NASA's Ten-Year Mission To Study All the Ways the Arctic Is Doomed

Lasrick writes: NASA is kicking off the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, a decade-long effort to figure out just how bad things in northern US and Canada really are. The large-scale study will combine on-the-ground field studies as well as data from remote sensors—such as satellites and two season of 'intensive airborne surveys'—to improve how scientists analyze and model the effects of climate change on the region.

Comments

Not doomed.

[Lumpy]

It will be just fine, warmer but just fine. Honestly all you people have zero clue as to reality. the temperature on the earth can increase 500 degrees and the planet will be perfectly ok. Look at Venus, the planet it's self is still in it's orbit, and doing great. No chance of deorbiting and crashing into the sun, no chance of being flung into deep space. as a planet it is doing well.

Earth will do just fine and probably better after all the pesky people have been boiled off.

Geologist's Core Samples

[BoRegardless]

I would expect we already have core samples from the tundra and sea bottoms which cover the last 250,000 years.

That means we have over two complete cycles of the 110,000 year natural glaciation periods.

Given core samples we already have, I want to know whether the core samples show we have even warmer centuries coming, or not?

Re:Geologist's Core Samples

[phantomfive]

Here is a graph of the data from the Vostok core samples. The (numbers on the bottom are in thousands of years). Based on those core samples, what do you think? How would you say CO2 relates to temperature?

Re:The Arctic is NOT doomed

[AK Marc]

Then if it's a temporary warming, we should use the opportunity to build the rail to Russia and other things that are easier in the warmer clime, and when the cold comes back, it's not a big deal. The trains run year-round in cold places, but it's harder to build in the cold than the warm. Digging down to the permafrost when it's melting is harder, but when it's growing back, it's easier, less drilling into the frozen ground, which is some of the hardest drilling on the planet.

Re:Bender says

[ClickOnThis]

The effect of climate change on forests is important, but "on-the-ground field studies" are not part of NASA's mission. They are a space agency, not the forest service.

Uh, yeah ... because NASA's study of planet Earth was removed quietly from its mission statement during the Bush administration.

the canadian scientists cannot help

[crispytwo]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...

And even if they could help, they could not talk about it

https://news.vice.com/article/...

we're doomed

Craters in Russian Arctic from methane gas

[billstewart]

WaPo article on craters in Siberia - apparently they're from methane gas evaporation, which is spectacularly bad news, because methane has more greenhouse effect than CO2. There's a lot of methane stored in frozen arctic tundra, and if warming temperatures make more of it escape, that's going to warm things up faster and make more of it escape.