The Arctic - A "Miner's Canary"?

So then,

What has this got to do with me? Should I be worried?

It would be easy to get sentimental here by saying something like 'we're all citizens of this planet' etc etc, but I'll resist... for the time being! Basically, it matters to all of us because of the significance the Arctic is likely to have in the context of climate change during the coming decades. Although I've repeated it so many times during this blog, I'll say again that the Arctic is warming faster than any other area on the planet. The sea ice record is especially sensitive to temperature, and it has been reacting to the change at a remarkable rate, as we've seen.

In most of the world, biological responses to climate change cannot easily be separated from other things such as habitat loss and land use change, impacts which are potentially more severe. As the Arctic is far way from major populations, it gives an opportunity to see the impacts of climate change clearly, as these other factors are minimal (see assessment of pollution as a factor). Also, ecotones surrounding the Arctic are extremely sensitive as they lie on the very edge of possible habitation, meaning vegetation shifts have become apparent.

Therefore, it could be said that the changes seen in the Arctic over the last few decades are a warning sign, a miner's canary which is showing the first signs that it isn't feeling too great. It's showing signs of a relatively weak (in the context of land use changes etc in other areas) but persistent and growing force. If left alone, the potential for positive feedbacks through melting permafrost and ocean albedo effects would take the path of warming completely out of our hands. If that happens, we definitely should be worried.

As well as this, the political implications of what is happening in the Arctic may be even more pressing and potentially damaging. Tensions are already building between Arctic, and even non-Arctic nations about the resource scramble which is likely to happen now that new areas suitable for resource prospecting have been opened up. In an often cited example, in 2007 Russia planted a 1m high flag under the north pole in a symbolic move to lay their claim to resource rights in the Arctic. Of course, this significantly added to the tension surrounding the Arctic and geopolitics.

Russian flag planting mission, a global superpower laying it's claim to the billions of dollars
worth of resources beneath the Arctic.

Whether they like it or not, the environment is now an issue policy makers must act on. It will be interesting to see how things pan out from here in the Arctic. Hopefully some lessons will be learned, meaning climate change doesn't become an opportunity for further environmental damage. It should be clear then, that although the Arctic is out of sight, it would be unwise to put it out of our minds.
____________________

As a final comment, I hope during the course of this blog I've managed to objectively comment upon the changes in
the recent past in terrestrial and aquatic Arctic ecosystems. As well as this, I hope the usefulness and potential of environmental science and palaeo-ecology have become clear; a discipline which is directly relevant to the present by enabling us to learn lessons from the past. It's far from perfect, however, especially when applied to the Arctic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, ecological data is lacking for many species found in the Arctic, meaning if records are available, interpretation is often confined to broad patterns of species assemblages. For example, relative abundances of planktonic and benthic diatom species indicating lake ice extent could be described as 'broad patterns'. More detailed ecological data will likely aid interpretation, adding to the value of palaeo-ecology as well as ecology itself. Also, there is still a lack of consistent taxonomy, especially with diatoms. For example, in the Svalbard study mentioned in the context of pollution, Jones and Birks (2004) found that 15% of diatoms counted could not be accurately described by any published species form. These problems, however, also apply to the whole of palaeolimnology to a lesser extent. Finally, sedimentation rates are low in the Arctic, and so coring activities must be done carefully to avoid contamination or mixing.

Despite these limitations, palaeo-limnology as a discipline does have some significant advantages when applied to the Arctic. For example, conditions in the Arctic are not necessarily conducive to fieldwork. It's easy to forget, sitting at home (or more likely, in the library) reading academic papers and reports, that someone had to get out into the environment and collect samples, data etc. By using palaeo-records, it's possible to collect a temporally stratified and (hopefully!) robust record of the environment from just one visit. Add to this, the wealth of information that can be gained from analysing species and sediment patterns through the core, as well as the ecological knowledge that can be gained is attractive. Therefore, palaeolimnology has significant potential in the field of environmental science, and is likely to used with even greater frequency causing greater scientific impact in the future. However, that's not to say that it's a replacement for other methods, and we should be careful not to become over-reliant on the discipline; empirical ecological data is still badly needed in the Arctic.

Hopefully, the 2010s are not going to be a 'last chance to see' moment for the Arctic, especially in relation to sea-ice. What is needed, though, is action to make sure we don't cause it's demise. It's become clear to me that climate change is not just something we should talk about in the long term, it's happening now, and the Arctic is showing warning signs that we need to do something about it. We've already had an visible impact, so it's important to limit any further changes.

Personally, I've been surprised at the rate of change happening in the Arctic; I knew about changes in sea-ice extent, but not that the past few years have been so different to the 'norm'. Specifically, I found the diatom changes in Arctic lakes to be quite alarming, the shifts seen were pretty dramatic; in some cases the diatom assemblage in the surface sediment would be completely unrecognisable in comparison to the last few hundred years. Such a finding is common when land use change, nutrient enrichment or acidification has been a factor, but it's unusual when climate change can be the only plausible explanation. I also expected pollution levels to be higher (but not that local sources of pollution would be so significant in the high Arctic) and the threat from melting permafrost to be imminent and potentially catastrophic. In relation to the permafrost issue, other unexpected findings include the adaption of vegetation (such as a shift towards more productive species to benefit from the extra carbon) and the small negative feedbacks (like growth in insulating moss). I never realised these issues could be so complex, and yet interesting!

Doing the blog has taken me to many different climate websites, both arguing for and against an anthropogenic component of climate warming, and it's clear that the debate is heating up (pardon the pun). I hope I've been able to show objectively the reality of climate change, including being honest where I feel the threat may have been overstated. As mentioned before, I think it's time to cut out the shock tactics, twisted figures and bad referencing, and look at issues of climate change rationally and objectively. It's important to illustrate that there are data to back up the consensus, and that the idea of man-made global warming doesn't just come from computer models. Hopefully this blog has done that. Thanks for all your comments, and I've really enjoyed reading all of your blogs.

What did you find most interesting about the Arctic? In your view, what is the biggest threat faced in the Arctic in the next few decades? Is there anything we can do about it? I hope you've enjoyed reading my blog, found it interesting and at least mildly insightful.