{"id":1900,"date":"2024-06-03T02:07:00","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T02:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/?p=1900"},"modified":"2024-12-02T00:56:56","modified_gmt":"2024-12-01T22:56:56","slug":"new-achievements-in-the-arctic-for-week-22-2024","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/2024\/06\/03\/new-achievements-in-the-arctic-for-week-22-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"New achievements in the Arctic for Week 22, 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Take<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

NASA Langley<\/em> Researchers to Study Arctic Climate System This Summer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Phys.org<\/em> announced on May 27 that NASA Langley<\/em> researchers are undertaking an expedition to the Arctic Ocean to study the region\u2019s climate system. By gathering measurements of aerosols, sea ice, radiation, and clouds, they aim to better understand how sea ice is evolving, with the goal of improving tests, hypotheses, theories, and forecast models. The seven-week airborne mission is referred to as ARCSIX<\/em>, or Arctic Radiation Cloud Aerosol Surface Interaction Experiment<\/em>, and will consist of two parts. In late spring and early summer, researchers will observe the ice melt, and in July, data for the later parts of summer will be collected. (Phys.org<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take 1<\/strong>: ARCSIX<\/em> is a crucial part of NASA<\/em>\u2019s wider efforts to understand global climate change, particularly due to its detailed approach, which is vital given the logistical challenges and high costs of Arctic field research. The mission is anticipated to deliver an unprecedented kind of dataset, especially since it might be one of the last times that data on \u201cold ice\u201d (i.e. ice that survived the summer and regrew during the polar night) will be collected. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The oldest layers of ice (older than four years) have been steadily declining and are anticipated to disappear completely by 2030 or sooner. This data can thus provide a baseline for measuring future changes. As Arctic ice continues to melt, it not only contributes to rising global sea levels but also accelerates global warming through the albedo effect. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Albedo measures a surface\u2019s reflectivity, and Arctic sea ice has an albedo of over 0.8, which means it reflects over 80% of the sun\u2019s radiation back into space. As sea ice melts, darker patches of the ocean are exposed, which absorb significantly more heat because of a low albedo (0.06-0.10). Reaching a better understanding of how Arctic sea ice evolves and its repercussions for global climate change is important on many levels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It can not only inform policymakers seeking to address the effects of climate change, but it is also pertinent for commercial fleets, fishermen, farmers, and coastal communities as they seek to adapt to environmental and economic changes. (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory<\/a>, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration<\/a>, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment<\/a>, Phys.org<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toxic Metals Released by Thawing Permafrost Turn Alaskan Rivers Orange<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

CNN<\/em> alerted on May 29 that several streams and rivers in Alaska have reportedly changed color from clear blue to a rusty orange due to the release of heavy metals from thawing permafrost. This was found by researchers of the National Park Service<\/em>, the US Geological Survey,<\/em> and the University of California at Davis<\/em>, who tested 75 locations in Alaska\u2019s Brooks Range. Metals including lead, copper, iron, zinc, and nickel have been found in the water and have been traced back to thawing permafrost, which is rapidly releasing minerals that have been locked underground for millennia. (CNN<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take 2<\/strong>: The changing color of Alaska\u2019s rivers, described as an \u201cunexpected consequence of climate change\u201d, represents a critical environmental warning. It has significant repercussions for regional ecosystems, such as the related decline in aquatic life, and poses threats to the subsistence lifestyle of Indigenous communities. The phenomenon, described as \u201crusting\u201d, has previously been observed in other parts of the world, such as California, with a history of mining. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the phenomenon is now spreading to the most remote areas in the High North \u2013 far from any mining activities. Arctic soils contain certain heavy metals by nature, but these are usually stored in deep layers of permafrost. Yet, rising temperatures are leading to rapidly thawing permafrost, which has caused these toxic metals to contaminate surrounding water sources. Since the Arctic is warming at four times the global rate, rivers are rusting more rapidly, raising serious concerns among local communities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contaminants could harm the region\u2019s wildlife and the decrease in biodiversity not only disrupts the ecological balance but also affects the overall health of the Arctic environment. Moreover, the contamination of these crucial water sources poses severe health risks to the Indigenous communities themselves. Many such communities are disconnected by roads and depend on these waterways for drinking water and food security, with fish and aquatic mammals integral to their diet and culture. This unexpected river discoloration serves as a global warning for other regions with permafrost and warrants continued research and monitoring to track the progression of permafrost thaw and its impact on waterways. (CNN<\/a>, Communications Earth & Environment<\/a>, Scientific American<\/a>)\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Study Reveals Decline in Regulated Contaminants but Rise in Unregulated Pollutants in Arctic Populations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As reported by Alaska Beacon<\/em> on May 29, a recent study undertaken by the Arctic Council<\/em>\u2019s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program<\/em> found declining levels of certain regulated contaminants in the bodies of people from various Arctic regions between 1990 and the early 2020s. However, the study highlighted increasing levels of unregulated pollutants, particularly synthetic chemicals known as PFAS (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) or \u201cforever chemicals\u201d, which have been linked to serious health issues, including reproductive problems, cancer, and development delays. Data from Russia was excluded from the study. (Alaska Beacon<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take 3<\/strong>: The decline in regulated pollutants underscores the effectiveness of international efforts like the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants<\/em>, spearheaded by the Arctic Council<\/em>, in reducing chemical exposure for Indigenous communities. However, the study also highlights the urgent need to address emerging contaminants, particularly PFAS compounds, which are non-degradable and pose long-term health risks. Due to their reliance on the environment for subsistence practices, Arctic Indigenous communities are especially vulnerable to these \u201cforever chemicals.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once introduced into the Arctic ecosystem, PFAS compounds persistently cycle through air, water, and soil, impacting wildlife, biodiversity, resource availability, and the health of these communities. The spread of these compounds has been further exacerbated by global warming, since compounds previously trapped in Arctic ice are now being released into the surrounding ocean, enabling them to enter the food chain. In response, the Stockholm Convention<\/em> incorporated certain PFAS types, and some Arctic countries have adopted more stringent measures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finland and Denmark, for instance, banned firefighting foam containing certain PFAS compounds, and Alaska enacted a similar state-wide ban. While these initiatives are commendable, the mobility and persistence of these chemicals warrant updated regulatory frameworks that transcend national policies. International treaties should continually evolve to address emerging contaminants and include measures for accountability and robust reporting, requiring cooperation among scientists, policymakers, corporations, and Indigenous communities. In addition, advanced water treatment systems and bioremediation techniques should be further explored to reduce PFAS levels in affected environments. Researching alternatives to harmful industrial chemicals is also crucial to limit future contamination. (Alaska Beacon<\/a>, Alaska Beacon<\/a>, Emerging Contaminants<\/a>, High North News<\/a>, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development<\/a>, SGS<\/a>, UN Stockholm Convention<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norway and Denmark Sign Letter of Intent for Joint Efforts in Arctic Maritime Drone Surveillance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

