Scientists meet 25 years later for another look at permafrost
Published Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
FAIRBANKS — From research labs to the big screen, climate change is a hot topic. But in Fairbanks 25 years ago, it was only a theory and one of the six themes explored by the International Conference on Permafrost.
When the conference returned to Fairbanks this week, the subject dominated discussions and presentations.
Walt Oechel, a professor at San Diego State University and director of the Global Change Research Group, attended the 1983 conference and said there was knowledge that global warming existed but details such as how fast the weather was changing were incorrect. The actual rate of warming outpaced scientific predictions.
“Even though the people thought we were overly alarmist, in fact we were overly conservative,” Oechel said.
Permafrost — ground or any matter in a frozen state for two or more years — is sensitive to climate change. More and more permafrost is reaching the point where one or two degrees of warming will thaw it. Consequences include damage to buildings and infrastructure built on permafrost and changes in Arctic and polar regions. Approximately 20 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by permafrost.
Vladimir Romanovsky, a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute, is watching for trends in global warming and how it affects permafrost.
He said there was significant change in the ’90s because there were warmer temperatures and deeper snow cover, which acted as insulation, but since the early 2000s, the rate of change has slowed down.
Last year’s warm temperature was surprising, but Romanovsky said he is not sure if this is the start of a long-term trend or a one-time coincidence.
More data will have to be collected in the next couple of years.
The 1983 conference also reflected another big theme in Alaska at the time: working in environments with permafrost.
Don Hayley, director of arctic resource development at the Canadian firm EBA, said there was more of a focus on engineering for permafrost such as harnessing resources in permafrost.
There also was a lot of thought given to how to build an oil pipeline over permafrost areas.
Now, Hayley said there is a bigger emphasis on the “pure sciences,” and new applied research related to permafrost.
The 1983 conference also touched on the topic of permafrost on Mars. Researchers presented work based on data and more than 55,000 images from the 1976 Viking mission to Mars. Researchers are still studying Mars but their imagery has been enhanced greatly.
“We have high-resolution photos of the surface of Mars, which is so clear it is like a photo of something seen on Earth,” said Francois Costard, a researcher with the French program, National Center for Scientific Research.
Costard is using the images to study the climate variation on Mars compared to the impact of global warming on the Lena River in Siberia.
Both Costard and Julia Brigham-Grette, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amhearst, said the conferences provide a good exchange of ideas and research from the international science community.
Brigham-Grette presented her doctoral thesis about mapping seal levels of Alaska from Barrow to Point Lay at the 1983 conference. She said at the conference 25 years ago, there were hints that climate change would be a major issue but there still debate.
“It was not on anyone’s radar,” Brigham-Grette said.
Now the focus is on determining the rate of climate change and how to prepare and respond to those changes in the future, Brigham-Grette said.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Bought property in the early ninties off Fleshman Rd on the old steese hwy behind the Farmers loop Texaco. When my wife and i bought it (cash, no loan so no engineer report by my own stupidity) thinking that we could lift the cabin and put it on a concrete foundation with a daylight basement and dig a well so that we didnt have to haul water, definitely do not miss that experience.
Any way, we went to dig on the property for a new foundation and got water on the first scoop filling the hole we had just made. When we went to apply for a well to be dug we found out that was not an option and i was then refered to a newspaper article from 1978 when the people who owned the A- Frame (now known as the Tesoro station on Farmers Loop) punched in a well for the station and hit the underground river out there causing an artesian well that could not be easily capped. They punched the well in July of 77 and it gushed 10,000 gallons a day (!) for the next year and three months well the drilling company and the then owners of the A- frame argued in court.
I contacted one of the previous owners of the property I had purchased who told me all about (where was he before I bought darn it?) the ice as deep as the house was tall and even sent me pictures (what a guy). When the case was finally done the state made an issue to do research into the lasting effects of flooding on permafrost and declared the area out there damaged indefinetly because the length of time we had for a drying season in the summer combined with how much water had been dumped. Glad to know that my property (vacant, BTW) was a motivator in starting this process back in 1983, a year I remember.
Thanks for the comment, JB; it was a good read.
