Invasive species entering Antarctica because of climate change

The extremely cold weather served for many years as the natural protection for Antarctica's native species. Invasive species didn't stand the chance to survive in Antarctica simply because the weather was too cold. But the impact of climate change is constantly growing, the temperatures are rising, and with these changes invasive species are looking more and more like a huge threat to Antarctica's native ecosystems.

The Swedish scientists have already spotted large populations of red king crabs over a 30-mile stretch of deep-sea habitat along the western Antarctica Peninsula during the recent Antarctic summer. Up until recently the weather was too cold for crabs to survive but in the last ten years or so the average ocean temperature around Antarctica has increased by around 1 degree Fahrenheit. Not that big increase, but big enough for king crabs to expand their territory.

The rise of king crab population in Antarctica waters could spell serious trouble for species such as mussels, brittle stars, and sea urchins. The problem is that these species haven't developed effective defense systems against predators since up to now cold weather managed to isolate them from predators.

The isolation period could soon come to an abrupt end for many species in Antarctica, and sensible ecosystems of Antarctica will find it extremely hard to survive the invasion of foreign predatory species.

Their isolation has lasted tens of millions of years but climate change could change all of this in only couple of decades time.

The uniqueness of species in Antarctica is under great threat. These species will not only have to withstand climate change but also hordes of invasive animals that are slowly but surely making their way to once impenetrable kingdom of ice.

Climate change science - More about predictions than actual facts?

Is climate change science really more about predictions and possible scenarios than dealing with actual facts? Well, it certainly looks that way though there are two things that most scientists agree upon as the valid facts. The number one is the fact that climate change is really happening, and number two the climate change impact will become much stronger in years to come.

Why is climate change science still based mostly on predictions and possible future scenarios? The answer is because climate change is extremely complex phenomenon of which we currently know very little of.

There are so many different factors that influence the climate change that science is practically each day learning something new. There is pretty much a global scientific consensus about greenhouse gases being the main cause for ongoing climate change phenomenon. And that's about it.

But there are many other factors that also play a significant role in climate change phenomenon, and this gives climate change science an enormous complexity. Not only scientists have to be aware of all these factors when making climate change predictions, they also have to understand the interactions between all these factors, and this is pretty much impossible, even with the latest computer technology.

Don't get me wrong here, scientists are working really hard, collecting and analyzing different data from all corners of the world in search for answers. But despite their hard work they can still not offer exact answers, they can only predict possible outcomes.

Most of these possible outcomes, alias future climate change scenarios, are anything but comforting, and if these scientific predictions are true world is heading towards a disaster of enormous proportions in form of very frequent extreme weather events, droughts, flooding, new diseases, sea level rise, water and food shortages.

Sure we can always hope for the best and discard these future scenarios as scary scientific inventions, and keep telling ourselves that scientists do not know what they are talking about. Ignorance vs science? Is this really the best way for our society to go forward?

How is climate change affecting corals?

Climate change is already having negative impact on many species, and in years to come things will likely become even worse. Among the species most sensitive to climate change are definitely corals, and if the world fails to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions corals could in years to come totally disappear from our seas and oceans.

Professor Ove Hoegh Guldberg from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland has already warned world leaders about this issue by saying that climate change is making coral bleaching far more frequent than ever before.

He also pointed out that the Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest reef system, with its variety of colorful corals, could be gone within four decades unless world reduces greenhouse gas emissions to acceptable levels.

The excessive carbon emissions are the main reason behind the increasing ocean acidification that is currently one of the biggest threats to survival of corals. If world continues with current levels of carbon emissions corals will soon become unable to cope with it, and will forever perish from the face of the earth.

By continuing current levels of greenhouse gas emissions we could very soon reach the point of no return where we won't be able to limit further temperature increases which will lead to not only extinction of corals but many other species too, both in land as well as in seas and oceans.

Corals play extremely important role in marine food chain, and their extinction would no doubt create huge marine biodiversity loss. It's definitely the time for action but are world leaders finally ready to go beyond the talk and actually do something to protect our planet from climate change?

