Penn State on "the consequences of thawing"

From Penn State

Polar climate change may lead to ecological change

Ice and frozen ground at the North and South Poles are affected by climate change induced warming, but the consequences of thawing at each pole differ due to the geography and geology, according to a Penn State hydrologist.

“The polar regions, particularly the Arctic, are warming faster than the rest of the world,” Michael N. Gooseff, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, told attendees today (Aug. 11) at the 96th annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Austin, Texas. “As a consequence, polar ecosystems respond directly to changes in the earth systems at the poles.”

These changes, though different at each pole, could be significant in their effects on not only the local environment, but also globally. While the central part of the Arctic is composed of ice over water, northern Canada, Alaska, Siberia and Greenland all have landmasses within the Arctic Circle. The associated land and water ecosystems are affected by melting ice and thawing soils, but in Antarctica, where much of the ice overlays a continent, the warming alters streams, lakes and the tiny plants and animals that live there.

“Our focus on the north is in part because it is inhabited, but it is also because the ice there is more vulnerable,” said Gooseff. “Temperatures and snow and rain across the tundra shifts annually and seasonally. We know that fall is beginning later than it once did.”

In the Arctic, where there is more immediate feedback from the higher temperatures, the warming is degrading permafrost, the layer of the ground that usually remains frozen during annual thawing events. This causes creation of a boggy, uneven landscape with a disturbed surface. Subsequent rain or snowmelt can erode this surface carrying silt and sediment into bodies of water, changing the paths of rivers and streams. Debris flows are also a common occurrence in degraded permafrost areas.

“Algae, insects and fish all must deal with this increased level of sediments,” said Gooseff.

Extended frost-free time causes soils that do thaw annually to have longer active periods when microbes can mineralize nutrients. While the soils remain frost free longer, plants continue their normal cycle dictated by the length and intensity of daylight, which has not changed. Microbes may continue to create nutrients, but the plants no longer use them, so that when rain or meltwater comes the nutrients leach into the rivers and streams.

“That is exactly what we are seeing,” said Gooseff. “In September and October, we see a substantial increase in nutrients in the water. Concentrations increase many times for nutrients such as nitrate and ammonium.”

Another problem with degrading permafrost is the release of the carbon that was permanently trapped in frozen organic materials in the frozen ground. Warming will eventually liberate carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere.

“It is estimated that the permafrost contains twice the amount of carbon that is currently in our atmosphere,” said Gooseff.

We think of Antarctica as a vast empty place, but lakes and streams exist in several polar desert oases, including the McMurdo Dry Valleys. These bodies of water are filled with a variety of life including microbial mats, plankton and filamentous algae.

“While there are no bugs or fish in these waters, there are diverse microbial communities,” said Gooseff. “Some algae in the dry valleys go dormant for nine months or more and then begin to grown when hit by meltwater.”

Because there is so much permanent ice in Antarctica, the annual impact of increased temperatures on its environment is slower than in the Arctic. The huge expanse of white ice reflects some of the heat energy into the atmosphere.

“We expect in the next several decades that we will see the Antarctic start to warm up,” said Gooseff.

The Antarctic permafrost is very dry with high nitrogen concentrations in some places. When water reaches some of these dry soils, it will mobilize the nutrients and increase potential habitat for freshwater aquatic communities in Antarctica. This climate change will alter the flow patterns, expand the stream networks, and change both the location of habitats and the timing of life cycles.

“Beside the information that we can obtain about climate change on Earth, understanding what happens in Antarctica is important to understand what happens on Mars,” said Gooseff. “There is potential for microbial communities on Mars, and if they exist they will probably be similar to the McMurdo Dry Valley communities.”

###

The National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs supported this work.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fred from Canuckistan
August 12, 2011 8:14 am

Well now I am vewy, vewy afwaid.
And I just had to dodge large chunks of falling sky as I drove into work this morning.

DJ
August 12, 2011 8:15 am

You know, Gooseff just may, could, possibly be right. Even if he’s not. If only he can get another grant…….

