Changes of the Arctic Ocean from summer to winter

So continuing from the last post, what did you think about the video? For me, I was trying to see the start and ends of each seasons. Summer of 2010 was pretty obvious, the extent of ice had retreated so much that most of the Arctic Circle was free of ice. And in the last few seconds of the video, we went back to winter where it seems to me that the ice had regained most, if not all, of the extent in '09. Now, just as a reminder, the Arctic Ocean, unlike the Antarctica, is composed mainly of sea ice.

Just by looking at this video, I would actually feel reassured since the ice extent seems to be recovering pretty well compared to '09. But of course, using a comparison that's only a year apart, when the Earth's history is about 4.5 billion years doesn't make sense. So for me, in this respect, the video fails to show any sort of significance (but is still very cool to watch).

Did you also notice that as the seasons passed, there were patches in the sea ice that seemed to be slightly bluer than the surrounding? Not because it's free of ice but rather the ice is thinner at those places. Like the Antarctic, the thickness of the sea ice is important as an indicator of ocean temperature. The Arctic Ocean plays the same role as the Antarctic for the Northern Hemisphere. It's a thermometer of climate change. However, the Arctic Ocean may be slightly more vulnerable than the Antarctic since its extent is directly dependent on the ocean temperature. Huge bodies of water have higher heat capacities and stay warmer for longer and this has implications on the sea ice thickness, extent and rate of recovery as it progresses from summer to winter. But this  discussion of the interaction of the sea ice and the ocean dynamics shall have to be saved for another time. 

I was exploring the NASA image gallery of the Arctic Ocean when I came across this article titled 'Ponds on the Ocean'. In the previous paragraph, I mentioned that there were patches of 'discolourations' on the Arctic Ocean where in some parts, the ice was thinner than the surroundings. This article explains them very well. These ponds are formed during the spring and summer melt. So if you remember primary school science well, when ice forms, it leaves behind most of its salts. When parts of the surfaces of the ice melts, they then form freshwater ponds on top of the salty ocean water. That is very cool. You won't find that anywhere else in the world!

Then, what is the point of me telling you all these things? Yes, the ice is thinning but aren't we doing things now to prevent more destructive climate changes from occurring to the best of our abilities (or so we believe)? 

I think we should remember that on the Arctic Ocean, there's a huge ecosystem that's highly vulnerable to these changes. Ice thinning means that cracks occur more frequently, quicker and larger than before. And they occur most during spring and summer when temperatures are above melting point. And animals come out to hunt then in preparation for the winter. And unlike humans, they do not have the benefit of technology to overcome these adversities that are hitting them fast and hard. Polar bear populations are dropping and the increasing difficulty in hunting isn't making their lives any easier. Arctic wolves, birds, Eskimos or Inuits (whichever you feel is more politically correct) are having to adapt their way of lives and hunting behaviour to these changes in the ice in the Arctic Circle. 

The question then we have to think about is whether or not they can adapt to these changes fast enough. The popular example of the polar bears shows that they can't. Should we then abandon trying to save them? We're living in the Holocene (or the Anthropocene), the climate will only get warmer since we're in the inter-glacial period. Living things that cannot adapt to the warming will only then become extinct as is the workings of Nature. Let's have a good think about this. 

Arctic Sea!!!! (Where cute and cuddly polar bears live :D)

Well, it is the holidays now. And so, because I'm super lazy, to ease you guys into the topic of the North Pole, here's a video for you to watch! It basically shows us how the ice extent has changed from September 4th of '09 to January 30th in the Arctic Circle. The problem with this video is that it doesn't tell us the starts and ends of the winters and summers. But despite its ambiguity, we can still examine this video and hopefully, a few questions will come to mind while you guys watch it. 

While watching this video, take note of the ice around Greenland and the islands of Canada. Also, note that while the ice in the Arctic Circle seems to retreat quite a bit at some point, the extent of ice also seems to be regained by January 30th (the end of the video). So what purpose(s) does this video has? Or is it absolutely rubbish and useless?

This video is from NASA. Read the youtube video description. Please do comment and tell me what you think! :)

Durban Climate talks and Frozen Planet

The Durban Climate talks and BBC's amazing documentary Frozen Planet ended about 2 weeks ago. Whether or not it was a coincidence or a well-timed meeting of the two, both events highlight the current popular discourse i.e. global warming. 

