Scientists say new signs of global warming in Russian Arctic

Nov 21, 2012
Herders round up reindeer on snowmobiles near a farm in Lovozero in 2010. The Russian Arctic is losing ice cover and being inhabited by species from the south in the latest sign of climate change, according to a group of Russian scientists.

The Russian Arctic is losing ice cover and being inhabited by species from the south in the latest sign of climate change, according to a group of Russian scientists.

The scientists spent three months in the Arctic's Franz Josef Land.

"We have explored 42 of the archipelago's 191 islands and concluded a reduction of the ice sheet from the last Soviet expeditions in 1957," said head of the expedition Maria Gavrilo, an ornithologist.

Her group of eight scientists, including experts in paleography and geomorphology, as well as and , charted new maps of the archipelago, listing its rare species.

"Out of about 20 that we identified, four are not common to the archipelago," said Gavrilo, specifically mentioning two: the swallow-tailed gull and the long-tailed duck.

"Colonies of these birds are generally seen more to the south and without question were brought to the Arctic by global warming," she said.

Scientists have also collected some rare mosquito species, one of which may be hitherto unknown, she said. Final scientific conclusions will be made next year, when they finish looking over the collected data.

The remote Franz Josef Land has been administered by Russia since the Soviet Union overtook the archipelago in 1926.

As the biggest Arctic nation, Russia has recently stepped up exploration, specifically aiming to expand its energy production by tapping into the vast reserves of the Arctic shelf.

The Russian government has not flagged as a priority concern, with President famously saying several years ago that global warming of two to three degrees would be good for Russia, since people would not need fur coats.

Many experts say however that melting of permafrost in Russia's vast northern territories would endanger its , while fertile lands in the south of the country may become unusable for agriculture.

Explore further: New research explains wintertime ozone pollution in Utah oil and gas fields

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arctic ice cap near 2007 record minimum: Russia

Aug 04, 2011

The polar ice cap in the Arctic has melted to near its 2007 record minimum level and in some areas is 50 percent smaller than average, Russia's environmental monitoring agency said Thursday.

Russian surveys continental shelf borders

Mar 21, 2006

Russian Defense Ministry officials say they are considering using nuclear-powered submarines to survey Russia's continental shelf borders in the Arctic.

Russia bids to expand Arctic border to seek gas

Jul 06, 2011

Russia will submit a claim to the United Nations to expand its Arctic borders, a top official said Wednesday, as scientists embarked on a new expedition to prove its ownership of energy-rich territory.

Russia to boost Arctic research efforts

Sep 20, 2010

(AP) -- The Kremlin's pointman for the Arctic says Russia is boosting its research efforts to support its claims for parts of the Arctic continental shelf.

Change is the order of the day in the Arctic

May 11, 2011

Climate change in the Arctic is occurring at a faster and more drastic rate than previously assumed, according to experts attending the AMAP conference in Copenhagen. The latest scientific data show that developments in the ...

Recommended for you

Report IDs 'major weaknesses' at nuclear-arms lab

3 hours ago

One of the nation's premier nuclear weapons laboratories is being called out by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Energy for "major weaknesses" in the way it packaged contaminated waste before shipping it to ...

User comments : 62

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gregor1
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 21, 2012
How is this a sign of Global warming? I would say it's a sign of arctic warming.
kochevnik
4 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2012
How is this a sign of Global warming? I would say it's a sign of arctic warming.
Did you forget what planet you are on, gregor1? Are you now denying warming? Even for a conservative that's retarded.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 21, 2012
No. There is no denying the arctic has been warming, in fact , it's warming at pretty much the same rate that it warmed between 1910 and 1930. This says little about the rest of the globe unless of course you have a link form me that provides evidence. Methinks though the title of this piece is yet more hyperbole. Are you perhaps, a hyperbole denier?
Howhot
4 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2012
There is no denying the arctic has been warming, in fact , it's warming at pretty much the same rate that it warmed between 1910 and 1930.


Your full of *Sheet* man.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2012
Welcome Howie. Here's a link for you http://curryja.fi...rrak.pdf
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2012
Oh your welcome gregor1; Try this one for size; http://www.newcle...ting.jpg

So was 1910-1930 like that?
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2012
We don't know but we do know that it's warming now at much the same rate as the early twentieth century when co2 was not an issue. My real problem with this piece is that we already know the Arctic is warming so this work merely reinforces that . To extrapolate to the entire globe is hyperbole in my opinion. You are not an hyperbole denier too are you?
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
So was 1910-1930 like that?


