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
No roads lead to Barrow, Alaska. To reach America’s northernmost city (pop. 4,500), you must fly or, sea ice permitting, take a ship. Barrow’s residents use cars or four-wheel-drive ATVs in town and have been known to hunt caribou on snowmobiles, even in summer. The treads leave dark trails in the tundra, the blanket of spongy brown and green vegetation that stretches south for hundreds of miles. I was coming in on a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 transport plane. Looking down through a small window I saw a triangular-shaped town hugging the edge of the continent at the junction of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. It was August, and the ocean looked as black as anthracite.
The city’s small wooden homes were built on pilings to keep them from melting the permafrost, which would cause them to sink. I saw jumbles of vehicles, fish-drying racks and small boats in front yards. The roads looked muddy. I saw a large supermarket and a new hospital going up near some office buildings. To the north, along a coast road, I spotted Quonset huts marking my destination—a repurposed World War II-era U.S. Navy base. Concerns about climate change have turned a drizzle of visiting scientists into a flood; I’ve visited Barrow when scientists filled every bed on the former base, bunked ten to a room in a dilapidated house in town and slept in cots laid out in rows in the community center.
I had come to Barrow to learn about ice and climate change from Eskimo elders and hunters and from scientists. For two weeks I’d been visiting northern Alaska coastal villages as a guest of the Coast Guard, and what I’d heard was disturbing. Each year the sea ice was getting thinner and arriving later. Coastal storms have become so dangerous that some villages—lacking the shore ice that used to protect them—will have to be moved miles inland. In one village I watched the Army Corps of Engineers build rock walls to shield against fierce waves. Fish species from warmer waters were showing up in fishing nets. Insects that no one recalled seeing before—such as spruce bark beetles, which kill trees—were falling from the sky. There was a proliferation of flies that make caribou sick.
Inland, elders told me, tundra lakes were disappearing, and with them drinking water and nesting grounds for millions of migrating birds. River banks—without enough ice to shore them up—were eroding, filling the waterways with silt. When hunters went out after moose, their boats increasingly ran aground in flats.
“It’s harder to find food,” I heard again and again.
After the C-130 landed, Donald “Nok” Acker of the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium (BASC), a nonprofit research support organization founded by Inupiat Eskimos, picked me up in his mud-spattered Ford truck. I stowed my gear in a dormitory for scientists, and Acker drove me to see Edward Itta, the mayor of North Slope Borough, the largest county (the size of Wyoming) in the United States. Itta is an Inupiat whaling captain as well as a politician who deals with members of Congress, White House officials and military authorities who travel to Barrow for much the same reason I did. His office is in a modern, airy two-story building with new computers and a natural gas heating system, paid for, he told me, by tax revenues from oil fields at Prudhoe Bay. Oil companies there contribute some $250 million a year to the North Slope Borough.
“Barrow is ground zero for climate-change science,” Itta said. “We worry that climate change is shrinking the sea ice and we don’t know how that will affect the animals that depend on it. At this time there is no effective plan if a catastrophe such as a ship collision or oil spill occurs. The Coast Guard hasn’t decided what its presence will be in the Arctic. Someone needs to monitor new traffic as the ice recedes and when tourist ships come through the Northwest Passage, which is already happening.”
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, according to a 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report, the most recent available. Summer sea ice in the region shrank by nearly 40 percent between 1978 and 2007. Winter temperatures have been several degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they were a few decades ago. Trees have spread into the tundra. In 2008, a wildfire broke out in an area north of the Brooks Range, where the local dialect had no word for forest fire.
Even officials who question the source of the warming are concerned. “I’m agnostic as to the causes,” Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen told me. “All I know is there is water where there was once ice.” And where there is water, “we are responsible for it.”
One major consequence is that a new Arctic shipping route around the top of Alaska is expected to open in the next few years, or decades, cutting thousands of miles off trips between Asia and Europe and Asia and the Eastern United States. The fabled Northwest Passage, from Baffin Bay in Eastern Canada to the Pacific Ocean, was frozen for centuries, and attempts to navigate it cost hundreds of European explorers their lives.
But in the past few summers, so much ice has melted that the Northwest Passage actually became navigable. “We’ve never seen ice melt like this in history,” ice forecaster Luc Desjardins of the Canadian Ice Service said in 2008. That summer, two German tourist ships made it through; travel agents are now booking reservations for trips through the passage.
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 (34)
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
While in the Air Force and stationed in St. Louis Mo. from 1957 thru 1958, I was a supporter/contributor to a local AM radio station's promation to purchase a snow mobile for one Chester Noongwook, an Alaskan Eskimo mail-carrier who delivered mail by dog sled. Throught the years I've told that story whenever a relative conversation arose. The March 2010 issue totally floored me and reconfirmed my 50 plus years memory. Its an additional pleasure knowing Mr. Noongwook is still with us as well as seeing his smiling face.
Posted by Anthony Korch on March 13,2010 | 09:25 AM
To get a little more background, and some idea of the depth of the research: Here are a couple of links you might find useful:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/
http://www.skepdic.com/
Cheers
Posted by Robert Evans on March 10,2010 | 11:13 AM
To JJM, do you really think the Climategate scandal is not indicative that those scientists were trying to fool the public? And if they weren't trying to fool the public, then why were they fudging the data, to fool themselves?
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on March 9,2010 | 09:46 AM
Thank you for a great article giving us a look at the obstacles scientists face in doing field work. Unfortunately, judging from the enormous depth of scientific ignorance in many of the posted comments, they face even greater obstacles in getting the message out. The permafrost isn’t “perma-nent” anymore. It’s a very serious positive feedback mechanism that should be alarming, even to non-alarmists.
