Once-Rare Lightning Strikes In N. Alaska Topped 25,000 In 2008; Fires, Thermokarsting Expanding

[hatrack]

TOOLIK FIELD STATION, ALASKA -- Once it seemed the Alaskan tundra would never burn. But in 2007, a fire ignited by lightning and fed by dried-out tundra grass raged for two months, claiming an area the size of Cape Cod. Lightning and storms were once extremely rare in northern Alaska, but last year, 25,000 lightning strikes were recorded, 18,000 more than even five years earlier.

And some places in the far north are melting away without fire. Longfrozen permafrost has liquefied and collapsed the land above, creating sinkholes called thermokarsts. Scientists studying them here believe their numbers are on the rise. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world, with the average annual temperature in parts of the Alaskan Arctic up 4 degrees Fahrenheit or more since the 1950s, compared to a global increase of a little more than 1 degree over the last century, climatologists say.

Because of this, the region has become a massive lab for hundreds of scientists seeking glimpses of what a warming world could mean for us. And Toolik Field Station, nearly 400 miles north of Fairbanks on the North Slope, has become their base of operations. A two-week stay here provides the outsider a rare inside look at the front lines of climate research and at what may be at stake.

EDIT

Press a stick into the tundra in some areas around camp and you'll hit permafrost, a hard layer of frozen soil some liken to brown concrete, in just a few inches. When it thaws, the upper layer of soil can dimple like a souffle. On a slope, this can cause massive landslides. Thermokarsts happen naturally in the Arctic. But this summer, Breck Bowden of the University of Vermont and a team of scientists and researchers are studying the effects they have on vegetation, microbes, streams, lakes and the atmosphere. They know the features can move meltwater rich with sediments and nutrients into streams, for instance, which alternately slow and fuel streams' productivity. Bowden and his colleagues believe there are many more thermokarsts here than there used to be, and cite evidence that there are twice as many in the vicinity of Toolik Lake as there were in the '80s.

EDIT

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/scientists_investigate_why_the.html

[Blue_In_AK]

1. The comments are more revealing than the actual article.

It seems that many of the readers just don't like science. :shrug:

What I've noticed is that over the past couple of years we've had some pretty wild weather swings up here. Last summer and winter were close to the coldest on record here, but this summer has been one of the warmest. When I first moved up here in the '70s winters were very cold and the summers were wet. Then in the '90s we went through a long period of more mild summers and winters. I thought with last year's chill that maybe we were returning to the earlier conditions, but this summer seems to negate that.

What I do know for sure is that the glaciers here in Southcentral have been receding at quite an alarming rate, so it would seem that overall there is warming going on. Whether it's 100% because of human activity or if natural cycles are contributing is anyone's guess.

[kristopher]

2. Whether it's 100%...

"Whether it's 100% because of human activity or if natural cycles are contributing is anyone's guess."

I just wanted to make a quick comment on the way you expressed this. The fact is that there is a balance of heat coming in and heat being lost to space. Burning fossil fuels in the quantity we have/do alters the amount of heat retained, so you are affecting a "natural cycle" with human acts.

I understand that the evidence for/against climate change is a huge body of knowledge but perhaps I can offer you something that is easier to wrap your head around. A little discussed aspect of climate change is that we are fundamentally changing the chemistry of the planet. When we speak of rainfall, temperature and things like that, it is difficult to separate natural variability from trend lines. The chemistry of the oceans are a different matter. There is zero disagreement about the cause and potential consequences of the changes we are MEASURING in ocean ph levels.

About Ocean Acidification
The ocean absorbs approximately one-fourth of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from human activities each year, greatly reducing the impact of this greenhouse gas on climate. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is formed. This phenomenon, called ocean acidification, is decreasing the ability of many marine organisms to build their shells and skeletal structure. Field studies suggest that impacts of acidification on some major marine calcifiers may already be detectable, and naturally high-CO2 marine environments exhibit major shifts in marine ecosystems following trends expected from laboratory experiments. Yet the full impact of ocean acidification and how these impacts may propogate through marine ecosystems and affect fisheries remains largely unknown.
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/


This page has downloads providing a great deal of information, but it boils down to this: we are directly measuring the effects of climate change in the change of ocean chemistry. The consequences of those changes in chemistry are straightforward when it comes to the effects of ocean organisms that depend on shells.

I'd like to ask you to research and confirm for yourself the number/type of marine organisms that depend on shells for survival.

And if you would, in the future please don't equivocate on the topic of climate change. The goals and methods of those who foster "denial" of climate change are the same as those of the tobacco industry when they were dealing with the medical evidence of the relationship of cigarettes to cancer and heart disease. When you try to be a middle-of-the-road, reasonable person you are in fact doing no such thing; the reality is that such a position is a complete 'victory' for the fossil fuel industries who are the sponsors of the denialists .

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I am not equivocating

nor am I a "denier." I firmly believe that humans have changed the climate of the planet -- that's beyond a doubt, in my opinion. But you shouldn't deny the effects of natural events, as well -- i.e., volcanos, earth orbits, radiation from outer space, etc. We could restore some balance by eliminating the burning of fossil fuel, but some things ARE beyond our control. Just as some paleontologists believe that it wasn't "just" the asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs, it may not be just the burning of fossil fuels that is changing the climate and the composition of the ocean.

I'm no petro apologist, by any means, and I am all for alternative and renewable energy sources. All I'm saying is that perhaps there is more to this picture that we may not understand.

[kristopher]

4. Yes you are.

Read this carefully: The goal of those who want to prevent action on climate change is is to create DOUBT.

That's it, doubt. They have zero expectation that their position is going to be accepted because they KNOW it is crafted by the same public relations machine that the tobacco industry assembled. They KNOW that the science directly contradicts the idea of ANY SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF DOUBT.

Burning fossil fuel IS THE PROBLEM; so if you want to think you are not a denier, go right ahead but you are lying to yourself.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. Good grief,

I did not say I "doubted" that climate change was real, that burning of fossil fuels is the most significant problem, or that we shouldn't try to do anything about it. Once more, I believe that we're in a crisis, and that if the governments of the world, and we as individuals, don't do something about it, we'll all be in big trouble.

All I said is that there "could" conceivably be other additional forces at work, as well. You are being as closed-minded as the "deniers" if you can't acknowledge that possibility with an open mind. Not INSTEAD OF but IN ADDITION TO.

In other words, once we have remedied the problem of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, once all energy is clean, there would still be forces at work that could affect the climate. If that were not true, the climate on earth would have been the same over the past 2 billion years or whatever, which is demonstrably not the case.

[kristopher]

6. Does this sound familiar?

"What I do know for sure is that the glaciers here in Southcentral have been receding at quite an alarming rate, so it would seem that overall there is warming going on. Whether it's 100% because of human activity or if natural cycles are contributing is anyone's guess."

Glad to see you are considerably more certain now than you were initially.

Then there is this: "You are being as closed-minded as the "deniers" if you can't acknowledge that possibility with an open mind. Not INSTEAD OF but IN ADDITION TO."

You must have forgotten my second sentence in this exchange: "The fact is that there is a balance of heat coming in and heat being lost to space. Burning fossil fuels in the quantity we have/do alters the amount of heat retained, so you are affecting a "natural cycle" with human acts."

I'll repeat my central point one last time; when you equivocate as you did in your initial post it is a solid VICTORY for deniers as that is exactly the way they WANT you to frame your comments. You can't be discussing the topic the way the coal industry wants you to and also be on the side of science. The two are mutually exclusive options.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. I'm not any less or more certain than I was to begin with,

but you're just arguing semantics and words here, so I'm done with you.