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

SCPs in the Arctic (Arctic Pollution Part II)

Continuing from the last post on Arctic pollution, this post will look at the pollution record from Svalbard, a remote island off the coast of Norway high into the Arctic circle.

Due to it's remoteness, it's a great place to look for traces of long-range pollution transported from industry and agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere, especially from Russia. Many studies have found evidence of such long range contamination which gets to the Arctic via the atmosphere, rivers and oceans.

A more systematic study was carried out by a number of academics in the 1990s using lake sediments which, as we've learned, give a record of pollution far longer than atmospheric measurements can. For example, it's possible to estimate pre-industrial levels of pollution using this method. One paper from this study by Rose et al. (2004) was especially interesting and showed significant local sources of pollution, something I found surprising for such a

POPsicles in the Arctic? (Arctic Pollution Part I)

We've already considered one thing (other than climate change) which has the potential to affect the Arctic environment, increasing UV from an 'ozone hole'. Another one of these potential 'things' is pollution, or more scientifically, chemicals and compounds where they're not supposed to be naturally. One things humans have always done is burn things, and the record of these activities is clear in the palaeo-archives, from the prehistoric burning of small wood fires, through large scale burning for clearing right to the modern widescale burning of almost anything and everything seen since the industrial revolution. What is more recent though is the widespread use of pesticides and the growth of heavy industry. We tend to see the Arctic regions as a wilderness, wild and untouched. However, many types of pollutants have been found across the Arctic circle.

In this and the next post, I won't attempt to try and fully describe the extent of Arctic pollution. There are just too many pollutants and studies to do that! Rather, I'm going to focus on a couple of papers which have some interesting findings relating to POPs and SCPs (I did warn you about the acronyms).

States signed up to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (green)
Source: http://toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Stockholm+Convention   

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) was set up in 1991 as part of the inter-governmental 'Arctic Council'. It's website it full of reports, both scientific and for the press which are freely available and are