Climate change will likely threaten crop yield

Climate change will not only bring more frequent extreme weather events and cause significant sea level rise but is also very likely to threaten crop yield which could in years to come lead to even more hunger in the world. This is because climate change will likely make plants more sensitive to infectious diseases.

Many scientists such as Dr Newton from the James Hutton Institute, Dundee, Scotland, are warning the world that fighting these infectious diseases will be the key in avoiding more hunger in years to come. Dr Newton believes that the best option to avoid the major threat to crop yield in years to come is to exploit diversity in crops because this increases resilience to microbes and other stresses caused by climate change.

In order to exploit diversity in crops scientists need to learn the complex interaction between microbes and plants and to "understand the dynamics of complex microbial communities and their interactions to be able to predict the likelihood of disease".

Knowing these interactions will be a key in improving the future crop production and probably the only way to reduce the climate change's negative impact on the price and availability of food.

According to the latest reports a successful pest and disease management was a main contributor in doubling the food production in the last 40 years, but on the other hand 10-16% of the global harvest is still lost because of different plant diseases. The increased climate change impact will likely give significant boost to micro-organisms that cause these diseases so science will no doubt have an extremely hard task to keep these pests away from the crops.

The well known climate change indicators such as higher temperatures and increased levels of carbon dioxide will not only affect existing plant microbes but also create the ideal conditions for the appearance of new microbes. Reliable crop production will likely be put under great jeopardy in years to come.

UK not worried about climate change

The science is warning us that the climate change is the biggest environmental issue of our time. Though there is no reason for scientists to lie to us many people are still not worried about climate change as they do not consider it to be a serious environmental threat.

According to the latest survey conducted by Ipsos MORI only a quarter of Britons believe climate change is one of the most important environmental issues facing the UK today.

Britons are more worried about the energy security, waste disposal and overpopulation than climate change, and consider these three to be more important environmental issues.

The experts believe that the main reason why so little Britons consider climate change as a big environmental threat is because of last year’s extremely cold winter in Britain. The people, as usual, fail to think on the long run, forgetting that the climate change is a long-term phenomenon with the ever-increasing impact.

The situation in Britain clearly shows that science is still not doing enough to show the people that climate change is indeed a serious environmental problem that needs to be taken care off as soon as possible. It certainly looks like the ice melting on Earth's poles and more frequent extreme weather events are not enough for people to take climate change seriously.

Dr Simon Buckell, from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change said that "Science needs to show how current climate change affects economies and what that can mean going forward. Until people understand if there is, or isn’t a problem, people will be reticent to make a financial commitment."

The main downside is that convincing people takes time, and time is definitely not one of the luxuries we have at our disposal in fight against the climate change.

Climate change issue is just a political game for Obama?

In his Earth Day proclamation the U.S. president Obama said "The United States can be a leader in reducing the dangerous pollution that causes global warming and can propel these advances by investing in the clean energy technologies, markets, and practices that will empower us to win the future."

Sadly the words (even coming from the most powerful man on our planet) are of no use without the appropriate action, and actual climate change action still looks like the thing Obama is seriously afraid off. Has there been some evident progress in U.S. efforts to tackle climate change since Obama took control of the White House from Bush? Nope. Still no international climate deal, and still no cap and trade legislation.

So what can we really expect from Obama in regards to climate change issue? More useless talks that have no effect whatsoever?

These kind of talks may be of no use to actually create some meaningful action against climate change but they could become quite useful from political point of view. Why? Because Obama's administration has started its 2012 re-election campaign, and climate change issue looks like the excellent political topic to create an early contrast with Republican candidates.

Obama is green, Obama loves and cares for our environment and Republicans don't; this is basically just a part of one big political game. The Republicans as well as the Democrats care very little or none whatsoever about our environment if and when environmental issues are in contrast with their political interests.

Obama is no exception. He's far from being an environmentalist some people think it is because he's first of all politician, and politics is as usual the game of interests, the game where economic issues always outweigh environmental issues. I'm sorry Mr Obama but words will this time not suffice.

Climate change aid - How to avoid corruption?

