Guest essay by David Archibald
A visit to the weather station at the airport is the highlight of any trip to Svalbard. Of course that weather station has been the subject of attention on WUWT here.
Above: The Svalbard weather station at the airport
Figure 1 below shows the closest point the public can now get to the Svalbard weather station, the gate at the airport:
Figure 1: David Archibald, Professor Ole Humlum and Professor Jan-Erik Solheim at the closest point the public can get to the Svalbard Airport weather station which is 140 metres southeast of this point.
Professor Humlum was able to provide details of the siting problems particular to Arctic airport weather stations. For example, at one stage one of the airlines had a flight that got into Svalbard from Tromso on the Norwegian mainland in the late afternoon and then returned to Tromso at 5.00 am the following morning. To keep the aircraft warm overnight, the crew would leave the auxiliary power unit (APU) running. If the wind was blowing from the northwest, this would affect the temperature recorded by the weather station. This was an armed meteorological expedition as shown in Figure 2 following:
Figure 2: Professor Humlum carrying the expedition’s Remington rifle
Why an armed expedition? The island of Svalbard is infested with “warmers” (/sarc – the rifle actually for polar bears) . Note that the rifle wasn’t left in the vehicle. Poor visibility from falling snow meant that one may not be aware of a threat until you are directly upon it.
Figure 3 following shows a warmer nesting site encountered by the expedition:
Figure 3: Permafrost carbon dioxide injection project on Svalbard
This facility was founded on the peculiar notion that carbon dioxide could be stored under the permafrost layer. All the signage is in English no doubt because the Norwegian authorities are too embarrassed to have this inane project signposted in Norwegian. There is no source of carbon dioxide on Svalbard and any injected at the site would have to be transported from one thousand kilometres south on the Norwegian mainland.
As well as being an armed expedition, this was a sustainable expedition with provisioning including local produce of seal meat, whale meat and reindeer. Why go to Svalbard in the first place? It is quite apparent now that ground zero in climate change is not the coral reefs of the Maldives, the delta mouth islands of Bangladesh or anywhere else tropical and third world. It is here, hard up against the Arctic Circle. In fact Svalbard is going to get polar amplification really bad, as shown by Figure 4:
Figure 4: Projected average summer, annual and winter temperatures for Svalbard over Solar Cycle 24 (from Solheim, Stordahl and Humlum, 2011, Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures)
As Figure 4 shows, the average winter temperature over Solar Cycle 24 will be 6.0ºC colder than that over Solar Cycle 23. The economic effects of climate change have already been felt on the Norwegian mainland. Figure 5 shows Norwegian wheat imports and Norway’s domestic attempts are growing wheat:
Figure 5: Norwegian wheat imports and domestic production 1960 – 2012
What is apparent from Figure 5 is that domestic wheat production started replacing imports of the grain from the mid-1970s. From 2007, imports doubled as humid weather at harvest causing fungal infections of the crop and precluded most of it from being used for human consumption. Thus the end of the Modern Warm Period is sharply defined by Norwegian wheat statistics. Norway’s weather is driven by the sea temperature to its west, which also peaked in 2006 as shown by Figure 6:
Figure 6: Ocean heat in the Atlantic Ocean (0-60 West, 30-65 North) from Climate4you.com
Figure 6 shows that the fall in temperature of the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Norway from the peak in 2006 has been just as fast as the rise from 1990. When will the cooling stop and at what level?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
clipe says:
November 2, 2013 at 10:36 am
Steinar Midtskogen says:
November 2, 2013 at 12:24 am
APU exhaust
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcjeff/59634235/
I’ve worked at YYZ for over three decades and have learned how far APU exhaust can be felt downwind.
Just sad that it is not funny but deadly serious. And not because of warming !
@ur momisugly Steve R – “Some kind of hallucinigen in the fungus made the entire community become irrational and paranoid.”
Maybe that can explain why Obama got a Peace Prize?