In the early hours on a Sunday the 11th of December 2011, a breakthrough was declared after the Durban climate conference went into extra time after stalemates threaten another failure and a global climate change treaty was proclaimed to be on the horizon. The talks mediated by Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate chief, who is also 'the architect of the EU plan' managed to bring

'developed and developing economies together for the first time in a legally binding agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions'. This deal is deemed a success for it also meets the aims of the EU, most developing countries and USA was 'brought on board'. For me, one of the more outstanding points of this deal is that the distinction between developing and developed countries has been largely eradicated, thus the both are subjected to the same legal commitments to curbing emissions.

While this does mark a huge progress (look at Copenhagen '09 when China stormed out of talks = epic failure) in that countries are taking a step away from shirking their responsibilities, the deal itself is not stringent enough and all in all, seems like a token gesture from governments to scientists and environmental groups. While UK's climate secretary Chris Huhne called this deal a 'significant step forward', environmental groups and scientists called it an 'empty shell of a plan' and 'failed to show ambition necessary to cut emissions... to avoid dangerous climate change'. If you want to read more of the reactions to the climate deal, the Guardian's article on 'Durban climate deal: the verdict' sums it up quite nicely. 

And then in that same week, on a the 7th of December, Frozen Planet aired its last (controversial to some) episode called 'On Thin Ice'. I didn't watch episodes 3 to 6 mainly because Frozen Planet did seem to have most of its focus on cute cuddly animals. But I did catch the last episode because it focusses on the effect of global warming at the poles and what could and is already happening to the ecosystems. It can already be observed the changes in the walruses' behaviours and migrations of penguins and other mammals who prefer warmer or colder waters into and deeper into the Antarctic. One video shot caught my eye. It was a spectacular view of the disintegration of one of a major ice shelf. Huge chunks of the shelf came apart, looking like jigsaw puzzle pieces. They were thick and long and wide enough for the helicopter David Attenborough was in to land on them safely!

After this episode was aired on BBC and also in America, global warming naysayers immediately had something to say about them. According to Christopher Booker, 'On Thin Ice' was full of bias-ness. Nigel Lawson called it 'patronising' on the Radio Times. Strangely enough, Booker and Lawson's wording in their pieces seems to me to be much more biased, where words such as 'preaching', 'climate change gospel' instantly puts a doubtful cast on this discourse. Lawson's every rebuttal to the points about global warming was refuted by Dr Mark Brandon. He clearly explains the importance of observing the ice thickness and not just its extent and puts right Lawson's claims of increasing polar bear populations and clearly states that global mean temperature is not polar mean temperature. 

Coming to a conclusion, Durban platform might have spelt significant progress on tackling climate change but more still needs to be done to prevent global mean temperatures from increasing beyond 4 degrees , much less hitting the 2 degrees temperature change target. The clear lack of ambition by countries to commit themselves to curbing emissions enough to prevent disastrous climate change is already showing at the poles. While the increase in polar mean temperatures is not reflective of the global mean temperature, it still shows us that the climate is warming much more rapidly than it would have naturally. If we see ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula breaking up now, what more can we expect in the future if climate talks remain stagnant or if progress is not fast enough? 

Do read David Attenborough's reflections after he visited the poles. He gives his firsthand insight after seeing for himself the changes undergoing there. It may provide better understanding for you about the effects of global warming.

Thawing of Arctic Ocean releases lots and lots of methane

Not that this is in some scientific journal, rather this article appeared on Digital Journal: Scientists worry about giant plumes of methane in Arctic Ocean

It tells of how the current warming climate is causing the seabed of the Arctic Ocean to thaw, thereby releasing all the trapped methane. In the shallow waters of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, the methane is released into the atmosphere without oxidising into carbon dioxide.

Not all scientists agree that these methane plumes do exist, much less, are of any cause for worry. But this is still quite an interesting article to read. After all, ice traps air as well. If the glaciers melt, will not carbon dioxide and methane that was trapped in and under these ice also be released into the atmosphere?

Air bubbles!

A very brief summary of how we can see into the past through analysing Carbon Dioxide from trapped air bubbles in ice cores and how they do it. As snow falls and builds up as layers on the ground, air is trapped within these layers and is fossilised as the snow is compressed  by the weight of overlying layers of snow. 

By analysing the percentage of carbon dioxide in each layer, we're able to obtain information about the local temperature in the Antarctic and from there infer the global climate. The higher the percentage of carbon dioxide, the higher the temperature is. Thus, ice cores allow us to examine history and observe the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide and transfer hypothesis on the present day.