Scientists using Fairbanks as base for Arctic research
Published Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
Researchers are flocking to Fairbanks as scientific interest in the Arctic intensifies in the face of global warming.
About 250 researchers from three federal agencies are using the city as a base for field research. NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Energy are using a small fleet of airplanes to collect data about pollution in the Arctic atmosphere.
At a media day Monday, representatives from the three organizations discussed their research. All three are studying atmospheric contributions to climate warming, but each organization is focusing on different components, such as arctic haze. Arctic haze is caused by pollution found in the Arctic atmosphere at high altitudes.
“There are signs of everything you could imagine in the Arctic,” NASA researcher Daniel Jacob said.
Jacob said particles originating from China, North America and Europe have been found in the arctic haze. In the current study, researchers have found a large amount of pollution from Siberian agricultural fires in the Arctic atmosphere, an unusual finding this early in the season.
Groups are also focusing on how aerosols cool or warm the Earth.
Aerosols are fine particles suspended in the air. On a global level, they cool the Earth’s temperature, but in the Arctic, particles have the opposite effect and are warming the area, said A.R. Ravishankara, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.
Other scientists are working to refine climate models.
Some current climate models are not predicting the rate of warming accurately and are behind the actual rate of warming.
Using airplanes, a mode of fossil-fueled transportation that leaves its own trail of pollutants, may seem an odd choice, but Jacob says long-term results more than offset the short-term effects.
“The legacy is predictability,” he said.
NASA is using three airplanes: a DC-8, P-3B and B-200, to collect data. The other agencies have one plane apiece.
The largest of NASA’s airplanes, the DC-8, is a commercial jet airliner that has been modified for scientific research. It takes four weeks to transform a bare cabin into an airborne research center.
Research stations are spread out throughout the DC-8’s cabin to record a wide range of atmospheric data, such as how different particles form different clouds, different types of pollution, dust and soot; and determining the composition of different pollution types found in the Arctic atmosphere.
The P-3B has two radiometers to detect aerosols above and below the airplane. The P-3B has a central data logging system, which records flight data.
The smallest airplane, the B-200, is based out of Barrow and has a single Light Detection and Ranging System, also known as LIDAR. The B-200 specializes in satellite validation and tracks the Cloud-Aerosol LIDAR and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation satellite, also known as CALIPSO. The satellite monitors clouds and aerosols from space, and the B-200’s missions ensure the satellite is working properly.
NOAA also uses a P-3 to conduct its aerial research. The particular aircraft the organization is using is also a hurricane hunter, and has been used in 73 hurricanes, signified by the 73 red stickers stuck on its side with the names of each of the storms it has weathered.
“It’s incredibly rugged; it was built for aggressive weather,” said Hal Maring, a NASA program manager.
Carstens Warneke, a NOAA researcher, said his organization and NASA are both researching the climate effects of air pollution, but NOAA is focused on particle composition and origin.
The only airplane flying Monday was DOE’s Convair 580, which is used to collect data above, below and inside clouds. The 580 has multiple sensors on its exterior to record cloud and atmospheric data. The program has a permanent base in the North Slope to provide data about clouds and radioactive processes at high latitudes.
NASA research missions similar to the Fairbanks mission usually last for seven weeks, but NASA will only spend three weeks in Fairbanks because there is a second phase, Jim Crawford, the NASA program manager, said. The second phase is a three-week residency without NOAA or DOE at Cold Lake in Alberta, Canada, to measure emissions from forest fires.
Contact staff writer Christi Hang at 459-7590.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Didnt some one try saying that the field of science would not be affected if the military was not active here? hmmm...
I wonder how much pollution those 45 year old planes leave as they motor endlessly around the high arctic?
@JB, no, I said that _MY_ specific job would not be. That has nothing to do with the entire field of science. Don't twist my words to match your own agenda, it's childish.
actually sdoownek- you did say your field, go check :) That aside, you are right about the childish, I apologize.
....what? I don't work in the entire field of science. Semantics and definitional, probably. In any case, I don't see how it relates to this article at all, to be honest. But, yeah, let's just drop it and talk about teenage racism instead.
This is interesting.
I don't know much about global warming, except that the tree-line has officially moved a little farther north, and a couple years ago the official Fairbanks growing season gained 1 day.
I hope all this high-tech equipment yields some useful information that we can do something with.
-RK
Outraged,
The amount of pollution these research planes are putting into the Arctic atmosphere is like asking how much you affected the world's coffee production by having a cup this morning... it is insignificant compared to the amount of pollution being added to the Arctic daily by intercontinental commercial flights and next to the pollution output from a single coal-fired power plant in one day. To even begin to deal with the very complicated issue of global warming, you first have to understand what is going on, and this is by far the best way to do that. This research will lead to tomorrow's climate solutions.
It's sad to see the liberal bias in the News-Miner pushing the Global Warming agenda. The last line below the big picture says "which are contributing to global climate change.", like an assumed fact. Global Warming has already been debunked by the data from the NASA Aqua satellite. From a 2002 reference point, temperatures have plateaued, while from a 1998 reference point, they have decreased (luckily not here in Fairbanks). One article is at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...
Fairbanks has the opportunity to be the portal for high tech science that will lead the world in the future. Making radical claims that atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic changes ARE or ARE NOT happening is no different that "playing ostrich" or "crying chicken little".
No matter what industry, be-it oil & gas, mining, fishing, agriculture, transportation and/or tourism, understanding the environment and what dynamics are happening leads to more cost effective engineering. Building roads, harbors, railroads, commercial buildings and homes all depend on assumptions of the soils and environmental factors.
The UAF Geo-technical Institute is a step in the right direction. Where is the BIOS facility? Now, let us cut out the fluff in those facilities and get to work.
Hay, Ya just can't let them Scientists STARVE.
They could become endangerd species.
@Lance: It's always interesting when laymen, politicians, and extremists pollute an already complex, very emotional issue. You're obviously not well versed in climate change, so, please, for your own sake, stop spewing your uneducated opinion.
The application of generational timescale to a geophysical event ain't gonna work, no matter how hard you try.
I think everyone should read "State of Fear" great book about the misconceptions of global warming. We can't even predict the weather 11 days from now, and people expect governments to make policies on data that predicts the temperature rise over the next 400 years.
I, for one, am glad to hear the News-Miner be accused of a liberal bias. That accusation, combined with all the accusations of a rightist bias, shows that the paper's doing a good job of offending all sides and staying (relatively) in the middle.
I have been reading "State of Fear",It is very hard to get interested in it with the endles bla,bla,bla,bla!
Lance
according to NASA, 2007 and 2005 were the warmest years on record, warmer than 1998.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
do you consider NASA to be a bunch of commie librul tree-huggers?
pardon, 2007 tied 1998 as the second warmest year..2005 is the warmest
It's kinda fun to watch sdoownek's ox get gored, considering his previous, highly biased statements regarding other segments of the Fairbanks community,
I wonder if I should mention the P-3 Orion aircraft was designed primarily to serve as a Navy sub hunter? (GASP!! You mean the scientists at UAF are actually using a military airplane to conduct their research? Is there no end to the shame?)
Just for amusement & awareness sake (not trying to plug one side or beat up on the other), thought you'd all enjoy a little copy/paste from Eielson:
Low temperature record broken on Feb 7th of -47F
High temperature record broken on Feb 14th of 39F
High temperature record broken on Feb 17th of 39F
High temperature record broken on Feb 18th of 42F
High temperature record broken on Feb 20th of 46F
High temperature record broken on Mar 5th of 45F
High temperature record broken on Apr 3rd of 50F
High temperature record broken on Apr 4th 52F
thanks weather_guy...i've been living in AK for about 7 years now and although 7 years at one location is too short a timescale and too small of an area to draw any definitive conclusions about global warming, i only remember 2-3 record low events occuring in the past 8 years (remember snow in june 2006), but at least 20 record high events.
ironically, one of the hottest summers on record, 2004, would have been significantly hotter had we not had the record fire season. the smoke significantly reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, keeping what could have been a record string of 90+ degree days in June and August in the 80's.
What was the temperatures on the same days in Salcha, North Pole, and Two Rivers. The Eielson temperatures may be a localized anomaly.
Maybe, Eielson got a fresh batch of junior officers, complete with a new supply of hot air, on Feb 14th. (Sorry, as a retired senior NCO I couldn't resist.)
I suppose it won't be long before someone tries to claim the sonic booms caused Monday's snowfall ...
Oh, so now only educated opinions are allowed?
And, may I ask, what level of education must one obtain, before being permitted to express their opinion? And who is going to measure or set the criteria for deciding when one is sufficiently educated to express an opinion?
Its funny, those who protect our right to express an opinion NEVER qualify that right or set criteria to exercise that right. However, those who have not invested anything in protecting that right deem it their prerogative to set criteria or say who can or can't express an opinion. Interesting indeed.
Good one Griff - as a SNCO myself, I can appreciate the humor!
It is much easier for me to just access our records here at the base - it does provide a nice "baseline" to work from. Obviously, not for proving/debunking global warming, but simply a means to see how we have fared in the local area. I will say this though - when we break temperatures (low or high) here at the base, if the FNSB doesn't break their own records... they come darn close. So, in a way, I do consider our trend somewhat representative of what you'd see in the local area.
If you guys/gals are interested in seeing what the extreme high/low daily temperature records are, just PM me and I'll get you a copy.
Photodude--
Darn, we are getting off topic, but I think "those who protect our right to express an opinion" do qualify and set criteria for criticism. For example: ‘You shouldn't criticize us because we defend your right to criticize.’
...sometimes do. Sorry.
Satire, folks ...
People are constantly drawing circles and telling people they don't count 'cause they're outside the circle. It appears to be human nature -- it doesn't matter whether they're college professors, racists, religious sects, political units, or kindergartners on the playground.
I do tend to pay more attention to someone who's studied a subject, provided the opinions they express fall within the bounds of their research. For example, Chomsky did some very important work in the field of linguistics but kinda went off the deep end when he talked politics.
@Griff: I'm not sure I understand what "ox get gored" means, but I'll assume that it's in relation to you somehow proving a statement I've made to be incorrect.
Moving forward with that assumption, it almost seems as if reading comprehension and/or retention is optional.
I simply fail to see how the cross agency use of an airplane is in any way related to computational cosmogony. You seem to be implying that it does, grazing the comments that I've made in reference to the military moving out of Fairbanks wouldn't have any bearing upon my work.
The reality is this: (a)I've got little to no interest in climate change, (b)I'm not employed at UAF, and (c)I don't like military people.
Perhaps I was a little obtuse in my comment you're trying to desperately to reference. If you can explain the relationship, I'd be more than willing to entertain a rebuttal.
Otherwise.....you're reaching.
A lot.
(....and yes, cosmogony is different than cosmetology, which is different than cosmology. Don't think yourself cute and make a joke. It won't be the first time it's been told....)
...and there's the lightening rod that will distract others from my statement.
.....but you'll still get somebody to listen.
It's okay. It's not like it's a new revelation from me.
As News Miner forums have so ably proven, the existence of Global Warming can be endlessly debated. Rather than take sides, I'd like to submit that IF we act as though it's occurring and take serious measures to curb pollution, we all benefit from a cleaner environment.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist, or even a weatherman to realize that if you burn a lot of stuff (such as wood in a forest fire, and many of us can remember the days of smoke we all suffered in previous summers) or (coal as China is experiencing, and it was on the news the other night that Beijing is curtailing many industries so that athletes in the upcoming Olympics can breathe) it affects the environment and hence, our quality of life.
We like our streets to be free of trash, we like our homes to be free of sewage, we'll all be happier and healthier if we make the changes needed to clean our air.
the Alaska climate center is also a good resource for met data in alaska.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu
this provides the temperature trends for various regions going back to 1949.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/...
Joe - well said. I grew up in a mill town (International Falls) and clearly recall the stench and dingy snow. I was also in Seoul immediately before and for quite a while after the Olympics. The amount of soot, even after 'cleaning up' for the Olympics, was amazing.
On the frustrating side, I wrote a research paper in 1972 or 1973 on methane production and it's possible use as an automobile fuel. I'm sad to say nothing's really changed in 35 years and I'm starting to think it'll take an acute crisis to force a change.
Griff,
I too am sad and frustrated but I must agree with you. It took the events of 9-11 to force a change (for the worst) in the way our country deals with the Middle East; I'm afraid it will take a global disaster of epic proportions before all countries (including our own, of course) make a change in the way we deal with our environment.
When I was majoring in college for a BA in psychology I was introduced to the concept of One Trial Learning (the organism, whatever it is, gets one chance at learning a behavior or it's all over) Dealing successfully with the environment may be our own one trial situation.
I was thinking more about the Third Pandemic and Louis Pasteur's work than any recent events.
Interesting, Griff.
I was thinking of Pompeii.
I was thinking Boltysh-Chicxulub and/or Shiva.
That'd be a hoot, ya?
Even without Bruce Willis.
even if the earth is getting warmer ruining our economy and changing light bulbs aint gonna do a damn bit of good HELLLLOOOOO!!!!!!!
I'm not sure how much of Pasteur's scientific innovation was spontaneous and how much was incremental. It's safe to assume earlier work by others formed the basis for his work. Those others may have put forth contentions similar to his, only to be ignored, pooh-poohed, marginalized, discredited, or persecuted. The Third Pandemic may have caused a significant shift in social and political attitudes, allowing Pasteur's work favorable acceptance that had been denied to his predecessors.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.