Yup. No one, ever, has managed to use a pistol against a charging bear.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/survival/animal-attacks/2009/08/charging-grizzly-killed-alaska
Any attempt to do so is utmost foolishness and pure “Mall Ninja’ness”.
Do I want to attempt it with a handgun? No. Would I rather have a handgun then a rifle? That depends on the rifle, the caliber and how it (the rifle) is carried.
File the front sight off so the “Bear can stick it…” Well it takes all kinds I guess and as my Daddy used to say “Different strokes for different folks” I guess. But if you are into that sort of thing…. Well just go ahead and confess. “You’re not really here for the hunting, are you?”
I ‘m intrigued as to why the Norwegian wheat consumption showed such a significant spike for one year only in 2007. Any clues?
Stephen Skinner says:
“It appears quite obvious from this article that the runway tarmac has caused the underlying permafrost to melt and yet seems to completely miss that point and return to the main AGW meme about climate change causing perma frost to melt.”
The underlying permafrost melts every year, tarmac or not, but only the very top layer. If you accept that AGW will increase the temperature by 7C and having it stay there, the annual temperature will rise above 0C and the permafrost will melt all the way down eventually, so that’s at least consistent reasoning.
clipe says:
“I’ve worked at YYZ for over three decades and have learned how far APU exhaust can be felt downwind.”
We’re speaking og 100m here or more. And this is a cold place. The hot air will quickly rise. Any effects will be several order of magnitudes less than instrument error.
I’ve lost count how many times I’ve been to Svalbard airport, in different seasons, and I’m very sure that this exhaust is a non-existing problem. Could the tarmac influence the readings? Much more likely, but even that is not really a problem. Consider that temperatures vary a lot here. Monthly means departing from the normal by more than 10C are not unheard of, and natural 30y climate variations make up several degrees as well, so tiny errors do not change the big picture. But different microclimates change temperatures by several degrees as well, so homogenisation in order to get pre 1975 data is the real challenge.
“You’re exaggerating the siting problem. Warm air from an airplane or the local buildings surely has a totally insignificant impact on a thermometer many metres away in a windy place like this.”
From CASAA Advisory Circular AC 91-365
“The engine efflux of modern jet aircraft when taxiing can have a speed of
up to 65 knots and a temperature of approximately 520°C at a distance
of 30 metres from the jet pipe.”
Steinar Midtskogen says:
November 2, 2013 at 11:50 am
“I’ve lost count how many times I’ve been to Svalbard airport, in different seasons…”
__________________________
What, no bear stories?
tty says:
“The engine efflux of modern jet aircraft when taxiing can have a speed of
up to 65 knots and a temperature of approximately 520°C at a distance
of 30 metres from the jet pipe.”
I’m pretty sure that this is not how they keep the airplanes warm while parked overnight…
Alan Robertson says:
“What, no bear stories?”
Actually, I’ve never seen one. I found tracks of one on Bjørnøya once. And after the incident heard a report of a sighting in Hornsund at a time I was there. That’s my closest encounters. That I know of. I’ve many times, having left the lighths of Longyearbyen behind in moonless December darkness going alone, been thinking how useless the rifle I’m carrying is, since I wouldn’t spot a bear in that darkness before I trip over it, and even less hear it through the squeeking noise of my footsteps or skis on the cold, windswept snowpack.
There. That’s all my bear stories.
To add to the drop in Norway’s grain harvest and its partial attribution to climate cooling, there are now reports in the MSM including the BBC about a significant global wine shortage. Even the AGW-leaning BBC attributes part of this shortage to poor weather, in particular frosts at inappropriate times. Serious and economically significant frost damage to grapes and many other fruits are reported in Europe, South America and Australia.
Steinar Midtskogen says:
November 2, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“…That’s my closest encounters. That I know of. I’ve many times, having left the lighths of Longyearbyen behind in moonless December darkness going alone, been thinking how useless the rifle I’m carrying is, since I wouldn’t spot a bear in that darkness before I trip over it, and even less hear it through the squeeking noise of my footsteps or skis on the cold, windswept snowpack.
