Barrow, Alaska: Ground Zero for Climate Change
Scientists converge on the northernmost city in the United States to study global warming's dramatic consequences
- By Bob Reiss
- Smithsonian magazine, March 2010, Subscribe
(Page 4 of 5)
Concerns about whales go to the heart of the relationship between scientists and Barrow residents. In 1977, the International Whaling Commission, citing studies showing that bowheads were an endangered species, banned Eskimo whaling on the North Slope. But Barrow residents said they had seen plenty of bowheads, and their protests led to new research on whales’ population. The ban was replaced by a quota after six months.
Richard Glenn is a whaler and businessman, and vice president of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), a for-profit organization owned by Inupiat shareholders. Along with other community leaders, Glenn helped found BASC, which offers scientists laboratory space, cellphones, a support staff and an environment where researchers often end up collaborating on studies.“This is a town of ice experts,” Glenn told me. “Our job is to have a running inventory of conditions. Put that together with science and the cultural differences disappear. It becomes like two good mechanics talking about a car.”
Back in 1973 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for predicting changes in the earth’s environment, selected Barrow as one of five key spots on the globe to make atmospheric baseline studies. “We wanted places that were far removed from large industrial sources of gases yet not so remote that they’re impossible to get to,” said Dan Endres, who ran the agency’s Barrow facility for 25 years until 2009.
Today, sensors in NOAA’s Barrow observatory—basically a set of trailer-like buildings filled with scientific equipment, perched on pilings over tundra—sniff the air for ozone, carbon dioxide, other gases and pollution, some of which comes from Chinese factories thousands of miles away. In summer, carbon dioxide is absorbed by boreal forests in Russia and Canada. In autumn, the vegetation dies and the carbon dioxide is released back into the air. This oscillation is the largest fluctuation on earth and has been likened to the planet breathing.
Inside one trailer, John Dacey, a Woods Hole biologist, was installing equipment to measure dimethyl sulfide, a gas scientists use to track the formation of particles called aerosols in the atmosphere. “Much like ice or snow, aerosols can reflect the sun’s heat back to space,” said NOAA research scientist Anne Jefferson. In other cases, “like a dark ocean surface, they can absorb the sun’s heat.” Jefferson was calibrating instruments for monitoring clouds and aerosols, part of a study of the role these factors play in warming and cooling.
Based on research undertaken at Barrow, we now know that the yearly average of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased in the Arctic by 16 percent between 1974 and 2008 and that methane increased an average of 5 percent between 1987 and 2008, according to Russ Schnell, deputy director of NOAA’s global monitoring division. The snow melts about nine days earlier in the year than it did in the 1970s.
Snow and ice help explain why “a small change in the temperature in the Arctic can produce greater changes than in lower latitudes,” said Endres. Snow reflects sunlight; once it melts, more energy is absorbed by the earth, melting even more snow. “Whatever is going to happen in the rest of the world happens first and to the greatest extent in the Arctic,” said Endres. “The Arctic is the mirror of the world.”
Chester Noongwook, the last dog-sled mail carrier in the United States, is 76 years old and retired. He recently survived a brain aneurysm, but he looked strong and alert when I met him in Savoonga, a village of about 700 people on St. Lawrence Island, a 90-mile-long collection of mountains and tundra in the Bering Sea. Noongwook, who still hunts whales, showed me a book he co-authored, Watching Ice and Weather Our Way, which records Eskimo observations of the natural world. Then he gave me a lesson in the language of ice.
Maklukestaq, he said, is a Yupik Eskimo word for solid, slightly bumpy ice, capable of having a boat pulled across it. There is less maklukestaq of late. Ilulighaq refers to small- or medium-sized cakes of ice, big enough to support a walrus. Nutemtaq—old, thick ice floes—are safe for a seal or whale hunter. Tepaan is broken ice blown by wind against solid ice, dangerous to walk on.