They print: "climate change is a hot topic. But in Fairbanks 25 years ago, it was only a theory ".
It's still only a theory, and in fact already a disproven one.
But Lance, havn't you heard, "The debate is over". Al Gore likens us to holocaust deniers, and that NASA scientist stated last week to Congress that evil "Big Oil" execs should be charged with crimes against humanity for spreading "disinformation", and tossed in the hoosegow.
JB---
I can recall that property being under water and ice back in the 70s. Building and digging on permafrost is indeed difficult. I wish that that was what this conference was concerned with, rather than global warming. Maybe it is, and I'm just missing it.
we had canadian snow geese in tanacross in may (unheard of), two mountain lions were spotted in northway and of course the polar bear in fort yukon. Things definitely seem to be changing
Ken - didn't you get the memo?
If you say that the climate is changing, then obviously you are a global warming fanatic, and you worship Al Gore, bunnies, and trees!
-----
Lance says "It's still only a theory, and in fact already a disproven one."
How can you disprove climate change? The climate has been changing for as long as we've had a climate - sometimes warming, sometimes cooling, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but ALWAYS in a state of change. Perhaps you've heard of the ice ages that come along every so often?
Knowledge of Native Elders predicted climate change before it had a name. The declining permafrost has changed our lives in rural Alaska. If the scientists had any sense they would have asked for a more open world of knowledge available to them. We are seeing things here in the Koyukuk that will never be the same again, and there are no answers to questions they pose at the conference. They have good intentions but know very little.
Climate change is in fact a real event. What's unproven is the exact cause of climate change. You all who think the climate isn't changing are living with your heads buried in the permafrost, or what's left of it.
Did you see the article in the paper the other day where it said Fort Yukon hit 100 degrees in 1915? Guess global warming goes back almost 100 years...wonder where the polar bears and snow geese were back then.
Climate change.
That is what it does alright. Not much else in its repertoire. Does "climate change" now trump "man-made global warming"? If that's the case, then what's the fuss. It's nothing new.
sdoownek and newsreader---
Can you explain the difference? If there is a difference, which one do you adhere to? Do you adhere to both, depending on the weather?
The climate always changes and it is still doing it. It will still be doing it after Al Gore's Global Warming Tax has ruined our economy.
g'les --
I'll try to answer that for ya...
The study of climate change does not make one an adherent to man-made global warming. The issue of "man-made" global warming has promoted the study of climate change. There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the "man-made" global warming theory, all of which could rightly be considered as studying climate change.
So, when one says climate change has been disproved they are making a ridiculous, unfounded statement.
When one says "man-made global warming" has been disproved, then they are picking a side in a (nearly-religous) scientific debate that has MANY MANY political and social ramifications.
In my opinion, it would behoove us to disregard the radicals on BOTH sides of the "man-made global warming" debate, but rather to try to interpret ALL of the evidence emerging from both sides.
The fuss is that the threat of man-made global warming has stirred up a LOT of emphasis on studying climate change. Is it really progressing faster or are we just on some sort of cycle? If it is progressing faster, are we really the cause? If we are the cause, can we really do anything about it? All of these are goods questions, that, as far as I am concerned, have not been answered satisfactorily. So, global warming scare leads to climate change study which will lead to ?????
Personally, I lean towards the no concrete evidence for man-made global warming, others lean the other way. The danger here (as with all things not fully understood) would be to act on blind faith rather than SOUND IRREFUTABLE science.
Using man-made global warming as a scare tactic to dupe the masses into going to the left is despicable. However, completely ignoring apparent recent warming trends and other occurrences is nearly as despicable and could, ultimately, lead to some DRASTIC changes in our lives that we'd be remiss in not knowing about before they happened.
We don't need to wait for Al Gore's tax to ruin the economy. Bush has already taken care of that with his illegal war and subservience to the multinational corporations.
Well done, newsreader.
I have noticed radical global warming propagandists, particular during and after last year's cool and snowy winter, change their tune from "global warming" to "climate changes". Probably for me, and I would have to guess others, this has further blurred the definitions.
But thanks for taking the time. I appreciate the intelligent answer.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.