On May 29, High North News reported that Denmark and Norway\u2019s defense ministers have agreed to strengthen cooperation on Arctic and North Atlantic maritime surveillance. The collaboration, outlined in a letter of intent, involves the use of drones to improve situational awareness in these regions. Various long-range drone models are being considered with decisions based on factors such as usage, range, and cost. Through these joint undertakings, the two states aim to gain a better overview of the state of play in northern waters. (High North News<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take 4<\/strong>: The recent announcement of drone cooperation between Denmark and Norway should be viewed within the broader context of military drone proliferation in the Arctic. Jointly deploying surveillance drones offers a proactive, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly alternative to patrol aircraft for deterring illegal activities and territorial incursions while securing vital maritime areas. These efforts also align with broader trends within Nordic Defense Cooperation<\/em> and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization<\/em> (NATO), underscoring the importance of regional cooperation in addressing Arctic challenges. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Denmark and Norway are not alone in expanding Arctic drone operations. Russia, for instance, has established a comprehensive drone-based detection network across the Russian Arctic and has used drones to inspect Western energy facilities. Therefore, it is not unexpected that Western countries (including Canada, Iceland, and the US) are starting to respond, raising concerns about a new Arctic security dilemma. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While these drones are initially meant to ensure stability, their deployment could paradoxically escalate tensions. The drones used by these countries provide extensive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, which can enhance national security but can also prompt neighboring states, particularly Russia, to perceive these actions as threats to their own security. This can subsequently trigger a surveillance technology arms race, potentially resulting in miscalculations and confrontations in the future. Moreover, the deployment of multi-use drones can add another layer of complexity, blurring the lines between defensive surveillance and potential aggression, and setting the stage for a cycle of action and reaction that might provoke hostile countermeasures. (Atlantic Council<\/a>, DroneXL<\/a>, Georgetown Security Studies Review<\/a>, High North News<\/a>, The Geographical Journal<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norwegian Government Continues to Block Oil and Gas Exploration in Nordland 6 Area<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

XM<\/em> reported on May 29 that Norway\u2019s center-left government has decided not to open the Arctic Nordland 6<\/em> for oil and gas exploration, maintaining a long-standing policy to protect the ecologically sensitive region. Energy Minister Terje Aasland announced the decision in parliament, emphasizing the availability of other areas for responsible development of the oil and gas industry. This decision continues a policy upheld since 2001 due to environmental concerns, despite the opposition Conservative Party\u2019s recent proposal to permit drilling in the area, which is estimated to hold significant oil and gas reserves. (XM<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take 5<\/strong>: Norway\u2019s decision to maintain a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Nordland 6 <\/em>area despite pressure from the opposition highlights the ongoing balancing act between economic interests and environmental conservation in the High North. While Norway commits to preserving the environmental integrity of the waters surrounding the Lofoten and Vester\u00e5len archipelagos, it is simultaneously expanding drilling activities in the Barents and Norwegian Seas. This reflects Norway\u2019s growing posture as a major energy exporter after it overtook Russia as Europe\u2019s largest supplier of natural gas in 2022. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this year, Norway received extensive criticism over its \u201cextremely reckless\u201d behavior after it issued 62 offshore drilling licenses and urged energy giants \u201cto explore all economic oil and gas resources within the available areas\u201d, including the Barents Sea, to keep up with rising demands for energy exports. Subsequently, questions arose about the environmental costs of these actions and Norway\u2019s commitment to cutting emissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, the dichotomy between expanding drilling activities in some areas while preserving others illustrates the complex trade-offs Arctic nations face between economic development and environmental stewardship. While maintaining energy security and economic stability is crucial, the long-term consequences of Arctic drilling, including increased greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of oil spills, cannot be ignored. Drilling in the Arctic entails significantly more serious risks than drilling in other locations due to its unique climate, biodiversity, and geography, increasing the likelihood of serious ecological disasters resulting from resource exploitation. (CNBC<\/a>, Reuters<\/a>, The Barents Observer<\/a>, The Barents Observer<\/a>, XM<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NASA Langley Researchers to Study Arctic Climate System This Summer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":811,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1900","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1900"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1900\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2543,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1900\/revisions\/2543"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}