In all, the Yupik language has almost 100 words for ice. Their subtle variations, passed down verbally over thousands of years—no written Eskimo language existed until about 100 years ago—can mean life or death for those who venture over frozen ocean, tundra lake or river. Elders are repositories of knowledge. Their photographs hang in schools, like those of presidents in the lower 48. But in some places, I was told, conditions have changed so much that elders have begun to doubt their ice knowledge.
“The world is spinning faster now,” Noongwook said, by which I took him to mean that the weather, and the ice, have become less predictable.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Global Warming Alaska Arctic Glaciers
Additional Sources
Watching Ice and Weather Our Way by Conrad Oozeva, Chester Noongwook, George Noongwook, Christina Alowa, and Igor Krupnik, Smithsonian Institution, 2004









Comments (35)
+ View All Comments
More Global Warming/climate change garbage!! It's all a fraud!! al gore is a fraud!! Sea ice is increasing!! Who's to say what is normal for the earth's climate? Was it 10,000 years ago when the last ice age was underway..or millions of years ago when tropical vegetation grew in Alaska?
Posted by Jim on June 14,2013 | 04:14 PM
It is terrible how the artic is melting. That is all due to global warming.
Posted by Joe on February 17,2012 | 07:13 PM
I am a 76 yr old world traveler who has $1650.00 total dollars coming in each month. I have been on six of the continents, traveled to Antarctica and six of the countries in S America earlier in this decade, went four weeks thruout the US West covering every one of the Big League baseball parks, spent 3 weeks in N Europe visiting all the Baltic states to St Petersburg. I have lived in Europe for 7 years 40 years ago and traveled around the world several times on ship or by air. I suffer from Charteau-Marie- Tooth disease, a crippling disease affecting little kids mostly, but I got into the USArmy with it and so I have a 60% disability pension, a good wife who helps me and a desire to see the world. I WANT TO SAIL THRU THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE, can get to Barrow myself, need help for the rest of the trip.
Posted by Curtis DeShong on October 31,2010 | 12:10 PM
I would like to thank all you ignorant people out there who enjoy trotting out the same old stupid stories claiming climate change is a hoax.
Climategate; thousands of emails trawled to find a couple of examples of questionable SEMANTICS! Greenleand; sorry, interior was never GREEN.
Volcanoes; tiny CO2 emissions compared to the plague which now covers the Earth burning everything it can find = HUMANS!
Egypt; good grief you are stupid! Irrigation from the Nile provides water for the crops.
Natural cycles; means the World should be cooling right now, not WARMING.
Thank you for confirming my cynical opinions that the small percentage of wealthy people on this planet (by that I mean everyone who has clothes to wear, food in their belly and a roof over their head) are only interested in their own greedy, self appeasement. With such an attitude, the future of the human race doesn't look good - good riddance!
Posted by Peter on June 16,2010 | 05:06 AM
Disappointing. The denier nuts are here too...
I thought smithsonianmag.com would have better informed posters, but apparently not.
Posted by Rod on June 4,2010 | 09:28 AM
It is amusing and sad at the same time to see these hysterical alarmists insist every scientist in the world is in on the conspiracy to... to.... well, they don't say what the scientists' goals are, but the scientists are are lying about global warming. FUNNY! Note that "climategate" never happened, and that no scientist did anything wrong: not even the America Treason Network, FOX, was able to show any scientist did anything wrong. Meanwhile, humans have caused, and are still causing, Earth to warm; I see that a recent paper by MIT climatologists, using Goddard data, have shown that even sequestering CO2 will not help much--- it is too late to mitigate the damage.
Posted by Desertphile on June 3,2010 | 10:28 PM
The very beginning of this article dictates the one-sided direction..."Scientists converge on the northernmost city in the United States to study global warming's dramatic consequences". This Global Warming" onslaught is the 2nd biggest scam in human history. This is fully political and has nothing to do with concern for the planet or the people.
It is about money (what isn't in politics) that politicians can obtain via another "tax" so they can spend even more.