We don't know but we do know that it's warming now at much the same rate as the early twentieth century


August 1920 Arctic sea ice cover

http://brunnur.ve...0_08.jpg
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2012
From a news story today: "A report showed that 60.1 percent of the lower 48 states were in some form of drought as of Tuesday". This is not your normal weather event. I think every American should be concerned about this, and it's factual cause.

We don't know but we do know that it's warming now at much the same rate as the early twentieth century when co2 was not an issue

Not true Gregor1. Just look at Glacier International Park from the 1910-1930 photos and compare them to 1990-2010 photos. You can do the same for every single glacier in the WORLD and they will show melting!

It's sad and pathetic that intelligent people like you don't get it.

gregor1
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2012
Like Howie's lovely link this says nothing about the trend which remains the same despite accelerating co2 levels. This is a straw man to divert attention from my question. How does warming in one region provide evidence that the entire globe is warming? We already know the Arctic is warming
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
How does warming in one region provide evidence that the entire globe is warming?

Humm... well if I wasn't connected to the rest of the world by the Internet, satellite, radio and tens of thousands of sensors you might think it was tough. It's not that difficult to see global warming even locally.

Just look up in the sky. Do you see more high atmosphere clouds than you use to? The high cirrus clouds. That is global warming.

Guy_Underbridge
3.3 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2012
How does warming in one region provide evidence that the entire globe is warming...


gregor has a point....

Just because the southern hemisphere is warming, and the northern hemisphere is warming...doesn't mean the whole planet is warming.
kochevnik
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2012
How does warming in one region provide evidence that the entire globe is warming? We already know the Arctic is warming
It's call diffusion and convection, Forest
gregor has a point....
Yes, that US public schools are little more than holding pens
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
The Antarctic is melting too, but that is another issue isn't it? In global warming, the polar regions are getting it worst than us in the lower latitudes.

How does warming in one region provide evidence that the entire globe is warming?


Global warming is pretty evident just by looking at the sky. Very high Cirrus clouds are now a daily event over almost all of the US. That is water vapor lofted to the upper atmosphere from global warming. That wasn't there 10 years ago.

gregor1
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2012
I've no doubt Howie, that you see Global Warming every where. No doubt you see it in the tea leaves as well.
Local changes in climate are no more indicative of GW than the record cold in India at the moment are signs are a sign of global cooling.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
Local changes in climate are no more indicative of GW than the record cold in India at the moment are signs are a sign of global cooling.
Your schoolteacher never taught you the difference between weather and climate. Hint: Rain is weather. Desert is climate
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
Unless you live in the tropics, local adaptations to global warming are very evident. Just look at your garden, how long it blooms, how long have your plants remained green? How many birds are out foraging, how many clouds do you see? Those are all observations you can make to gauge how your environment is doing.
Sure, it could all be a statistical fluke, but around the world?

Its human like you gregor1 that don't see GW effects when they are right there in front of them. Seriously, just look up in the sky and see if you don't spot a cirrus cloud.

VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2012
This of course is the same curry that published the ground breaking research that the sun is a solid ball of iron.

"Here's a link for you" - Gregor1

But wait... Gregor's reference contains the mother of all hockey stick graphs.

https://docs.goog...4dUgzdVE
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2012
I've no doubt Howie, that you see Global Warming every where. No doubt you see it in the tea leaves as well.
Local changes in climate are no more indicative of GW than the record cold in India at the moment are signs are a sign of global cooling.


Mid-latitude lakes are now melting 3 to 7 weeks ahead of the 120 year long term averages.

In fact, albedo changes due to decreased snow fall and increased melting in the mid-latitudes is what is currently driving the rapid loss of sea ice. The albedo changes in the poles has not become large enough over a long enough time to cause a significant impact, due to the shortness of the seasons of sunlight exposure there as well as the high incidence angle from the normal, but this feedback will become significant in a few more decades as annual melting day anomaly is growing at the ridiculous pace of plus 12 to 16 per decade, which means that in 20 or 30 years there will be an extra month of melt season N. of 60N and S of 60S.
gregor1
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2012


lurker. the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the climate has always changed dramatically. 120 years is a mere nano second. What we need is evidence that the current changes are outside the natural variation. We are still an estimated 1.5 degrees cooler than the medieval , Roman and Minoan warm periods. There is no need to panic.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2012
The matter in your ass is three times older.

