In September of 2007, I had the pleasure of being a member of a team that traveled above the Arctic Circle to document evidence of climate change. Organized by InMER.org, the survey was meant to be a precursor to a larger, winter expedition and so much of the data collected was anecdotal, gleaned from interviews with Inuit Indian tribal elders and government officials, and from our own observations.
The summer was also the season when the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported the lowest summer sea ice in recorded history, and we had the opportunity to fly over some and see it's cracked and patchy appearance - quite a difference from the solid sheet it was supposed to be.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other environmental research organizations continued to study the sea ice conditions, and in subsequent years it would fluctuate, showing some signs of improvement one year only to shrink drastically the next. 2011 has turned out to be not a very good year.
"This year’s end of summer ice extent was the second smallest in the 32-year satellite record," says Don Perovich, a geophysicist with the US Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL).
NOAA issues a report each year, its Arctic Report Card, and as they have had enough years to study the ice to establish a baseline for comparison, NOAA is now saying that the Arctic is definitely showing signs of change. With an overall trend of increasing temperatures and thinning ice, there are some definite shifts taking place. Nature is adjusting.
However, that does not mean that a new norm will be a good thing for all species of flora and fauna. In essence, nature's drive is to survive in one form or another, and if that means that some plants or animals are lost in the process then so be it. And that can still portend some serious socio-economic impacts on all of us.
The latest Arctic Report Card notes that the trend is toward longer periods of thin summer sea ice and more open Arctic waters. The melted ice and the exposed water is producing changes in the temperature, the salinity, and the acidic levels of the water. This impacts the growth of organisms, like plankton, at the base of the food chain. So, while polar bears and walruses struggle with thin ice that hampers their hunting (7 of 19 identified polar bear populations are in decline), migrating gray whales are finding a more robust food source and are staying longer to feed.
Away from the water, vegetation is beginning to show adaptation to new conditions. Shrubs are now growing further and further north, in areas that once only had mossy tundra. This was something that the InMER team saw on our expedition. People whose families had been living in the Arctic for several generations were reporting the appearance of shrubs for the first time in their lives. Sightings of grizzly bears moving up from the south, and even the first appearance of a bee in the town of Kugluktuk all represent shifts towards a new norm. While shrubs may be expanding their range as a result of climate change, mosses and lichens are withering and so the Arctic's fundamental botanical ecology is in flux."The Arctic is clearly experiencing the impacts of a prolonged and intensified warming trend," says Ms. Jackie Richter-Menge of CRREL . "Given the projection of continued warming, it is very likely, indeed expected, that these changes will continue in years to come, with increasing climatic, physical, biological and socioeconomic impact."
As long as we stay committed to dependence on fossil fuels and through that dependence expel vast quantities of carbon emissions into the atmosphere then we will continue to see nature adapt itself in the Arctic and elsewhere with untold consequences for a variety of species, including mankind.
Read NOAA's 2011 Arctic Report Card.
Source: Nature.com
Image: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Climate Change: a topic I have brought up often within this blog and one which continues to gain importance as more and more research produces findings that indicate serious changes taking place on a global scale.
There are those who question whether the effects of climate change or global warming are due to mankind or a natural cyclical event. It has been reported that over 80% of the scientific community believes that mankind is the primary instigator, while it is a near 50/50 split within the general populace.
Personally, as I read the continual flow of scientific literature, I am inclined to believe that mankind, through our fossil fuel-based activities, is the primary contributor. As I review the historical data, I can understand the arguments made for a possible cyclical event of nature based on the gradual changes in climate and temperature recorded over many years, as much as many hundreds of years. But the rapid increases - the spikes that run right off the charts - in just the past few decades is, for me, a key indicator and warning that our actions are having a critical impact.
Each month I receive from Seaweb.org, a listing of recently published articles or papers detailing specific studies on the effects of climate change. The latest issue contains 39 abstracts - 39 different studies documenting impacts on everything from microorganisms to the human experience. I receive around that same number month after month.