I've finally figured out why the "lefties" are still pushing this down our throats from every possible political angle in spite of the enormous corruption uncovered - if you keep on repeating something, eventually the mindless masses (yes, that is what we are to politicians) will believe it.
The earth has experienced "climate Change" for billions or hundreds of millions of years, and these changes occur over hundreds and/or thousands and/or tens of thousands of years. The Middle Ages Warming period (800 A.D. - 1300 A.D.) and every other prior Warming Period must have an anthropogenic cause, right!!! Must have been all the fossil fuels to heat the caves and mud huts, along with the gas powered oxen. Lastly, the "little Ice Age" (1400 A.D. - 1850 A.D.) must also have been due to global warming, as any weather related event is now being shoved down our throats as global warming. There is no end to the insults being fed to us individuals.
Follow the Money ...
Posted by Ray Aronson on April 12,2010 | 05:41 PM
Dr. Johnson, the point is that the Climategate people were at the apex of their scientific field, supposedly the best and brightest (and most honest?) in meteorology, telling us we need sweeping carbon emissions reduction legislation.
And since global warming has not occurred over the last decade (not what the Climategate people who agree with you said), your statement that it's a big problem rings hollow. Besides, with any global warming (by solar flux), the surface of the ocean is heated for the formation of more cooling clouds.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on March 26,2010 | 07:05 PM
Were there 6 polar bear hides on the rack in the picture? I know that the natives are allowed to shoot polar bears, but that seems like an excessive number
Posted by Janet McCormick on March 18,2010 | 08:19 PM
It is indeed unfortunate and scandalous that several scientists "manipulated" data on maybe 19 documents of various importance. What many readers don't fully realize however, is that there are over 100 peer-reviewed articles published in the US and internationally each month documenting compelling evidence of global warming and its impact. The journals I am referring to include, Science, Nature, American Naturalist, American Scientist, Ecology and Ecology Letters to name a few in addition to Smithsonian. In fact Nature publishing has even begun a new journal to act as a venue for increasing numbers of high-quality global change research manuscripts; it is called Nature Global Change. As a scientist, my assessment of all the work I have seen over the course of 20 years is that global climate change is happening at an increasingly rapid rate and that anthropomorphic causes are highly probable.
Posted by Robert H Johnson PhD on March 18,2010 | 05:42 PM
CAS, the whole point is why did they feel compelled to fudge the data, to fool themselves, is that it? The only reason is that the data didn't, and doesn't, say what they want it to say for their nefarious agenda, very simple.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on March 16,2010 | 09:48 AM
hay... these guys should go to the east coast of the us and check out how hot it is here!!!
Posted by john on March 15,2010 | 06:44 PM
To infer that climate change is a hoax seems ridiculous to me. The majority of the scientists of the world from all disciplines of science are coming to the same conclusion that the climate is changing. The impact of humanity on our planet is undeniably tremendous. I think a reasonable person could see that trying to organize a hoax of such magnitude and involving so many people is a little farfetched. The hoax is so big that nearly 100 leaders from around the world are fooled and meet to discuss it each year at the climate change summit? To point out some inconsistencies in an evolving set of knowledge is not exactly what one would call hard evidence against the reality of the situation when the pool of evidence is so vast and diffused. It seems to me that the people who have something to loose, such as money from a policy change would be the ones to vehemently deny it. They would be the ones to invest the big money into a propaganda campaign to convince less educated people that it was a hoax. The Smithsonian is a reputable magazine and I thought the article was excellent. It gave a different perspective to an important issue our generation needs to deal with. The reality of the situation is that the legacy of humanity from this and last century may be that we chemically altered the climate. I think it is a shame that I saw so many negative comments related to this article.
Posted by CAS on March 15,2010 | 04:16 PM
Interesting about any global atmospheric warming (actually from temporary solar output increases), the warming causes more evaporation of the ocean which increases the global cloudcover generally, a buffer system, the greater cloudcover which cools the atmosphere back down. The Ice Age was caused by greater cloudcover from a geothermally heated ocean.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on March 13,2010 | 10:13 PM
+ View All Comments