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

Wrapping up (1)

Unfortunately, it's almost time for this blog to come to an end, so for the last couple of posts I'll try and sum up what I've learned over the course of the past couple of months. At the beginning I posted a few questions that I wanted to answer, so I think these are a good place to start, so I'll use these as a structure for the next couple of posts.

How do we know the sea ice retreat in the past few years is unusual?

The blog started off by looking at this question, firstly by using satellite data. Since satellite data began in 1979, sea ice extent and thickness have been decreasing at an alarming rate. Sea-ice extent during the summer of 2011 (sept) was almost on par with the previous record low during 2007, even without the unusual weather patterns thought responsible for the 2007 low. This strongly suggests that even though sea ice doesn't decrease every winter, overall conditions are worsening for continued survival of permanent sea ice.

A number of proxy records show a sea-ice history going further back than any contemporary records. As part of the blog, I looked at two relatively new methods of constructing these histories; the IP25 biomarker and Quartz records. These, as well as other methods, including documentary and ice-diatom records, show that extent of sea ice has been strongly variable, but also strongly correlated with climate. Sea ice extent is therefore extremely sensitive to temperature changes, meaning if we were experiencing global warming today, we could expect a significant loss of sea ice. Is that what we've been seeing?

Well, the sea-ice is disappearing at a faster rate than any model used by the IPCC has forecast, even the pessimistic 'business as usual' scenarios shown on the graph below. The graph doesn't show the past 5 years, but if it did the trend would be continuing, with 2007 being the minimum.

Sea ice extent output values from 13 IPCC Global climate models with an ensemble mean in thick black.
Actual observations are shown as a thick red line. Direct from Stroeve et al 2007.

Of course, this means a few things could be happening. Firstly, there could be some unknown natural variability that

Melting Permafrost - should I be worried?

Just before getting started, I found the video I really wanted to share with you guys before, but ended up using a replacement. It's from the fantastic series 'Earth: The Power of the Planet', presented by the brilliant Prof Iain Stewart, a Geologist at the University of Plymouth. He's like Geology's answer to Brian Cox! If you missed the series, I'd encourage you to have a catch-up. Interestingly, this video also features the same Dr Walter as the previous video..

Although it's the easiest and most spectacular way of showing the processes which are happening, it's not the lakes that are causing the most concern. Phrases like 'ticking time bomb' and 'unstoppable warming' are used