The poor, developing countries will no doubt need rich countries to provide them with huge financial aid in order to successfully tackle climate change. But with the huge funds, there is also a huge possibility for major corruption, especially if you consider that according to the Transparency International (TI) the 20 nations most vulnerable to climate change – where millions in grants and aid will be targeted - belong to the most corrupted countries in the world.

Corruption doesn't care about the health of our planet. There are many greedy people across the globe who care more about the money than our planet's future and without the introduction of adequate mechanisms to control climate change funds millions could end up in some dirty politician's pocket instead of being actually used to combat climate change.

The total investment into combating global climate change will reach almost $700bn by 2020, a huge sum that will likely open the door for corruption in many corners of the world. The main problem with climate change funds is that their mechanisms haven't yet been fully tested which almost invites embezzlement and misappropriation.

The carbon markets (the main financial tools to tackle climate change) have been some sort of a bad omen after the European Union's carbon market was forced to shut down after being constantly attacked by cyber-hackers. The result of these attacks is three million carbon credits stolen from government and private company accounts.

Things with climate change issue are anything but easy. Not only does the world have to ensure enough money for poor countries to tackle climate change, it also have to come up with the adequate controlling mechanisms in order to avoid corruption on large scale.

But make no mistake here as all countries are vulnerable to corruption though developing countries are the most vulnerable since they often lack even the basic anti-corruption mechanisms. It certainly looks like the battle against climate change will not only have to be focused on climate change but on various other factors too, including the possible corruption.

Technologies for removing carbon dioxide aren't cheap

To many people removing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere seems like an ideal solution to tackle climate change. But are our current technologies enough to pull such massive task? According to the team of scientists lead by Princeton engineer Robert Socolow using currently available technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would be far more expensive than simply preventing the emission of the carbon dioxide in the first place.

In this latest study the scientists were focused at technologies known as "Direct Air Capture (DAC)," which use chemicals to absorb carbon dioxide from the open air, concentrating the carbon dioxide, and then storing it safely underground.

The scientists have calculated that by using these technologies building and operating a carbon removal system would cost at least $600 per metric ton of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. On the other hand removing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired power plant would cost about $80 per ton.

What this means is that DAC technology is anything but economically viable solution to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The scientists believe that the more logical approach would be to use electricity more efficiently (improved energy efficiency) as well as modifying fossil fuel fired power plants so their emissions are kept from the atmosphere or to shut them down entirely and replace them with new low-carbon alternatives.

The reason why scientists decided to look more closely at the DAC technology was because DAC technology has entered many policy discussions, though more at theoretical level than actually being considered to be used in practice.

The fact that DAC technology has proven too costly shouldn't be considered as a failure from the scientific point of view. On the contrary, it should spark even more researches and even more creative scientific solutions because lets face it science is our only hope in fight against climate change. Whom else can we turn to? Politics?

Climate change is more than just an environmental threat

Climate change is sadly much more than just an environmental threat, it is also a serious health threat that could cause the death of millions of people across the globe. According to the new book "Changing Planet, Changing Health: How the Climate Crisis Threatens Our Health and What We Can Do about It" written by Dan Ferber and Dr. Paul Epstein climate change has already sparkled the spread of infectious diseases and respiratory ailments across the globe and has so far contributed to thousands of deaths through heat waves and other extreme weather events.

The authors of this book believe that human health is directly connected with the climate change impact. What this basically means is that the health of our future generations will primarily depend on our response to the growing climate threat. So far this response has been anything but adequate.

Even the slight increase of temperature is enough to open the door for many pests, and more pests means more infectious diseases such as malaria. The scientists also pointed out that these pests will also target wildlife, wipe out forests and even increase the risk of fires in forests.

Climate change could also increase the number of people suffering from asthma and allergies (with the combination of heat and increased levels of CO2), particularly among children.

The combination of heat waves and droughts will very likely threaten food supply in many corners of the world, and drive up the food price on global level, which will in the end result in even more poverty and even more hungry people in the world.

Less food will cause social unrest in many parts of the world, and this could lead to civil wars and other military conflicts.

