Climatologists Are Warned North Pole Might Melt

GENEVA, Feb. 13 — There is a real possibility that some people now in their infancy will live to a time when the ice at the North Pole will have melted, a change that would cause swift and perhaps catastrophic changes in climate.

Although many uncertainties affect the possibility, the change could come about because of rapid increases in fuel‐burning and a consequent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide allows sunlight to enter the atmosphere and heat the earth, but it inhibits the escape of heat radiation into space.

This so‐called “greenhouse effect” was discussed today by several specialists reporting to the World Climate Conference here, and the conferees were urged to assign top priority to assessing the carbon dioxide threat in the 20‐year world climate program now in preparation.

In a study being presented to the conference by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, it is projected that global energy use may increase from three to five times by the middle of the next century.

The increase would derive chiefly from industrialization of the developing countries. If, as many experts expect, most of the energy comes from burning coal, oil and gas, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may almost double by early in the next century and redouble by mid‐century.

This projection was by Dr. W. Lawrence Gates, climatologist at Oregon State University in Corvallis. The resulting global warming “may amount to an environmental catastrophe,” he said.

In another report, Dr. R. Edward Munn of the University of Toronto and Dr. Les ter Mechta of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington also discussed the threat.

Another Projection

They concluded, however, that “few, if any, scientists believe the carbon dioxide problem in itself justifies a curb, today, in the usage of fossil fuels or deforestation.” Since forests absorb that gas. incorporating Its carbon into wood and leaves, the clearing of land for agriculture is adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Nevertheless, they said, within 5 or 10 years “governments could come to crossroad” in determining their energy and land‐use policies. The uncertainties include the extent to which oceans and vegetation will absorb the added carbon dioxide.

As the oceans become warmer, they may release some of the carbon dioxide already stored there. It, on the other hand, the ice adrift on the Arctic Ocean melts, the resulting water would then take up some of it.

Dr. Herman Flohn, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at the University of Bonn in West Germany, said that “the most fascinating, and also the most controversial problem” facing climatologists was the possibility that the Arctic ice (apart from Greenland) would vanish. The Arctic Ocean has not been free of ice in almost 2.5 million years.

Earlier Soviet Idea

The ice's removal by design was discussed in 1962 by a Soviet scientist, M. I. Bodyko, who later suggested that heating by atmospheric carbon dioxide could do the job. From sampling of sea floor sediments, Dr. Flohn pointed out, it has recently been possible to reconstruct the history of glaciation at both poles, showing that for 10 million years world climate was grossly lopsided.

The reason was that, beginning more than 12 million years ago the Antarctic continent became ice covered, reaching, from five million to six million years ago, an accumulation 50 percent more voluminous than today. Yet until less than 2.5 million years ago the North Pole region was open ocean.

The effect was to shift climate zones of the Northern Hemisphere some 400 miles north. If the Arctic ice melts, Dr. Flohn predicted, winter rains will become meager in the Mediterranean, Near East and American Southwest, and summer droughts would become frequent between north latitudes 45 and 50 degrees.

Dr. B. John Mason, head of the British weather services, told of computer simulation of the effects of an ice‐free Arctic Ocean. A “rather unexpected result,” he said, was the indication that mid‐latitudes in the United States, Eastern Siberia and Western Europe would be cooled by as much as 16 degrees Fahrenheit.

The energy study by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis examined three potential sources for the greatly increased demand projected for the year 2030: solar energy, fossil fuels or nuclear energy. In part because of the time required to develop the technology, it was concluded that solar energy could contribute no more than a quarter of the needs.

The choice, therefore, is primarily between nuclear and fossil fuel, the former raising formidable problem of radioactive waste disposal and the latter a threat to world climate.

The world is faced with a “Faustian bargain,” Dr. Roger Revelle, chairman of tomorrow morning's session, told a press conference today, adding, “Whatever you do is bad.” Dr. Revelle, who formerly headed the population center at Harvard University, noted that population growth had already tapered off in Europe, including European Russia and Japan.

There is “real hope,” he said, that in the next century world population may level off at eight billion — roughly double the present level. But to raise the living standards of such a population to advanced levels will place formidable demands on energy production.