But that doesn't alter the fact that you suffer from chronic mental constipation.

"the earth is 4.5 billion years old" - Gregor1

Reasonable people comprehend relative scale. Fools do not.

9 billion people didn't live on Earth 4.5 billion years ago.
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2012
Yes VD Kaufman's work does show a hockey stick. The important thing though the upswing starts around 1900 - well before the co2 was high enough to effect warming. If you look at the next graph you'll see that the warming trend in the early 20th cent is the same as the late 20th centhttp://curryja.fi...rrak.pdf
The latest work of interest is the Kobashi et al 2011 reconstruction from Greenland ice cores which goes back 4,000 years and shows that the present warming is not outside that from natural variation. In fact Greenland has been warmer than today thirteen times over that period http://wattsupwit...0-years/
VendicarD
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
My scientific training tells me that any increased level of CO2 causes an enhanced level of warming.

Gregor's scientific illiteracy tells him that CO2 molecules are little Alarm clocks that only cause warming after 1900.

"If you look at the next graph " - GregorTard

When I look at the next graph, I dont' see any warming between 1900 and 1920 contrary to your earlier claim.

Why is that Gregor?

gregor1
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
figure 2 page 1071http://curryja.fi...rrak.pdf
Co2 will always cause warmig. The question is whether it is significant or not.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2012
lengould100
4.4 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2012
Some things I know for sure Gregor.

1) In Toronto we've had more than 1 year since 2000 with no snow on the ground at Christmas. I've not seen that in my 60 year lifetime.

2) The first possum I've ever heard of in Canada moved into my back yard two years ago. Apparently they're crossing the Niagra River somehow (brave little ugly beasts).

3) Now regularly seeing raccoons north of 50th parallel, definitely weird.
gregor1
2 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2012
That's the way things are I'm sorry. The climate has always changed and often quite dramatically. The question we have to ask is how much is human caused and how much just natural variation? To answer these questions we have to be brutally honest. A local anomaly should not be thought of as a global anomaly.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2012
"figure 2 page 1071" - GregorTard

When I look at the next graph, I dont' see any warming between 1900 and 1920 contrary to your earlier claim.

Why is that Gregor?
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2012
Limited intelligence and a bad case of narcissistic personality disorder? Who knows? See you doctor.
lengould100
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2012
Gregor. The problem I have with your "The climate has always changed and often quite dramatically" is that I'm guessing you're referring to previous exits from ice ages as comparable warming periods. Thing is though, those warmings, typically started from a lower temperature and ENDED where we are now. We have no accurate evidence in at least the past 500,000 yrs of what may happen when a comparable change in GHG levels happens in the midst of a warm period, but its not likely to be pretty.
lengould100
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2012
And I do know the difference between local and global phenomena, weather and climate, etc. and have long taken the position that regardless of predictions I don't expect ANY reliable evidence of the effects of our GHG emissions to show up this soon, as earth's oceans are such huge heat sinks and can absorb huge amounts of additional solar energy without changing much. So a front-end delay of effects is simply a rational prediction. And yes, IMHO the present warming MAY NOT be a direct result of anthro GHG additions, but the laws of physics, evidence of historic relationships from ice cores, and evidence of min 180 max 280 ppmv atmospheric CO2 in past 500k yr vs. present 385 ppmv ALL militate to recommend a very cautious approach to further emissions.

http://en.wikiped...Ice_core
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2012
Hi gregor1. Butterfly Effect. Ocean/Air currents can change by Man's activities 'suddenly' (over centuries not usual millennia). Precisely because ocean/air currents do affect Arctic (and the globe), the CO2 warming affecting ocean salinity/density variations/gradients can cause drastic changes to same, because CO2/Warming associated evaporation rates etc etc can change the overall pattern, not just locally. So just saying that "it's the currents" does nothing to identify what CAUSED those changes so abruptly. Ie, in this instance, man-caused CO2/Warming effects. Remember too that CO2 was increasing long before coal-burning era. Widespread deforestation (the fuel before coal/oil era) caused buildup of CO2 because natural re-uptake from trees severely reduced. If not for uptake by oceans then/since, the warming would have been evident even sooner. There is a limit to compensatory mechanisms.

