and close in on her calf. Killer
whales have been spotted covering the blowholes of a Bowhead to suffocate them. Killer whales
hunt narwhals by cornering them at the shore and taking out an entire pod by working in a group.
Local Inuits hunt Bowhead whales and narwhals, often using these creatures as the only meat
source. Some Inuit say the killer whales are good for them because they bring them food while
others note the killer whales might actually be depleting them of food (Killer Whales). Killer
whales are gradually replacing the polar bears as the largest predator in the Arctic. Other
creatures are losing their tundra climates to global warming as well.

Caribou travel in herds for protection “like blood vessels across landscape,” they provide
fertilizer, pollination, and migration for birds in subpolar regions (Polar Bears). The Arctic lichen
sustains these Caribous while wolves and grizzlies hunt them. Caribou are facing increased
mortality rates due to starvation, overheating, and exhaustion from landscape changes (Lecture
Unit 5). Caribou physiology is no longer adapted to the changes and if they don’t adapt swiftly
enough they will die out. Grizzly bears eat cerum roots, salmon, and caribou. Grizzlies are more
wild and better hunters than normal brown bears, they use the river to get from one point to
another. The salmon these bears feed on have altered migration since global warming increased.
Bears

inhabit a vast world but they are cautious and predatory, they need wide space and Alaska is one
of the last stronghold left for them (Polar Bears). As tundra decreases and permafrost melts,
these creatures have a chance to migrate closer to the pole since global warming allows them to
live in the new environment melting will create.

Historical atmospheric processes show climate warming can drastically affect atmospheric
circulation as volcanic debris, forest fire debris, and releases of greenhouses gases that have
accumulated in the ice core are expelled. Dome-C records affirm current concentrations of
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are highest since the past 800,000 years. The next
glacial period is predicted to be in 16,000 years in the future (Pg. 433). These periods of glacial
and interglacial cycles have occurred throughout history. However, if global warming continues
at the rates observed today we will witness biodiversity loss and dire alternations of global
processes.

There are policies that can be pursued to create a better environmental future and to deter
negative consequences. Modern lifestyle must be altered to benefit the environment. Cattle
grazing, industrial pollution, and fossil fuel usage are the largest patrons of global warming and
climate change. The major nations contributing to global warming are China, United States, and
India (INDC, 2015). Plausible solutions to environmental problems will be further analyzed
regarding these facts.

Currently 26% of usable land is taken up by meat farmers. Farming uses 70% of available water
yet people in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, and some states of South Africa, where
water is limited, are switching to buying land to farm their own food instead of raising cattle
because it is easier to farm and eat the food directly then raising meat (Vidal, 2014). Millions of
hectares of forests have been cut down to grow food and raise cattle for major countries around
the world (Anderson, 2014). A single farm can generate as much waste as a city. Earth’s
biodiversity hotspots are being threatened due to the waste from farming animals. In 1995 waste
from a pig lagoon escaped and killed 10 million fish in a nearby water reserve. Authorities had to
shut down 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to deal with the waste (Vidal, 2014). Animal
farming ruins the oceans as fertilizer, waste, and animal byproducts are sweeped through rivers
and create dead spots where little life is able survive the waste (Vidal, 2014). Farming animals
increases carbon and nitrogen levels which hurt the air. The pesticides and manmade ammonia
are generated by meat making and hurt the ozone (Vidal, 2014). The best solution to reducing
global warming due to one of its major contributors is by greatly reducing the demand and
consumption of meat products. The second largest reason global warming has accelerated to
drastically is industrialization and fossil fuel use.

In the U.S., the interests of, “electrical utilities, automobile manufacturers, petroleum producers,
agricultural crop and livestock producers, and most other fossil-fuel consuming industries”
conflict with environmental policy making (Rosenbaum, 2011, p. 374). Big industries have
political and economic influence that sway national environmental regulation. The interests of
political parties vary their support of environmental regulation. During the Bush and Reagan
administration, environmental policy and climate change were largely ignored. It is possible that
the trend of environmental significance will continue to vary as party majority in government
fluctuates. Current public support for environmental policy and regulation is not strong enough
to incentivize the government to overcome minor disputes in regulation. For example, increasing
public support for infrastructure of alternative energy on a national scale would encourage state
and federal governments to come to a consensus on where power plants and energy farms should
be built. Factors such as big business, public support, and political party confounds
environmental regulation and policies from passing through the checks and balances of law
making. Public support and political urgency will not be achieved unless there is an
environmental tragedy and strong political incentive in which political pressure and national
support provoke action.

