Motivation

Concerning three facts: present melting, projected temperature rise and world wide emissions that are nowhere near tempering growth, and possibly sped up by many positive feedbacks, all mitigation efforts, however ambitious, will fail in ‘saving the North Pole’. Arctic sea ice can, according to NASA, be gone as soon as summer 2013.

Why 'accepting losing the North Pole'?

Complete melting of the Arctic would be a great loss. Ecologically, and, why not mention, emotionally. It is as wrong as it feels. But, even more importantly, negative effects will be felt, world wide. Through the albedo feedback Arctic melting is already increasing temperature rises on the northern hemisphere. Melting in the permafrost zone will further amplify global warming through methane emissions.

Therefore, accepting the loss of the North Pole, concerning not only what is at stake, but also the immense efforts (of some) to halt global warming, illustrated by the United Nations negotiations on the climate treaty, seems… silly.

permafrost factbox

  • the permafrost melting front moves approximately 100 kilometers northwards for every degree of temperature rise
  • tundra temperature rise is significantly magnified through Arctic melting and albedo effect
  • warming effect of methane is approximately 23 times as big as that of carbon dioxide
  • present yearly tundra methane emissions are already estimated to have surpassed 1 Gt of CO2 equivalents*
  • total subsurface organic soils in the Arctic permafrost zone could amount to as much as 450 Gt of pure carbon
*) Prof E.G. Nisbet, Royal Holloway University of London


| next >