I have had discussions with many different people regarding climate change and it has been my experience that when I am discussing the issue with someone who leans towards the view that it is all part of a natural cycle - one that could last for decades or even centuries - there is one thing that disturbs me greatly with their position:
Resignation.
I don't hear any solutions. OK, fine, it's all a natural cycle; so what do you propose regarding cities and populations that will be swamped by rising sea levels? Or how about the impact on farmland in industrial states but particularly in 3rd world countries? Or how about the spread of 
disease due to malnutrition or changing ecosystems and climate? Don't tell me there's nothing we can do. Whether you feel it can be moderated or that it's inevitable, at the very least we must take action regarding the consequences. But what I often hear is, "It's just part of a cycle" and then they want to drop the subject.
Call me proactive or just plain chasing windmills, but whether it's man-made, cyclical, or a little of both, I'm not going down without a fight. If we take the right steps, we can have a positive impact on the quality of our lives whether it's based on prevention, correction, or blind acceptance of climate change.
Not yet sure where you stand? Think global warming proponents are pulling numbers out of thin air? Well, here are a couple of articles from Seaweb's latest listings that you can read, some of the over 300 I will receive within a year's time:
A couple of interesting items coming out of my home state of California:
You may have heard of the Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch, this floating mat of various plastic and trash items that has accumulated due to a convergence of several ocean currents. The "patch" is no small area, estimated to be almost twice the size of the state of Texas and posing an obvious health hazard to sea animals, like sea birds (who mistakenly feed on the debris), or land animals (as fragments of the patch float ashore).
Researchers and students from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, CA are planning a 20-day expedition to better map out this growing reminder of our non-biodegradable product dependence. They will investigate to determine it's size, depth, and make-up. And they will examine its contents in detail to determine whether it is harboring additional pollutants or any invasive species.
What's to be done about the garbage patch in the future remains unclear. Formed by oceanic forces out of our control and residing in open international waters, addressing its removal has been an international and diplomatic challenge. Certainly we know what to do to not add anymore waste to it, but how do we deal with the current situation? Hopefully, an international solution will be reached but it will require considerable technological and logistical resources.
California has often taken stronger environmental positions than those emanating from the federal government, but that is because California lawmakers recognize that the state, both, has a lot to lose if nothing substantial is done, and that the state has been a major contributor over the years to environmental problems ranging from CO2 emissions to overfishing.
In Yosemite National Park, research has been taking place to compare the growth of large-diameter trees. Comparing records dating back to the early 30's, it has been determined that there has been a marked reduction in the density of these trees by as much as 24%.
"Climate change is a likely contributor to these events and should be taken into consideration," said Jan van Wagtendonk, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist. "Warmer conditions increase the length of the summer dry season and decrease the snowpack that provides much of the water for the growing season. A longer summer dry season can also reduce tree growth and vigor, and can reduce trees' ability to resist insects and pathogens."
In addition to the reduced growth, the current condition of the trees exposes them to greater wildfire danger, as there has been a marked shift in some areas from ponderosa pines, a more fire-retardant species, to less fire-retardant white fir and incense cedar.
While California attempts to push some of the boundaries of environmental policy, it apparently recognizes the bureaucratic logjam that impedes new direction in national and international energy and environmental strategies. The California Natural Resource Agency has issued a preliminary report for public review on the subject of climate adaptation - a strategy wherein it is recognized that there will be inevitable climate-related changes and proposes changes in policies and regulations to deal with them. This means preparing for the worst: heat-waves, rising sea levels, flooding, wildlife die-offs, and more.
It is somewhat reassuring to know that a government agency truly recognizes the implications of climate change. But it is unfortunate that this realization comes at a time when, apparently, prevention is not an option regarding some of its impact. This is not to say that we should throw up our hands in defeat. On the contrary, it is reason for us to double our efforts so as to minimize these effects and perhaps even reverse them in the future.
In September of 2007, I had the pleasure of being a member of a team that traveled above the Arctic Circle to document evidence of climate change. Organized by InMER.org, the survey was meant to be a precursor to a larger, winter expedition and so much of the data collected was anecdotal, gleaned from interviews with Inuit Indian tribal elders and government officials, and from our own observations.