India is depleting its aquifers at intense rates and in the top five largest polluters in the world
(INDC, 2015). In India the foundations of politics set since post-colonial times have not allowed
for many positive environmental policy decisions. Flaws in the governmental structure in terms
of corruption and rising poverty levels greatly affects the negative environmental outputs. India
is still developing there is greatest potential for environmental reform in this growing democracy.
There are many potentially viable solutions debated to alter the greenhouses gas numbers coming
from this nation. Nuclear energy can be implemented instead of coal to decrease carbon dioxide
outputs. A long term solution I perceive is that the governmental foundation of this nation could
be tweaked to reduce poverty and economic disparity. Reduction in socioeconomic differences
will lead to more education in the overall populous, allowing more people to focus on and
understand environmental consequences, and ultimately reduce pollutants on a larger scale. This
change in governmental power would be aligned with the growing economy and increasing trade
to change environmental outputs for the better.

China is the biggest polluter in the world. The air quality in this nation has been of major
concern for its citizens and in harming the Ozone layers which would have significant global
consequences. “The pollution has been linked to the proliferation of acute and chronic diseases;
estimates suggest that around 11 percent of digestive system cancers in China may stem from
unsafe drinking water” (Xu, 2014). Acid rain has reached neighboring countries as one of the
many externalities of industrial production (Xu, 2014). China has proposed a five year plan to
decrease pollutants, ”…the government has pledged to spend $275 billion over the next five
years to clean up the air…[and has] amended the country’s environmental protection law
to allow for stricter punishmentsagainst companies or individuals caught polluting the
environment” (Xu, 2014). China is investing in renewable energy to use instead of coal and is
facing criticism from its citizens, NGOs, and the global community to better the environmental
future.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is taking place from the end of
November to December 2015. Major polluting countries have been required to propose their
“intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs) for the new environmental agreement
(“International Negotiations,” 2015). Diringer analyzes UNFCCC goals further:

“More than 90 countries representing some 80% of global emissions — including, for the first
time, all the world’s major economies — submitted pledges under the agreements. But they are
too weak to put the world on a pathway to keep warming below 2 °C above pre-industrialized
levels. The UN Environment Programme projects that, even in the best case, the pledges will
achieve less than half of the reductions needed by 2020” (Diringer, 2013).

The Paris meetings will assess all INDCs and try to form an international climate change
agreement that meets the goals and capabilities of all participating nations. Many of the
participants are developing nations who are predicted to be incapable of meeting INDC goals
economic weakness and inability to overstep national costs. In a perfect world, the international
solutions have national costs dilemma would be solved by promoting the economic standing of
all nations to reach that of developed ones. If all nations have the minimum wealth to allocate
towards climate change the dilemma of national costs can be eradicated or adapted to with more
ease. However, presently, it is best to hope the UNFCCC is able to accomplish negotiating a
regulation policy that is overseen by some sort of global police, is legally binding, has equal
ambition, reduces transparency and differentiation, and is appropriately adapted by all
participating nations (Diringer, 2015). As Diringer puts it, “A new agreement will probably not
be heroic, but it can be pragmatic” and, that is the best option climate change has politically as of
now.

The extent of global warming effects on the global processes is unknown. It is unarguable that
the increases in greenhouse gases will perturb the Earth’s lithosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere,
and atmosphere dramatically. The Arctic region will bear the most weight if major changes are
not implemented straightaway on global environmental policies. Global warming has some
positive and negatives influences on the Arctic landscape as biodiversity varies and ecosystems
change. However, it is a fact that on a global scale climate change will yield mostly negative
consequences and must be taken seriously for this reason. The proposed solutions are difficult to
carry out but they are most essential to save the Earth from negative outcomes.
Review :

Kenaikan suhu dunia menghasilkan segala macam hasil negatif untuk bumi diantaranya
terjadinya pengasaman laut, terjadinya kejadian kejadian ekstrim yang disebabkan oleh
gangguan atmosfer. Peningkatan pemanasan global menyebabkan system umpan balik yang
positif pada atmosfer yang dapat merugukan lingkungan dalam jangka panjang. Contoh dari
system umpan balik positif adalah ketika vulkanik membangun proses penurunan temperature
untuk beberapa tahun yang memungkinkan terbentuknya salju. Fluktuasi gas rumah kaca
memiliki efek yang sama pada atmosfer bumi dan dapat memicu suhu dunia yang lebih rendah
atau lebih tinggi. Pemanasan global mempengaruhi kenaikan permukaan laut, yang diamati
kenaikannya 17 cm (shaftel,2015)

Seperti suhu hangat, lapisan permafrost menjadi dangkal dan daerah-daerah aktif permafrost
bereaksi dengan mengurangi luas permukaan. yang dapat menyebabkan gas rumah kaca , Danau
mengering karena penguapan berlebihan, dan lapisan es aktif yang terhubung ke akuifer air
tanah, badan-badan air di atas atau di bawah lapisan es terputus-putus, Semua secara signifikan
mengubah iklim tundra. Sebelumnya bahan organic beku dan vegetasi, pelepasan karbon
dioksida dan gas metana di atmosfer akan meningkat. Sekitar seperempat dari belahan bumi
utara ditutupi oleh lapisan es, ketika lapisan ini mulai mencair pengurai memecah dan
melepaskan gas rumah kaca. "Jika tundra semakin panas dan kering, itu akan cenderung
melepaskan sebagian besar karbon dioksida. Tetapi jika daerah ini mendapatkan lebih hangat dan
basah, metana akan lebih dilepaskan bukan karbon dioksida"(Oksin, 2011). Metana buruk bagi
lingkungan, dibandingkan dengan karbon dioksida, tetapi karbon dioksida tetap hidup dalam
atmosfer lebih lama (Oksin, 2011).

Selain itu pemanasan global dapat menyebaabkan gelisols yang mendekati batu karang dan
hamparan es kawasan arktik “ perkiraan karbon yang terkandung dalam gelisols adalah 1,7
triliun ton”. Sebagai pemanasan global degradasi dan mencairnya permafrost yang tertutup
gelisols meningkat, sejumlah besar carbon dan metana akan di lepaskan ke atmosfer. gelisols
yang di kenal untuk menjalani proses cryoturbation atau frost berputar dimana lapisan C tanah
di bawa ke permukaan.

Pemanasan global dapat mengubah masyarakat, habitat, dan ceruk organisme dan kehidupan di
kawasan arktik, dengan pemanasan 1,9 sampai 3 derajat celcius, lebih dari 30 % spesies akan
terlantar dan mengalami kepunahan. Sejarah proses atmosfer menunjukkan pemanasan iklim
dapat secara drastis mempengaruhi sirkulasi atmosfer sebagai puing-puing vulkanik, puing-puing
kebakaran hutan, dan gas rumah kaca yang telah terakumulasi dalam inti es yang di keluarkan.
saat ini konsentrasi karbon dioksida, metan, dan nitrat tertinggi sejak tahun 800.000. Periode
glasial berikutnya diperkirakan dalam 16.000 tahun di masa depan (Pg. 433). Namun, jika
pemanasan global berlanjut pada tingkat yang diamati, hari ini kita akan menyaksikan hilangnya
keanekaragaman hayati dan proses proses perubahan dunia yang mengerikan.

Ada kebijakan yang dapat ditempuh untuk menciptakan masa depan lingkungan yang lebih baik
dan untuk mencegah konsekuensi negatif. Gaya hidup modern harus diubah untuk manfaat
lingkungan. Penggembalaan ternak, polusi industri, dan penggunaan bahan bakar fosil adalah
penyumbang terbesar dari pemanasan global dan perubahan iklim harus di kurangi . Negara-
negara utama yang berkontribusi terhadap pemanasan global adalah Cina, Inggris , dan India
(INDC, 2015).