There. That’s all my bear stories.”
__________________________
Dandy bear stories at that, thanks.
Just think- opportunities to practice your nimbleness.
If you run Google Earth on Svalbard Airport, and look at the aircraft traffic management capability of the airport, proximity of taxiways and apron parking, there is no way the site can’t be affected. One apron taxiway is within 100m +/- of the screen( the one in the picture above), and worse, the screen is at an end where aircraft would enter the runway then do a 180 for take off. The hangar apron is directly upwind of one end of the runway, and directly upwind of the screen.
rgbatduke says:
November 2, 2013 at 8:58 am
“. . . a 30-06 with a 220 grain soft-nosed bullet . . .
From slightly above and 50 yards away using the combination mentioned I shot a “button” buck (so not very large white tail) through the heart. He just ran off. He managed about 100 yards.
So, I very much agree with this being the smallest (or even too small) combo if what you are shooting at thinks you are on the menu.
————————-
Steinar Midtskogen at 12:24 am
Thanks. Information much appreciated.
John F. Hultquist says:
November 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm
rgbatduke says:
November 2, 2013 at 8:58 am
“. . . a 30-06 with a 220 grain soft-nosed bullet . . .
From slightly above and 50 yards away using the combination mentioned I shot a “button” buck (so not very large white tail) through the heart. He just ran off. He managed about 100 yards.
So, I very much agree with this being the smallest (or even too small) combo if what you are shooting at thinks you are on the menu.
____________________________________
Strangely enough, bigger is not always better and a 220gr bullet at ’06 velocities is the wrong choice for whitetails. Those bullets are designed with very heavy jackets for deep penetration and that’s what they do. For deer at ’06 velocities, lighter (in weight and construction,125- 165 gr) bullets moving several hundred feet per second faster are better. They perform differently than the heavyweights, offering rapid bullet expansion and loss of kinetic energy on target, for the greatest stopping power. The slow speed of the 220 gr bullet punches a nice clean hole, but most of its kinetic energy is wasted, lost out the other side of the target. Even with a well- placed heart shot, the deer’s system must shut down, which can take 10 seconds or more, giving them a chance to run a long distance. On the other hand, bear ammo needs to be able to penetrate deeply into the vitals, through heavy bone and muscle mass.
I have several .30-06 rifles as it’s my favorite flavor, but against bears, would prefer a .338 Win., which is generally acknowledged as more appropriate for Grizzly and the big Browns. The Norwegian gov’t. recommends a .308 Win, or .30-06 as a minimum appropriate caliber for Polar Bears.
Thanks to H.R. for this link:
http://kho.unis.no/doc/Polar_bears_Svalbard.pdf
Gosh, I never knew the fellows that comment here are such scaredy cats. Sounds to me like, down deep, you’d rather not venture out onto the ice with anything smaller than a bazooka.
Compare yourself to a Viking up in Greenland back in the year 1250. They stood around five foot four, and the gun hadn’t been invented yet. Somehow they managed to send back a fair number of polar bear pelts to the king of Norway, each year. And besides taking on bears that weigh up to 1500 pounds, without a gun, they took on walruses that weigh up to 3700 pounds, for the ivory in their tusks.
Now don’t you guys feel ashamed? But it gets worse. When I myself meet bears I don’t shoot bullets or arrows. I just shoot them a dirty look.
Don’t doubt me. It took me forty-five years of studying under tough, old, Yankee, masters-of-the-dirty-look to learn the high art, however ever since I became a master myself in the year 2000, I have taken to shooting my dirty look at teams that oppose Boston and New England teams.
Have you noticed how, ever since that year, New England has gone from an area that almost never won championships to an area that wins an unfair number? This is entirely due to the power of my dirty look, and science cannot find any other reason.