Posted by JJM on March 6,2010 | 07:43 AM
"any thinking climate scientist would be allergic to choosing a notably cool starting date to show how things have warmed"
This winter HASN'T been notably cool in Alaska--it's been UNBELIEVABLY warm.
Posted by AlaskaMom on March 5,2010 | 04:48 AM
I find it surprisingly ignorant of Bob Reis that after spending time in Barrow and meeting locals he did not take the time to find out what the correct term is to call the local Native Alaskans. "Eskimo" is an offensive outdated term! Had he asked any one of them, they would have informed him that they have names such as Inuit, Yupik, and Athabaskan. There are NO "eskimos" in Alaska.
Posted by Samantha Barnes on March 4,2010 | 12:32 AM
What a bunch of hogwash. Once again the Smithy mag reveals its true political agenda. What I find to be particularly ridiculous is the claim that polar bear populations are threatened by receding sea ice. This conveniently overlooks the problem that sea ice observations in 2007 missed 100,000 square miles of sea ice due to a computer glitch and the observations of Dr. Mitchell Taylor of the Canadian Dept of the Environment who has been observing polar bears for 30 years. According to Dr. Taylor " Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada , 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present." Where is that information in this Smithy propaganda?
Posted by Scott Morris on March 3,2010 | 09:18 PM
And I will bet you believed those photos of the US submarines at the North Pole surrounded by ice? WRONG, for many of them there was no ice at the North Pole, just open water, so they went to where there was some ice to take the pictures. Had to have ICE. You are not at the North Pole if there is no ice - as the myth goes. Besides that barber pole looks funny floating in water, hard to make it stand up too. And that was 50-60 years ago!
Posted by submariner on February 25,2010 | 01:24 PM
The Northwest Passage was successfully navigated in 1906, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944, 1957, 1969, 1977, 1984, 1988, and 2000
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/search/label/northwest_passage
Posted by Rob on February 25,2010 | 12:32 PM
Here is an interesting video about life in Barrow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB0ZaQnx3q0
This was all shot in one single day.
Posted by Pat Kelley on February 25,2010 | 09:07 AM
Talk about cherry-picking data. You'd think that after all of the recent scandals, any thinking climate scientist would be allergic to choosing a notably cool starting date to show how things have warmed. That's like going back to 1850--a nadir of Little Ice Age--to highlight how glaciers have receeded. Was this written by a closet denier trying to undermine the warming case?
Posted by tsb on February 24,2010 | 05:36 PM
Bob Reiss's article was fascinating for someone who has never visited Alaska. What an alternate reality from life in the lower 48.
Whatever your political views on global warming may be, it is hard to ignore the accounts of those who are experiencing climate change firsthand.
Posted by Cleve Gray on February 24,2010 | 02:12 PM
I'm an cancelling my subscription after this article full of propaganda...shame on you!
Posted by Debbie Heidenreich on February 23,2010 | 11:15 PM
Man-made global warming has been proven to be a hoax. In the 70s it was the global cooling panic. This is the NATURAL cycle of the earth. Man isn't speeding it up. ALL this PHONY science is for is HUGE TAXATION. Seroiusly, a federal agency legally being able to declare a gas that EVERY human being exhales as a polutant!? Looking at seroiusly taxing cattle ranchers because COWS produce more gasses than any other creature. Where's Al Gore? Nobody's heard from him since this has been the coldest, most snow covered year in the last 100 years in the U.S. Do SERIOUS research and show what is REALLY happening. There is NOTHING that humans can do to change what Mother Nature is doing. Oh yeah, Egypt, where all the pyramids and desert is, used to be fertile farm land with trees. Did humans cause the 50 foot of sand to bury everything over there?
Posted by Chris Catron on February 23,2010 | 11:02 PM
James I. Nienhuis wrote "more people in a family on a property, the more trees they must grow"
It is not necessary that the fabily grow trees on 'their property' rather that they be looked after someplace, are accounted for, and, not double accounted for.
That would be a start.
Posted by Blair Anderson on February 23,2010 | 03:09 AM
Since trees process carbon dioxide to produce oxygen, I should have asked; then why not tax people who don't have a certain amount of vegetation growing on their property? (For instance, the more people in a family on a property, the more trees they must grow.)
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on February 22,2010 | 05:59 PM
How do you control the greenhouse gasses from volcanos? Should the owners of carbon-dioxide-producing trees and other plants be carbon taxed? Do you now see the absurdity of the greenhouse gas alarmism?
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on February 22,2010 | 04:54 PM
To Paul Marsden, so how are you reducing your greenhouse gasses?
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on February 22,2010 | 01:43 PM
Rather than passing comments on day to day weather in Washington, more politicians should take a hard look at the real evidence for climate change in places like Barrow, Alaska. We need strong global leadership based on the solid mass of reliable science, to take steps to radically cut greenhouse emissions. There needs to be greater incentives for communities and more penalties for businesses who ignore their pollution and waste. http://paulwbmarsden.blogspot.com/2010/02/business-and-climate-change.html
Posted by Paul Marsden on February 21,2010 | 06:19 PM
Climate change seems to have balanced out, so to speak, for over three thousand years, as sea level has little changed in that timeframe, even circa 1000 A.D., when the Vikings called Greenland that for good reason, warmer there then, with pastures and forests considerably inland, so greater snowfall and rainfall fell elsewhere, to maintain the sea level essentially unchanged.
Posted by James I. Nienhuis on February 20,2010 | 09:40 AM
I'm glad to see somebody's still studying.
With 19 scandals over Global Warming brewing, I think the scientific community would do well to return to the science, and get it right this time, before trying to dictate policy.
Posted by Michael Spurlock on February 19,2010 | 04:18 PM