I just finished convening a workshop of 20 arctic experts to put together a plan to measure climate, climate change, and its impacts on the Arctic, particularly within the Brooks Range of Alaska. Here we brought together climate modelers, field ecologists, glaciologists, air quality experts, micro-climotologists, permafrost scientists, and permitting and compliance specialists to devise a long-term (50 year) plan. The main issue we were addressing is the sorry fact that there is only one long-term weather station in the US arctic (Barrow) and it is on the coast and not representative of the vast majority of the mountains and coast plain there. A few other weather stations exist, but they are not designed for long-term measurement analysis nor do they have the funding mandate to support them long-term. Similarly, there are no permafrost boreholes or glacier studies for long-term analysis through most of the Brooks Range. The National Park Service controls most of the lands within the central and wester Brooks Range, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service controls most of the eastern Brooks Range. All of these regions are therefore under a protected status where any developments are discouraged, and much of it is within “Designated Wilderness” which is under even more strict control. This poses a problem for scientists (and the public) interested in understanding climate, climate change, and its impacts on the landscape and ecology here — how do measure and monitor such changes without affecting it? And how should we decide what a reasonable comprimise is? The wilderness Act and ANILCA (the guiding legislation for these regions) both allow for scientific study, but discourage ‘permanent installations’. Though not specific beyond this, a permanent weather station is a piece of technology that is a permanent installation. For some, installation of a weather station would decrease the value of their wilderness experience (or more likely, their imaginary wilderness experience since only a few hundred people actually visit these areas annually and most would never actually notice such stations), but for others knowing that scientists are implementing the tools that they need to properly understand and manage the areas would increase their wilderness experience. Interpretation of this legislation by park superindendents varies widely, with some wholeheartedly endorsing the need for such data (and the necessary installations for this) and some stating that such installations would occur ‘over their dead body’.

For reference, a weather station takes only a few square meters of space and sticks up anywhere from 1 to 30 feet, depending on design, and they can be reasonably camoflaged. Also, they need to be maintained periodically, which may require use of helicopter, air plane or snow machine. Telemetered stations serve multiple purposes beyond climate change studies, such as weather forecasting and aviation safety. As more background, the 5 national parks in the US arctic are about the same size as Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts combined, yet essentially have no weather stations within them currently (compared to the hundreds in those states). The scientific consensus at our meeting was that about 10 long-term stations would give us some hope to capture the trends we expect from modeling. General consensus at the meeting was that this particular region of the arctic is currently undergoing the highest rates of air temperature change as anywhere on the planet (through modeling and nearby measurements), though this is difficult to verify due to lack of adequate data.

So I’m curious as to what people’s thoughts are on this issue? Does the need for such measurements detract from the wilderness value of the region or add value to it?

Thanks,
Matt

-- MattNolan