These are all valid reasons that should force world leaders into making strong response to climate change threat. However, the international climate talks were up to now just that, talks, and nothing more, and the current political situation in the world doesn't give us much optimism for a significant change in months to come.

Whether we like it or not we have the real problem in our hands. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

The last decade to respond to climate change threat

Many scientists believe that the period between now and 2020 may be our last chance to stop climate change from running out of control. The only way to successfully tackle climate change would be to decarbonize global economy and make shift to renewable energy sector. This however doesn't seem to be happening any time soon because world is still far far away from reaching the international climate deal that would oblige all countries to significant CO2 reductions.

Why are world leaders still in talks about the climate deal when we are already running out of time to do something about it? It's once again all about politics and individual interests.

Despite living in the 21st century world leaders still do not recognize global interests, or at least they still don't weigh as much as individual interests of each country. Climate change issue is a global issue that needs to be solved on global level but how to reach the so much needed global level when each country is primarily looking at their own interests instead of looking at the big picture.

This big picture will soon be filled with natural disasters, major increase of sea level, hunger and new diseases if world leaders continue their selfish and narrow- minded politics.

The climate change issue is the biggest environmental threat of all time and the last thing world needs right now is a big difference in opinion between the developed and the developing world. Sadly, this difference in opinion looks to be a major stumbling block that prevents any success in climate talks.

It's really really sad that politics still outweighs science, that industry still outweighs environment, that greed still outweighs moral and common sense. But hey, that's sadly the world we currently live in.

Arctic losing fight against climate change

Climate change is being particularly felt in Arctic where ice is melting rapidly. The melting of the Arctic will not only significantly increase global sea levels but will also very likely accelerate global climate change impact. This is because there are huge quantities of organic carbon locked away as frozen plant matter in the big permafrost region of the Arctic, and the rapid melting of Arctic ice could very soon (within the next 20 years) lead to an irreversible climate "tipping point".

This locked carbon, mostly in form of frozen leaves and roots remained frosted for thousands of years but once released could lead to a real catastrophe.

According to the latest study by the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado, the irreversible tipping point, at which Arctic will stop being absorber of carbon dioxide and become completely the opposite, a source that will speed up the global warming, will likely occur between 2020 and 2030.

This study also predicts that by 2200 about two-thirds of the Earth's permafrost will likely melt resulting in estimated 190 billion tons of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, which is roughly half of all the fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases in the last 300 years.

The worst part in the whole story is the fact that once the frozen carbon thaws out and decays, there is no way to put it back into the permafrost, and it can only end up in atmosphere, giving more boost to global warming.

The Arctic is already feeling the negative consequences of climate change, summer ice is at record lows, the temperatures are higher than ever, and many native animals species such as polar bears are already finding it extremely hard to survive.

There is still no sign of new international climate deal, and there is no adequate emission reduction strategies to prevent further strengthening of climate change impact.

The Arctic may well become the main battleground that will decide the outcome in our fight against climate change. At this moment climate change is a clear favorite.

World needs forests to sink carbon

Forests are together with our oceans the largest carbon absorbers on our planet. This is the main reason why deforestation is one of the most significant factors contributing to global climate change impact.

Luckily for us, even despite the fact that forest area have expanded very little or none at all in EU and North America, forests are still managing to increase their capacity of sinking carbon. This is because many forests in these areas are becoming increasingly dense, and increased density means larger carbon sinking ability.

According to the latest study by U.S. and European researchers led by Aapo Rautiainen of the University of Helsinki, Finland, there were substantial forests density gains in both EU and North America, while the forest areas in Africa, South America and Asia experienced a small rise in forest density.

Particularly interesting was the data according to which U.S. timberland area grew only 1 percent between 1953 and 2007 while on the other hand the combined national volume of growing stock increased by a remarkable 51 percent.

The good news is that most nations have stopped losing forests while the bad news is that rainforests are still affected with large deforestation (particularly in Indonesia and Brazil).

Our forests remain one of our most important allies in global fight against climate change so heavy deforestation has to be stopped in all corners of the world. This particularly applies to rainforests because they are significantly larger carbon absorbers compared to other forests.