Mike Jowsey
August 12, 2011 8:19 am

“The polar regions, particularly the Arctic, are warming faster than the rest of the world,”
Please provide your citations of empirically-based peer-reviewed literature to support this opening statement.
“As a consequence, polar ecosystems respond directly to changes in the earth systems at the poles.” Is this guy a scientist? One would be surprised if polar ecosystems did not respond at the poles. WUWT?

Jeff Carlson
August 12, 2011 8:21 am

I’m sorry but the evidence for Artic warming comes mostly from thermometers located up to 1200 km away … even so given the average annual temperatures the Artic is a long way from “thawing” …

CodeTech
August 12, 2011 8:21 am

Absolutely mind boggling. Just…. wow.
The level of disconnect from reality is stunning… but the entire premise that everything is warming (when, clearly, that is not the case) is almost pathological.

Nuke
August 12, 2011 8:25 am

Slightly OT, but still….
About this polar bear thing: Has anybody actually confirmed that a reduced ice pack is actually bad for the polar bear population, or is it just an assumption? What studies have been done?
How do we know that the current ice pack is optimal or less than optimal? Was the ice pack during the Little Ice Age more conducive to the polar bear population? And how about the animals the polar bears hunt? There is a strong relationship between predators and their prey. A low population of prey will only support a small population of predators. Is more ice better for the seal population, or is more open water better?
Exit Question : What does a polar bear eat?
Answer: Anything it wants.

August 12, 2011 8:31 am

Excuse my skepticism, but isn’t Penn State the current home of Michael Mann? Given Mann’s stellar reputation with regards to “climate change” research (I’m being sarcastic here), and given the whitewash Penn State officials and academics did when looking into Mann’s emails with regards to climategate, I give no credibility to anything anybody from Penn State publishes. With the exception of Joe Paterno of course.

Telboy
August 12, 2011 8:31 am

“associate professor of civil and environmental engineering” I’m all for civility, in engineering and in other disciplines, but environmental engineering? Sounds like landscape gardening to me.

Cassandra King
August 12, 2011 8:43 am

People get paid to publish this stuff? I mean the taxpayer actually forks out real money for this 10th grade childrens science project? What happens if the bear nips into the woods for a poo? Is the Pope a catholic and if so what does that mean for protestants. If ifs and ands were pots and pans there’d be no need for tinkers.
Anyone could walk into a school library for an afternoon of looking through their ‘Janet & John’ science books and come out with a paper like this at the end of it. IF the climate changes the ecosystems might also change maybe in some funny ways possibly and that might be good or bad depending on circumstances. If this is the gold standard for taxpayer funded science then no wonder climate science is in deep doo doo. There are science books from the 19th century with more relevant in depth cutting edge original research.
“Polar climate change may lead to ecological change” ? Okaaay!
But then again maybe IF the climate gets colder it MAY not lead to ecological change and even IF cyclic natural climate change occurs the resulting change MAY be positive. This aint science is it? Its gravy train exploitation.
“We expect in the next several decades that we will see the Antarctic start to warm up,” said Gooseff.”
Ill just bet he did, with an eye to more funding of course. Of course there is no real solid evidence to support that assertion apart from failed models but by the time that rolls around Mr grant vampire will be retired.

Caleb
August 12, 2011 8:44 am

Yawn. Wake me up when you can hand-dig graves, as the Vikings did, in Greenland graveyards now locked in permafrost.

A. C. Osborn
August 12, 2011 8:44 am

Can this possibly have passed Peer Review?

Hector M.
August 12, 2011 8:45 am

Since Antarctica is mostly cooling, and is predicted to warm if anything very slowly during this century, the initial quotation of this post:
“The polar regions, particularly the Arctic, are warming faster than the rest of the world,” might be as well the opposite:
“The polar regions, particularly Antarctica, are warming slower than the rest of the world,”
In fact, for every IPCC scenario, and for a given rise in average temperature, the Arctic would be above average, temperate latitudes would be at or below average, the tropics below average, and Antarctica in the vicinity of zero.

dp
August 12, 2011 8:49 am

More evidence of how erroneous dead polar bear reports affect the grant process. I suggest the Alarmist Science Cadre spend more time above 75º lat installing thermometers and less time in Cancun and Portugal talking modeling them.