Science indicates Man-caused CO2/Warming is "mother" of all "Butterfly Effects" now.

Cheers!
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2012
lengould100 I was referring to the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods which suggest the current warming is nothing unusual. Here's the latest of literally hundreds of papers http://[url=http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.a
Parsec
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2012
How is this a sign of Global warming? I would say it's a sign of arctic warming.

So the arctic isn't part of the planet you live on?
gregor1
1.9 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2012
Physorg doesn't seem to like my links so I'll try again
http://hockeyscht...ing.html
Europe
http://hockeyscht...was.html
Siberia
http://hockeyscht...res.html
Parsec
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2012
This of course is the same curry that published the ground breaking research that the sun is a solid ball of iron.

"Here's a link for you" - Gregor1

But wait... Gregor's reference contains the mother of all hockey stick graphs.

https://docs.goog...4dUgzdVE

Yep... that sure does look like a hockey stick to me.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2012
Parsec It is a local effect possibly caused i by a decline in cloud cover and a resulting increase in solar radiation
http://hockeyscht...-in.html

gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2012

Here's a paper for the Canadians

http://hockeyscht...res.html
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2012
Parsec. That's why I posted this
http://hockeyscht...ere.html
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2012
Parsec you may also be interested in this http://hockeyscht...-is.html
lengould100
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2012

Here's a paper for the Canadians

http://hockeyscht...res.html


Honestly Gregor, my remaining life's too short to go debunking any more regilious anti-science bloggers STILL spouting against Mann's graphings (unbelievable, and they expect us to just do that forever, while NOT ONE reputable journal will publish anything of theirs.)
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2012
Religionists only care about preserving the life of cell clusters and zygotes. Once they pop out of the womb, religionists want them converted or killed. Whatever is more expedient. The Earth is just a battleground for them. They couldn't care if the oceans boil or the nukes explode. In fact that gets the job done faster. It's all part of putting sinners in hell and putting on a good show for their creator so they'll be sucked into eternity.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2012
Religionists only care about preserving the life of cell clusters and zygotes. Once they pop out of the womb, religionists want them converted or killed. Whatever is more expedient. The Earth is just a battleground for them. They couldn't care if the oceans boil or the nukes explode. In fact that gets the job done faster. It's all part of putting sinners in hell and putting on a good show for their creator so they'll be sucked into eternity.


Really?

You don't even know what you're talking about.

1, Nobody wants "sinners" to go to hell.
2, Anybody trying to "put on a a show" for the creator would actually be in violation of fundamental Christian doctrine and theology.
3, The rest of your post is just crap which is clearly wrong and ridiculous.

4, Putting all "Religions" in the same basket on just about any issue just shows how ignorant (or else deceitful,) you really are.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2012
lengould you think Quaternary Research. Climate of the Past, Quaternary International , NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, etc etc are not reputable organizations? Nearly all my links are peer reviewed, published research. Mann's integrity was clearly brought under question by the hacked emails. His hockey stick paper was brought down by amateurs which indicates either that his grasp of the science was less robust that the amateurs or he was deliberately attempting to deceive us. Don't believe me. Read them for yourself
http://www.forbes...-debate/
http://foia2011.org/
lengould100
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
" Mann's integrity was clearly brought under question by the hacked emails." -- wrong, his poor taste, short temper and lack of patience with endless FOIA requests intended only to waste his time were what was exposed. His final graphs after satisfying all complaints still look exactly like a hockey stick.
lengould100
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
" At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result"

"At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J. Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and timing of global warming.[124] In May the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical Union's December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by McIntyre and McKitrick"
lengould100
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2012
2 pages of citations, 219 notes, and 8 pages of references in the article which I quote above. Conclusion is you're wrong gregor1, and YOU MUST KNOW THAT, else you cannot read.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

Yes its Wikipedia, so if you think its wrong, go ahead and change it. Good luck, your claims won't even stand up to THEIR review process.
gregor1
1 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2012
Ah, the argument from authority..... again. Have you read his emails? Nice of him to "Hide the decline" wasn't it? Nice of him to obliterate the Medieval and Roman warm periods too. Sorry to insult your high priest but there of a thousand papers confirming the MWP and it's not that easy to get rid of. We'll see what happens in his latest court case. Meanwhile, there's been a huge amount of work done since this fiasco and it is really very interesting what they're discovering. The hockey stick is water under the bridge. The MWP has since been confirmed in Antarctica, the Arctic, Australia, New Zealand, South America, the and the Arctic. The lack of it in the hockey stick is a little bit sus don't you think? Lets move on to more recent work and it's findings. like, for instance. this paper http://hockeyscht...-in.html
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2012
"Climate of the Past"

Impact factor 2.5 to 3.5

Nature Medicine

Impact Factor 27.5
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2012
for anyone reading this who is not familiar with this controversy here's a link explianing the other point of view.http://wattsupwit...at-home/
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2012
VD You wish to do your usual ad hom on the Journal of the European Geosciences Union? Sheesh!
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2012
1, Nobody wants "sinners" to go to hell.
Wow a "Hate the system, not da playa" appeal, right? Sorry I stopped playing with imaginary friends long ago.
2, Anybody trying to "put on a a show" for the creator would actually be in violation of fundamental Christian doctrine and theology.
That would include every Abrahamic religion.
3, The rest of your post is just crap which is clearly wrong and ridiculous.
I always find that amusing, coming from outspoken proponents of irrationality.
To date not a single supernatural event in the history of the universe has been verified. Eat that.
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2012
lLengould From your Wikipedia link
"Hans von Storch review
In May 2007, Hans von Storch reviewed the changes in thought caused by the hockey stick controversy writing:
In October 2004 we were lucky to publish in Science our critique of the 'hockey-stick' reconstruction of the temperature of the last 1000 years. Now, two and half years later, it may be worth reviewing what has happened since then.
At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger's papers in 2005; Moberg's paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions."
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2012
Here's one of the latest versions plus links to the relevant emails. Notice - no hockey stick
http://wattsupwit...er-data/
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2012
This seems to be the new version http://wattsupwit...er-data/
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2012
Scientists say new signs of global warming in Russian Arctic
Well, don't look now, but it's already shaping up to be an interesting season:

"During October 2012, the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was 1.9 million square km (734,000 square miles) above the long-term average of 17.96 million square km (6.9 million square miles). This monthly value ranks as the eighth largest October snow cover extent in the 45-year period of record.

Eurasian snow cover extent was also above average for October 2012, ...This was the 11th largest October snow cover extent on record for the continent. Above-average snow cover was observed for much of Russia and the Tibetan Plateau,"
-NOAA

I hope those gulls and ducks have parkas!

alfie_null
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2012
Uba - care to speculate why? Or would you defer to recognized experts (who will give reasons you won't like).
"Global" climate means "global". Not just the snow covered regions of the Northern Hemisphere. You've heard this before but I guess it bears repeating.
Kass987
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
Don't waste your time with gregor1. he is like the holocaust deniers. Nothing will change their minds and many don't actually believe the holocaust did not occur, they just like to piss people off and enjoy their confusion when the obvious is doubted.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2012
/you like calling people names when they present evidence?
lengould100
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
I told you gregor1, I won't argue further. Change the Wiki page to show what you think is the outcome, and lets see how you make out with their review process. Of course you won't do that because you'd fail review.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2012
Why would I wish to change the wiki page? Did you read to the end? The hockey stick as long since been superseded by new and more accurate work some of which I've posted in this thread. The latest work is much more interesting and much less alarming.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2012
Uba - care to speculate why? Or would you defer to recognized experts (who will give reasons you won't like).
You seem to be implying it's because of AGW. How would you feel if it was less snow than usual? Would it be global warming then, too? How about if it did the statistically improbable, and snowed exactly average? What then? Would this mean global warming just doesn't yet appear to have an effect?

This is what's wrong with claims of global warming. We could be headed straight into an ice age and AGW proponents would blame it on AGW.

"Global" climate means "global". Not just the snow covered regions of the Northern Hemisphere. You've heard this before but I guess it bears repeating.
Certainly. It's about the global temperatures:

No global warming in at least 12 years.