Stopping the deforestation will be one of the key battles in war against climate change. And although nothing guarantees our victory with the forests on our side at least we have some chance of winning it in the end.

Global Warming Issues are in your Hands

There has been a lot of talk on the subject of global warming. Specialists believe that human activities in the past 50 years have given a negative boost to climate change. After a long series of tests and chart observations, it seems that the primary culprit for global warming is the emission of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). These gases have altered the composition of the atmosphere and raised the planet’s temperature with almost 1?C since 1950.

The problem is not that these gases exist. They have always been in the atmosphere, but there is a major increase in their concentration. The planet started to heat up and the climate change appeared simultaneously with the beginning of industrial revolution. Then, at the start of a new era, the concentrations of carbon dioxide increased with nearly 30%, methane almost doubled and nitrous oxide with 15% making global warming a serious, even deadly matter.

These figures are truly concerning due to the fact that we rely on fossil fuels to drive, to heat and to power factories not thinking of the harsh reality: burned fossil fuels are the main reason for the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to global warming and accelerating the rate of climate change.

Still, the combustion of fuel is not the only one to blame for global warming. Researchers consider that the development of agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and mining are also to blame. Each one of them has ‘helped’ induce large, global, abrupt climate change leading to a warmer planet, making it more difficult for us to live.

The statistics in climate change are frightening. Almost 98% of the greenhouses emissions are due to pollution and it is no surprise that the most powerful and rich country (U.S) on the continent is mainly responsible for global warming. 1998 has been declared the warmest year on record and scientistists are concerned that the snow cover in northern hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Do we really pay enough attention to the climate change and do we want the planet to become too warm for us to live in?

We are all threathened by this sudden climate change. Global warming is not a joke and we should start paying more attention to it. Not only wildlife, forests and coastal areas are vulnerable to the climate change that the greenhouse gas may bring, but also water resources, animals and most important our health.

What should we expect from global warming? First of all, a change that will have a major impact on the way we live will be a warmer weather. Climate change will appear in the form of increased precipations worldwide, with acid rainfalls that will damage the natural habitat, with more frequent and intense storms that will build up and result in powerful hurricanes. And this is just the top of the ‘iceberg’ called global warming. The hurricanes will be stronger than usual with greater devastating powers.

The population of the globe should be taught more about these greenhouse gases that are held responsible for climate change and more specific, global warming. Carbon dioxide is realeased into the atmosphere when wood, fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) and solid waste are burned. Methane is emitted during the production and transport of oil, gas and coal, but it also results from decomposition of solid, organic waste. Nitrous oxide is the product of: agricultural and industrial activities, combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. So, do we still have to wonder why these greenhouse gases have such a strong impact on climate change?

Unfortunately, there are not many options to reduce the effects of global warming. Lately, in order to predict climate change, specialists have put up what is called an emission inventory which registers the quantity of air pollutants in the atmosphere. It also establishes the identity of the polluting agent (chemical/physical), the geographic area covered, the time period over which emissions are appreciated and the type of activities that cause the emissions. This way, the scientific community is making an effort to reduce the serious consequences of global warming.

Another solution for the problem of global warming is recycling. It started years ago in powerful and well developed states and it is a novelty for poor, undergoing tranzition states that are struggling to survive. But, slowly, people all over the world are learning about the strong effects of recycling newspapers, plastic, glass, metal. It is a healthy action that makes the world a better place. By recycling, we not only help ourselves, but also the forests, crop yields and water supplies which are severely affected by climate change. We also keep in mind the animals and the ecosystems - another sector badly damaged by climate change. We make the difference.

Global warming affects everybody. That is why we must fight against our self destruction and life’s in general. Fight for your planet, don’t let the climate change affect the environment in an irrecoverable manner, keep in mind that Earth’s eco systems are sensitive and must be treated with care, and you will have a future!

Is world losing the fight against climate change?

World is still not putting enough efforts into a fight against climate change. This is not only visible from the fact that world still hasn't agreed upon new climate deal but also because fossil fuels use is still not decreasing which means that carbon emissions still continue to rise on global scale.

World has several different options at its disposal in fight against the climate change but they are of very little use because there is still a big difference in opinion among world leaders about what should be done next. The developed world wants one thing and the developing countries want something else which makes climate talks practically useless.

The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is of course in finding the right mechanism to decrease the further growth of carbon emissions. With fossil fuels satisfying most of global energy demand carbon emissions will continue to grow so what we need here is rapid renewable energy development.

The renewable energy revolution is sadly not being famous for its speed. Renewable energy sources currently satisfy about 13 percent of the world's total energy demand which means that oil, coal and natural gas still rule the world.

Renewable energy sector needs more funds, more researches and more political backup to speed things up. The political backup is often the main stumbling block because of powerful fossil fuel lobbies that have huge control over politics and tend to get major political decisions going their way.

As already said above more fossil fuels will mean more carbon emissions and more carbon emissions will mean higher temperatures. The vast majority of scientists agree that world needs to keep a maximum global average temperature rise of below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) over pre-industrial times if we want to avoid the bad climate change scenario.

The way things are currently going this bad scenario might soon turn out to be the real deal. Even sooner than expected.

No hope of reaching new climate deal?

The international climate deal certainly looks like the only possible solution to effectively tackle the climate change threat but this fact is practically useless since it is very clearly that developed and developing world still cannot find a mutual language needed for agreement.

Hopes are quickly fading for new international climate deal. Developing nations are pressing hard, insisting that rich countries must agree massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions while developed countries do not want to legally oblige themselves to massive emission cuts if fast developing economies such as China and India do not follow the same path.

China and India want the extension of Kyoto deal but many other countries are against it because China and India had no obligations to curb emissions under Kyoto while United States never ratified Kyoto. This would practically leave the EU alone, and EU doesn't want to go all alone, especially since it accounts for only 11 percent of world's total greenhouse gas emissions.

Big players such as China and United States are still not ready to commit which means that the rest of the world isn't putting enough pressure on them.

The failure to reach the climate deal could have catastrophic consequences-the scientists have said it many times that any increase of global temperature beyond the two degrees of Celsius will irreversibly change the climate in many parts of the world, and judging by the latest estimates the world is currently on path to a rise of 3.2 degrees Celsius as the emissions keep on rising.

If the world leaders continue this selfishness in climate change talks polar bears won't be the only creatures feeling the heat of climate change because our children and grandchildren will feel the same, cursing the legacy that was left to them by our generation

How will climate change impact the marine life in our seas and oceans?

Climate change could soon create huge problems for marine ecosystems in the Baltic Sea because Baltic sea is becoming less salty. The reason why Baltic sea is becoming more and more freshwater sea is because of the increase in precipitation in the river basins that flow into the Baltic Sea.

Less salty sea will in years to come cause extinction of many marine species leading to a huge problems in marine food chain. The decreased salinity together with overfishing and pollution could in years to come completely devastate Baltic's marine life creating irreparable environmental damage.

Climate change is not having huge impact solely on Baltic sea but on other seas and oceans too. For instance, scientists have recently noticed the arrival of a new species of plankton in the north Atlantic coming from the Pacific. If this species of plankton continues to spread further across the Atlantic it could disrupt the current functioning of marine food web because this is the species that belongs at the very base of the marine food web.

The new species are appearing in Atlantic ocean because of the rapid melting of Arctic which allows many species to pass through and enter the Atlantic waters. If Arctic continues its current melting trend this will lead to a huge changes in marine life in Atlantic and could have dramatic effect on fisheries.

The scientists still cannot fully predict what effect will interaction between new and native marine species will have on marine food web. This is because the migration of marine species from one place to another usually occurs at varying speeds.

Among the seas most threatened with climate change is also the Mediterranean sea. The scientists predict Mediterranean sea could see one third of its 75 fish species threatened and six extinct by 2060 if current warming trend at the Mediterranean continues.

Climate change certainly looks more likely to create problems for many of our seas and oceans than to create some positive impact. This is the reason why science needs to learn much more about what is happening in our seas and oceans so we could at least have some sort of chance to overturn these negative effects.