Luther Wu
August 12, 2011 8:54 am

I just love a good scary story.
Might, May, Could, Possible, Estimate, Potential
The plot line may seem a bit formulaic to some, but matters not a whit to me.
BOO!!!

Pamela Gray
August 12, 2011 8:56 am

This sounds like a policy gray paper statement, not research. It also sounds like a way to connect wanted funds for Mars research to climate change in the Antarctic. Is there a list of resources used to substantiate the claims made in this nothing-more-than-an opinion piece?

Vince Causey
August 12, 2011 8:57 am

“It is estimated that the permafrost contains twice the amount of carbon that is currently in our atmosphere,” said Gooseff.
Reading that sentence, I’m imagining all these pieces of graphite floating around in the atmosphere. When somebody who claims to be a scientist doesn’t know the difference between carbon and CO2, how can they produce any scientifically literate work? I mean, it would be like having an accountant who doesn’t know how to add up.

August 12, 2011 9:02 am

Yeah well our hydrologist/civil engineer/environmental scientist/polar biologist named four of the lands that have land within the arctic circle. Here are another four:
Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. I guess 50% isn’t bad for a specialist on the arctic these days. Al G got a Nobel prize for discovering the centre of the earth was millions of degrees C.
Also, re melting in the Antarctic:
“While there are no bugs or fish in these waters, there are diverse microbial communities,” said Gooseff. “Some algae in the dry valleys go dormant for nine months or more and then begin to grown when hit by meltwater.”
Isn’t it clever (or lucky) of these little beasties to anticipate there would be meltwater on Antarctica especially since it was unprecedented.

Jim G
August 12, 2011 9:03 am

Obviously, the Polar Bears will soon be turning brown, like they once were. And contrary to the above, do not eat anything they want, but anything they can catch. Brown bears do a lot of grazing and perhaps Polar Bears will soon be able to do the same (easy to catch grass). All in all, this forecast is good for the bears, though I do not see that mentioned.

CinbadtheSailor
August 12, 2011 9:05 am

Penn State – is this some form of sanatorium? I hope they get well soon!

August 12, 2011 9:08 am

Telboy says: August 12, 2011 at 8:31 am
Telboy, perhaps the biggest application of civil engineering is sewage treatment. Some time ago schools found it easier to attract students, etc., by calling this environmental engineering. Of course, all sorts of silly studies followed.

sunsettommy
August 12, 2011 9:17 am

And this is terrible because?

Harry Kal
August 12, 2011 9:17 am

I can remember some website citing over 20 publications that all claimed that one region or another was warming more than average than all other places in the world.
If you counted them all up there must be some region in he world cooling very dramaticaly or else the avergage warming could not be reached.
Could be my refrigerator, I turned the button from 6 Degrees Celcius to 4.
Harry

Dusty
August 12, 2011 9:21 am

Telboy says:
August 12, 2011 at 8:31 am
“associate professor of civil and environmental engineering” I’m all for civility, in engineering and in other disciplines, but environmental engineering? Sounds like landscape gardening to me.
—-
That’s more a consequence of advancing technology with some push by regulation. Pre-about 1980, it was primarily a BCE, but post that, general and structural broke apart. With the EPA (also COE) grinding out regulation, environmental came into being with the main issues being water supply, sanitary treatment, stormwater runoff and detention/retention, wetlands with lot’s of chemistry and biology stuff becoming attached. No doubt that some in the profession emphasize looking for problems, like climate change, which then allows them to be hired to solve them (don’t all professions have them?), but that’s not the bulk of environmental engineering.

Theo Goodwin
August 12, 2011 9:33 am

‘“We expect in the next several decades that we will see the Antarctic start to warm up,” said Gooseff.’
Unbelievable! What could he possibly mean? Does he believe that it has not warmed? If so, then he believes that it might start warming several decades down the road? So, what is he going to do until several decades pass and there is something to study?

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights