olelog

Pollution knows no frontiers and has also reached the (former pristine) Arctic. Pollution, global warming and acidification of the ocean is threatening the vulnerable environment of the Kongsfjorden in Svalbard. Kongsfjorden on the west coast of Spitsbergen is a perfect laborarory for watching how pollution and climate change affects fauna and flora.

First a few words about Kongsfjorden (I have been told that this fjord was originally named Kings Bay, later translated into Norwegian). Kongsfjorden leads to Ny-Ålesund, one of the four permanent settlements on the island of Spitsbergen in the Svalbard archipelago. Ny-Ålesund is one of the world's northernmost settlements at 78°55′N 11°56′E, and is the world's northernmost functional public settlement. At the bottom of the fjord you see three spectacular mountain peaks, known as “Tre Kronor” which means three crowns. They were named by a Swedish expedition after the three Royal Crowns in the Swedish coat of arms. The peaks are individually called Svea, Nora and Dana (symbolising the royal crowns or kingdoms of respectively Sweden, Norway and Denmark).



Kongsfjorden is situated far from any pollution source and where Atlantic waters via the West Spitsbergen Current meet the Arctic waters. A project called the Alkekonge Project has been set up to study the impact of climate warming on Arctic zooplankton communities, Little Auks (Alle alle) and their physical environment. The goal is to obtain data on water circulation, heat and salt transport by the West Spitsbergen Current, fjords hydrology and fjords - deep sea exchanges, optical parameters concerning the phyto- and zooplankton living conditions, plankton communities and local Little Auk population parameters, breeding and feeding ecology and behaviour. Little auks breeding in Spitsbergen, feed mainly on the large copepod Calanus glacialis, so tend to restrict their foraging activity to Arctic Water and avoid Atlantic Water, which contains mainly smaller copepod, Calanus finmarchicus. Parallel to the changes in zooplankton community structure a change in vital population dynamical rates of Little Auks is expected. In the areas where the Little Auks can reliably forage, the reproductive output, corrected for predation, should be higher than in colonies where Little Auks have to either fly far or utilize scattered patches of large zooplankton. Clear, natural system environment-zooplankton-seabirds seems to be a perfect tool for envisaging into future climate changes.

Alkekonge means in fact Little Aulk. As the bird is on the top of the food chain it is an excellent indicator of what happens further down the chain. Sign of a changing situation is also that until 2002 the fjord was filled with cold water and ice. In 2006, however, warm atlantic water flew into the fjord. Since then we have seen three consecutive practically ice free winters in the fjord, while the ice used to be a metre thick in the winter months.

Flotsam is another indicator. This year saw a new record in flotsam (delivered by the Gulf Stream) on the Svalbard coasts. You may not be able to read Norwegian, but the view alone of the image on top of this (Norwegian) page should be enough to tell you that the situation is grave.

Well, as you know temperatures change. 5000- 8000 years ago the water temperature here was 2°C warmer than until 2005, so a comparison with past climates is also possible. In another project sediments from the bottom of the Kongsfjorden is being sampled and studied.

• http://www.iopan.gda.pl/projects/Alkekonge/alk-overview.html
  
• http://cruise-handbook.npolar.no/en/kongsfjorden/geology-and-landscape.html
  
  

In Norwegian:

• http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2009/august/226567
  
• http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/innsikt/article2768775.ece
  
• http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=557184
  

The modern concept of geoengineering is usually taken to mean proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

To me ESA means the European Space Agency. There is however also an ESA otherwise known as the Ecological Society of America (Sorry but Europe is closer to me than USA). In a symposium where they (the American ESA, I mean) discussed the viability of geoengineering, they concluded that it is potentially dangerous at the global scale, where the risks outweigh the benefits.

Although geoengineering techniques aim to slow global warming through the use of human-made changes to the Earth's land, seas or atmosphere, new research shows that the use of geoengineering to do environmental good may cause other environmental harm (what a surprise!).

Let us have a look at a few examples of geoengineering:

Atmospheric seeding, that would cool the climate by releasing light-colored sulfur particles or other aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays back into space. This approach mimics what happens naturally when volcanoes erupt. Despite its potential to create overall cooling, atmospheric seeding could cause significant changes in localized temperature and precipitation. Sulphur seeding could destroy atmospheric ozone, leading to increased ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth's surface.

Fertilising the oceans with iron to increase carbon uptake from the atmosphere could create a rise in iron-limited phytoplankton populations, which by dying and sinking would use enough oxygen to create extensive dead zones in the oceans. In addition the maximum possible rate of ocean iron fertilization could only offset a small fraction of the current rate of carbon burning by humans. Ocean fertilization also does not alleviate the increasing problem of ocean acidification, caused by carbon dioxide from the increasingly carbon-rich atmosphere dissolving into sea-water. Ocean fertilization schemes will likely exacerbate this problem.

On the planetary scale most ecologists are skeptical of climate engineering. Playing with the Earth's climate is a dangerous game with unclear rules. More direct ways to tackle global warming are needed, including energy efficiency, reduced consumption, and investment in renewable energy sources.

Maybe, however, research should continue on safer ways to use geoengineering at a smaller scale. Geologic sequestration, sometimes known as CO2 capture and storage, takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and stores it in underground reservoirs. This solution has the potential to store more than a century's worth of electric power emissions at a relatively low cost. Some potential risks of geologic sequestration, however, include carbon leakage and the potential for interactions with groundwater.

In my post on Hypoxia in the Baltic Sea I discussed a few proposed geoengineering methods to remediate the oxygen situation in the Baltic Sea. And again the conclusion was that “virtually all engineering methods proposed to date for the Baltic Sea seem unrealistic and/or not viable”.

• http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/esoa-std071309.php
  
• http://www.sciencecodex.com/symposium_to_discuss_geoengineering_to_fight_climate_change_at_the_esa_annual_meeting
  
  

PS with latest news of 7 August 2009:
Lomborg (yes, that Lomborg, Bjørn Lomborg) is suggesting creating man-made clouds to stop global warming. Global warming can be stopped for as little as 6 billion euros by using an armada of 1900 remote-controlled cloud-making vessels in the world’s oceans – if we dare manipulate the earth’s climate – at least according to the enfant terrible of the climate debate Bjørn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Business School’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre.

• English: http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article764304.ece
  
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jul/09/manchester-report-stephen-salter
  
• Danish: http://ing.dk/artikel/101359-lomborg-kunstige-skyer-fra-ubemandede-skibe-kan-redde-klimaet?utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nyheder
  
• http://ing.dk/artikel/101380-saltvandssproejtende-klima-skibe-faar-energi-fra-vind-og-vand?utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nyheder
  
• http://politiken.dk/klima/klimapolitik/article764223.ece
  
• http://ing.dk/artikel/101381-forsker-lomborgs-klima-skibe-kan-virke-stik-mod-hensigten?utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nyheder
  

Environmental protection of the Baltic Sea is not successful. There are considerable deficiencies in the observation and monitoring of the biological effects of harmful substances in comparison to many other maritime regions. As a part of the joint European BONUS research program, methods of measuring and observing the biological effects of harmful substances are now being developed. Research funding organizations from the nine Baltic Sea nations are behind the BONUS program. The research is also being funded by the EU Commission.

BONUS main results are published in the Publications Series on paper, as online publications and as pdf-files. Go to the BONUS Publications.

The Baltic Sea has had more and more health issues since the 1960s, due to the disposal of untreated human waste and toxic materials such as heavy metals. It is being harmed by "nutrients" from fertilisers used in agriculture (leading to eutrophication). Apart from direct (untreated) inputs via rivers and runoffs there are also atmospheric inputs mainly from traffic and agriculture.

Eutrophication is a process whereby water bodies, like the Baltic Sea, receive excess nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth (algae, periphyton attached algae, and nuisance plants weeds). This enhanced plant growth, often called an algal bloom, reduces dissolved oxygen in the water when dead plant material decomposes and can cause other organisms to die.

• http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1622510/harmful_substances_in_baltic_sea_poorly_monitored/index.html?source=r_science
• http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1622511/what_is_hampering_protection_of_the_baltic_sea/index.html?source=r_science
• http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1603870/baltic_sea_pollution_hotspots_overlooked/index.html?source=r_science

Before I go on to the oceanic nitrogen cycle I would like to start with a few words about nitrogen and the nitrogen cycle in general for the benefit of those who may be less familiar with this topic. Here I have drawn the probably most simple nitrogen cycle diagram that I have ever seen.



The main players in the nitrogen cycle are:
N₂ - nitrogen gas. Nitrogen is harmless, it makes up about 79% of the atmosphere, and never the less we have no problems with breathing. In gas form it is inactive.
NO_x (NO, NO₂, and others) - nitrogen oxides are greenhouse gases.
NO -nitric oxide or nitrogen monoxide. Although we need appropriate levels of nitrogen monoxide, too much is toxic, so it is a toxic air pollutant.
NO₂ - nitrogen dioxide is a poisonous air pollutant.
N₂O - nitrous oxide is a general anaesthetic, commonly known as "laughing gas".
Nitrates are salts with combinations of one nitrogen and three oxygen atoms. Nitrates are nutrients and used in fertilisers. Excess levels in drinking water can cause "blue baby" disease (hindering haemoglobin in carrying oxygen).
Nitrites are salts that contain NO₂ (one nitrogen and two oxygen atoms). Nitrite can be toxic (is extremely toxic to fish).
NH₃ - ammonia is a natural fertiliser, and an important source of nitrogen for living systems. "Household ammonia" is a solution of NH₃ in water and used for cleaning. It stinks.

Simply said the nitrogen cycle is the natural circulation of nitrogen by living organisms via the atmosphere, the soil and the oceans. Most diagrams that you will see are mainly focused on the processes in the soil (and the oceans are sometimes “forgotten” - the geologist in me also miss the volcanoes and sediments in many diagrams, but that is yet another story). The nitrogen in N₂ is unavailable to living organisms like humans or cows. Before we can take it up it has to be fixed. Nitrogen fixation is the process by which nitrogen is taken from its natural, relatively inactive form (N₂) in the atmosphere and converted into nitrogen compounds (such as ammonia, nitrate and nitrogen dioxide). This fixation can be performed by some bacteria in the soil and certain algae (blue-green algae aka cyanobacteria). Lupins for instance are known for their symbiosis with nitrogen fixing bacteria existing in the root nodules, a fact that some farmers are exploiting.

Until the 1860s the nitrogen cycle was relatively stable. Shortage of available nitrogen was however a limiting factor to agricultural activity. Human beings are however inventive, and artificial production of nitrogen (compounds) by the chemical industry has removed this restriction. Feeding hungry populations is of course a worthy goal, but we have on the other hand created new problems because more artificial nitrogen is now manufactured than is provided by natural sources. The equilibrium has been disturbed with things as dead zones as a result. It has also lead to increased production of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, which traps heat 300 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide and also destroys ozone.

So now on to the oceanic nitrogen cycle.

In Oceanus from WHOI you can often read very clear understandable articles. The recent Tracking Nitrogen's Elusive Trail in the Ocean is one of them.

Tracking nitrogen as it gets incorporated into various chemical compounds in the air, in organisms, and not least in the ocean, is a real challenge. It is not easy to measure the chemical processes that are taking place. Carly Buchwald is working on a new method using a natural tag to follow nitrogen’s trail through its chemical life history: where it came from, what chemical reactions it has undergone, and how and where it ends up.

The tags are isotopes - light 14N and heavier 15N isotopes of nitrogen and two oxygen isotopes - 16O and 18O. The trick is a.o. the selectiveness of nitrite-oxidising microbes in their manipulation of isotopes, and these microbes are (in their converting of nitrite into nitrate) the only natural source of nitrate to the ocean.

And now I advice you to have a closer look at an excellent (interactive) diagram of the oceanic nitrogen cycle (doesn’t work without flash!).

It is important to get a better understanding of how exactly human activities are affecting the nitrogen cycle.

• http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewFlash.do?fileid=46244&id=32332&aid=53946
• http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=53946&sectionid=1020