If you also, Grasshopper, would like to possess this power please come to New Hampshire, and I will teach you. Of course, you will have to start humble and clean my stables and stuff like that, but in the end you will be able to stride across the arctic ice without a bazooka.
/sarc and Friday-funny.
@Alfred Ledner I don’t think anybody here is saying bear haven’t been taken down with a handgun (and I’ve tried to keep the defense perspective, not a handgun hunting perspective, which is a different thing). What we have been saying is that a handgun as a defensive weapon against bear is not an optimal choice. Your point about the type of rifle is certainly valid. The example you provided from Field and Stream is questionable evidence at best however. That bear. while big, was acknowledged as sickly, “400 lb underweight”, and starving. Motive, but diminished opportunity… While the bear very likely had the intention of dinner, he was not in the best fighting trim. The guy who shot it knows he was lucky. For a whole bunch of reasons, that day could have turned out very differently. Had the bear been in better trim with more fat on, had the shooter not hit the bear as well on his second shot, it very likely would have had a different outcome.
Hey Caleb, The Vikings did that on smell alone – surrounded the bear and asphyxiated it. Today, Old Spice is great, but it works better on some women than bear.
Paul Coppin says:
November 2, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Hey Caleb, The Vikings did that on smell alone – surrounded the bear and asphyxiated it. Today, Old Spice is great, but it works better on some women than bear.
_____________________________
While we don’t have Polar bears around here, the ones we do have are vulnerable to us fearsome hunters grinnin’ them to death. Studies have shown we have a more pleasant day with a grin rather than a scowl and the bears, being potentiated (sciencey) to dirty looks, get so confused with the grinnin’ that they just plain old- fashioned fall over, totally grinned into submission and give up the ghost.
On a more sober note, two people, man and a women, were attacked earlier today by a polar bear in Churchill Manitoba. Being described as presently in “stable condition”…
That was “a woman”, not several women…
Speaking of Svalbard (which few of these commenters are doing), I’ve noticed that the resurgent sub-zero Arctic is positively hurling cold air masses at Svalbard, but repulsed so far by the warm North Atlantic current. Still, the cold attack seems almost purposeful. I wonder sometimes about the “strong” Gaia hypothesis — that it really is alive in some way. Back in the 1950’s Fred Hoyle published a science fiction story “The Black Cloud” about an interstellar cloud which came to our Solar System and blocked out the Sun. Earth was doomed until some scientists figured out that the cloud was alive — (“is bastard in cloud”, by a visiting Soviet) — and communicated with it, so it kindly opened a pathway for the Sun’s rays to reach the Earth again. Maybe we too can communicate with Gaia and get it to funnel some cryogenically cold gales onto Gore’s and Mann’s homes & offices.
Alan Robertson says:
November 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm
I agree entirely with your ammo discussion, although maybe I did not know that 50 years ago. I do remember my dad thought I should have a 270.
Caleb at 3:57
“Gosh, I never knew the fellows that comment here are such scaredy cats.
I’m now carrying a camera with a VR (vibration reduction) lens. I use a photo of a black bear (the Cinnamon type) when posting on some sites. (Jo Nova’s is one such.) I didn’t think a “dirty look” would help so I just took pictures.
John F. Hultquist says:
November 2, 2013 at 6:40 pm
__________________
(I intended to add… ) It doesn’t always matter, because even with perfect shot placement and an optimal caliber, they can still “run like a deer”. That’s the very thing that makes dangerous game, so dangerous. That’s also why it’s so important to learn how to grin ’em.
I have a friend that has spent a good deal of time in grizzly country out of doors in Alaska. He carries a shot gun with five shells. First is a blank, next one buckshot and the last three slugs. They set up colored barrels at some distance around their camp. The bears, apparently can’t resist them and they serve as early warning.
omg, the gun still in the sheat. The rifle should be half-loaded and hang uncovered over the bag i.e. if the view is bad due to weather. Lucky that they didn’t meet a bear.