Letter | Published:

Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence

Nature volume 468, pages 955958 (16 December 2010) | Download Citation

Abstract

On the basis of projected losses of their essential sea-ice habitats, a United States Geological Survey research team concluded in 2007 that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) could disappear by mid-century if business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions continue1,2,3. That projection, however, did not consider the possible benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. A key question is whether temperature increases lead to proportional losses of sea-ice habitat, or whether sea-ice cover crosses a tipping point and irreversibly collapses when temperature reaches a critical threshold4,5,6. Such a tipping point would mean future greenhouse gas mitigation would confer no conservation benefits to polar bears. Here we show, using a general circulation model7, that substantially more sea-ice habitat would be retained if greenhouse gas rise is mitigated. We also show, with Bayesian network model outcomes, that increased habitat retention under greenhouse gas mitigation means that polar bears could persist throughout the century in greater numbers and more areas than in the business-as-usual case3. Our general circulation model outcomes did not reveal thresholds leading to irreversible loss of ice6; instead, a linear relationship between global mean surface air temperature and sea-ice habitat substantiated the hypothesis that sea-ice thermodynamics can overcome albedo feedbacks proposed to cause sea-ice tipping points5,6,8. Our outcomes indicate that rapid summer ice losses in models9 and observations6,10 represent increased volatility of a thinning sea-ice cover, rather than tipping-point behaviour. Mitigation-driven Bayesian network outcomes show that previously predicted declines in polar bear distribution and numbers3 are not unavoidable. Because polar bears are sentinels of the Arctic marine ecosystem11 and trends in their sea-ice habitats foreshadow future global changes, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to improve polar bear status would have conservation benefits throughout and beyond the Arctic12.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Predicting 21st century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 25–58 (2009)

  2. 2.

    , , , & Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice. J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 117–127 (2010)

  3. 3.

    , & in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 213–268 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

  4. 4.

    et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008)

  5. 5.

    Is battered Arctic sea ice down for the count? Science 318, 33–34 (2007)

  6. 6.

    The future of ice sheets and sea ice: between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20590–20595 (2009)

  7. 7.

    et al. The Community Climate System Model version 3. J. Clim. 19, 2122–2143 (2006)

  8. 8.

    & The thinning of Arctic sea ice, 1988–2003: have we passed a tipping point? J. Clim. 18, 4879–4894 (2005)

  9. 9.

    , & Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L23503 (2006)

  10. 10.

    National Snow and Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice extent remains low. NSIDC Notes 69, 〈 〉 (2009)

  11. 11.

    & Sentinel species and animal models of human health. Oceanography (Wash. D.C.) 19, 127–133 (2006)

  12. 12.

    et al. How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L08703 (2009)

  13. 13.

    et al. Rebuttal of “Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy audit”. Interfaces 39, 353–369 (2009)

  14. 14.

    , & Polar bear Ursis maritimus conservation in Canada: an ecological basis for identifying designatable units. Oryx 42, 504–515 (2008)

  15. 15.

    , & Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52, 294–306 (1999)

  16. 16.

    , & Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice decline. Ecol. Appl. 20, 768–782 (2010)

  17. 17.

    et al. Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology 91, 2883–2897 (2010)

  18. 18.

    et al. Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000)

  19. 19.

    et al. Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters. J. Clim. 22, 5175–5204 (2009)

  20. 20.

    & On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 105, 14245–14250 (2008)

  21. 21.

    Alaska polar bears called doomed. Anchorage Daily News A1 (September 8 2007)

  22. 22.

    The climate change commitment. Science 307, 1766–1769 (2005)

  23. 23.

    U.S. Climate Change Science Program Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations. Sub-report 2.1a of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 (Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington DC, 2007)

  24. 24.

    , , , & Global warming in the twenty-first century: an alternative scenario. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9875–9880 (2000)

  25. 25.

    in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 111–132 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

  26. 26.

    & Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 28–32 (2009)

  27. 27.

    , , , & Accelerated Arctic land warming and permafrost degradation during rapid sea ice loss. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L11506 (2008)

  28. 28.

    , , & in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 133–150 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

  29. 29.

    & in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications (eds DeWeaver, E. T., Bitz, C. M. & Tremblay, L.-B.) 7–26 (American Geophysical Union, 2008)

  30. 30.

    , , , & Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L09501 (2007)

  31. 31.

    et al. Climate change projections for the 21st century and climate change commitment in the CCSM3. J. Clim. 19, 2597–2616 (2006)

  32. 32.

    et al. Combinations of natural and anthropogenic forcings in twentieth-century climate. J. Clim. 17, 3721–3727 (2004)

  33. 33.

    International Union for Conservation of Nature. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group (eds Aars, J., Lunn, N. J. & Derocher, A. E.) occasional paper no. 32, 189 (IUCN, 2006)

  34. 34.

    , , , & Resource Selection by Animals: Statistical Design and Analysis for Field Studies (Kluwer Academic, 2002)

  35. 35.

    , , & Sea ice concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I passive microwave data (Digital media, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado, 1996, updated, 2006)

  36. 36.

    , , & Predicting survival, reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1612–1622 (2010)

  37. 37.

    , , & Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can. J. For. Res. 36, 3063–3074 (2006)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Principal funding for this project was provided by the USGS. B.G.M. acknowledges support from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. E.T.D. acknowledges the support of the Office of Science (BER), US Department of Energy, under grant ER64735 to the University of Maryland. E.D.’s work also was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during his employment there. The findings reported here, however, are not endorsed by and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. CCSM3 simulations were performed using computing resources provided by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Earth Simulator in Japan. D.A.B. was supported under a grant from the NSF Office of Polar Programs, award number 0908675. M. Holland provided comments regarding model design and analysis. We acknowledge the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison and the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling for their roles in making available the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 multi-model data set (support of this data set is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy). We thank W. Washington and L. Buja for running the AS and providing us with the output from the CCSP integrations. We thank D. Vongraven and S. Vavrus for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, and we thank N. Lunn and L. Peacock for providing the peer reviews necessary for the beta version of our Bayesian network model. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not represent endorsement by the US government.

Author information

Author notes

    • Steven C. Amstrup

    Present address: Polar Bears International, 810 N. Wallace, Suite E, P. O. Box 3008, Bozeman, Montana 59772, USA.

Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA

    • Steven C. Amstrup
    •  & George M. Durner
  2. National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA

    • Eric T. DeWeaver
  3. US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 3100 National Park Road, Juneau, Alaska 99801, USA

    • David C. Douglas
  4. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, Oregon 97205, USA

    • Bruce G. Marcot
  5. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA

    • Cecilia M. Bitz
  6. National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1850 Table Mesa Dr, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA

    • David A. Bailey

Authors

  1. Search for Steven C. Amstrup in:

  2. Search for Eric T. DeWeaver in:

  3. Search for David C. Douglas in:

  4. Search for Bruce G. Marcot in:

  5. Search for George M. Durner in:

  6. Search for Cecilia M. Bitz in:

  7. Search for David A. Bailey in:

Contributions

S.C.A. conceived the project, assembled the team, and led writing. E.T.D. helped refine the project and analysed habitat/GMAT and RIGEs. D.C.D. staged sea-ice data and did the spatial analysis related to sea-ice metrics. B.G.M. conducted Bayesian network model runs and compiled outcomes. G.M.D. led development of the resource selection function approach to habitat analysis. C.M.B. proposed and helped interpret the 2020 CO2 stabilization experiments. D.A.B. set up and ran the climate model simulations. E.T.D., C.M.B. and D.A.B. led interpretation of GCM outcomes. S.C.A., B.G.M. and D.C.D. interpreted biological outcomes. E.T.D. and D.C.D. developed all graphics. All authors contributed to writing and responding to review comments.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven C. Amstrup.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    The file contains Supplementary Methods, a Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figures 1-8 with legends, Supplementary Table 1 and additional references.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09653

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.