While cen­tral Euro­pe is free­zing, the wea­ther is brea­king records in the Arc­tic – once again, and towards war­mer tem­pe­ra­tures, of cour­se. Tem­pe­ra­tures in Lon­gye­ar­by­en have been abo­ve the long-term avera­ge (1960-90) wit­hout inter­rup­ti­on sin­ce Novem­ber 2010 – that is for more than 7 years! Curr­ent­ly, it is rai­ning in Lon­gye­ar­by­en, and tem­pe­ra­tures are abo­ve free­zing.

The situa­ti­on in hig­hest lati­tu­des, up to the very North Pole, is may­be even more extre­me. Even the­re, in the deepest arc­tic win­ter, the time that should be the col­dest of the year, tem­pe­ra­tures are curr­ent­ly abo­ve zero. The­re is no wea­ther sta­ti­on at the North Pole, but data from remo­te sens­ing are clear enough, tel­ling us that the tem­pe­ra­tu­re at the North Pole is curr­ent­ly 30 degrees Cel­si­us abo­ve the avera­ge. In words: thir­ty degrees Cel­si­us!

This appli­es to almost the who­le Arc­tic Oce­an north of 80 degrees. Con­side­ring the who­le area, tem­pe­ra­tures are cal­cu­la­ted to be 20 degrees abo­ve nor­mals values. The Danish Meteo­ro­lo­gi­cal Insti­tu­te has got data span­ning the who­le peri­od sin­ce 1958 and the­re is not­hing that com­pa­res.

Peri­ods of mild wea­ther in the Arc­tic are not com­ple­te­ly now, but they have been incre­asing in fre­quen­cy and inten­si­ty sin­ce 1980 and espe­ci­al­ly in recent years. The cur­rent epi­so­de is, howe­ver, record­brea­king. Accor­ding to Robert Gra­ham from the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te, the­re have been four peri­ods simi­lar (but less inten­se) wea­ther bet­ween 1980 and 2010, but ano­ther four alre­a­dy in the last five yars.

Today’s event is most likely lin­ked to the weak ice con­di­ti­ons in the Arc­tic Oce­an. In Janu­ary 2018, less ice was obser­ved than ever befo­re. Even north of Green­land, an area that his­to­ri­cal­ly had relia­ble ice con­di­ti­ons in terms of hea­vy, den­se, mul­ti-year ice, the­re is curr­ent­ly open water. The tem­pe­ra­tures do not con­tri­bu­te to rene­wed free­zing: the auto­ma­tic wea­ther sta­ti­on at Kap Mor­ris Jesup in nor­t­hern­most Green­land has up to Sun­day recor­ded a stun­ning 61 hours of tem­pe­ra­tures abo­ve zero. The record so far was 16 hours for one who­le win­ter – that’s the who­le peri­ods until late April – and it dates back to 1980.

View of Lon­gye­ar­by­en through the web­cam of UNIS: rain and tha­wing snow in Janu­ary 🙁

While the details of the meteo­ro­lo­gi­cal pro­ces­ses are not ful­ly unders­tood, sci­en­tists do not have any doubt that the high tem­pe­ra­tures in the water of the Green­land Sea and tho­se of the atmo­sphe­re in the high Arc­tic are lin­ked. Ice, warm water and the move­ments of low pres­su­re sys­tems are con­nec­ted and form a com­plex sys­tem, which also seems to invol­ve the hig­her atmo­sphe­re: unu­sual­ly warm tem­pe­ra­tures were also recor­ded in the stra­to­sphe­re, more than 10,000 met­res high and thus abo­ve the ever­y­day wea­ther events, a cou­ple of weeks ago. Details remain yet to be ful­ly inves­ti­ga­ted.

It should at least get col­der again in Lon­gye­ar­by­en from Wed­nes­day onwards.

Sum­ma­ri­zing source: Washing­ton Post

While the sun is slow­ly retur­ning to Spits­ber­gen after the polar night, the dis­cus­sion about new huts for com­mer­cial use by local tour ope­ra­tors is going on: Should it be pos­si­ble to build new huts in the field?

The dis­cus­sion star­ted with the last Stortings­mel­ding, a govern­ment poli­cy state­ment issued in 2016 that drafts an out­line of poli­tics for Sval­bard for the years to come. With the back­ground of dimi­nis­hing coal mining, most par­ties invol­ved agree that tou­rism should be deve­lo­ped as a cor­ner­stone for the local eco­no­my in Lon­gye­ar­by­en. To help this, the Stortings­mel­ding opens for the pos­si­bi­li­ty of new huts being built for use by local tour ope­ra­tors in the con­text of their orga­nis­ed tours (not for indi­vi­du­al use, neither com­mer­cial nor pri­va­te, to be clear on this). Acti­vi­ties are sup­po­sed to be more or less clo­se to Lon­gye­ar­by­en, at least within admi­nis­tra­ti­on area 10, bet­ween Isfjord and Van Mijenfjord.

The use of huts for tou­rism does not have a tra­di­ti­on in Spits­ber­gen and it is con­tro­ver­si­al, to put it mild­ly, as oppo­sed to main­land Nor­way, whe­re the use of huts for tours is well estab­lished and open also for tou­rists. In Spits­ber­gen, only locals may use huts pri­va­te­ly. So far, the­re are only 3 huts out­side Lon­gye­ar­by­en which may be used com­mer­ci­al­ly. One is near Nor­dens­ki­öld­breen in Bil­lefjord, ano­ther one is at Brents­kar­det in inner Advent­da­len and the third one is clo­se to Sveagru­va in Van Mijenfjord.

Now the ques­ti­on is if and whe­re fur­ther huts should be per­mit­ted. Local tour ope­ra­tors could file their appli­ca­ti­ons in 2017 and ever­y­bo­dy could com­ment on the appli­ca­ti­ons until end of Janu­ry 2018. The Sys­sel­man­nen recei­ved twel­ve state­ments with rele­vant comm­ents (plus 8 wit­hout comm­ents). The­se state­ments came both from pri­va­te per­sons and from insti­tu­ti­ons inclu­ding the Mil­jø­di­rek­to­rat (Nor­we­gi­an envi­ron­men­tal aut­ho­ri­ty), the Nor­we­gi­an Polar Insti­tu­te and the Riks­an­tik­var (pro­tec­tion of his­to­ri­cal monu­ments and sites). Most state­ments share an altog­e­ther cri­ti­cal atti­tu­de. The Polar Insti­tu­te examins all poten­ti­al sites for new huts regar­ding their eco­lo­gi­cal values and comm­ents on the dama­ge to the envi­ron­ment that per­ma­nent infra­struc­tu­re may have in the­se places. Pri­va­te per­sons from Lon­gye­ar­by­en, inclu­ding some of the few trap­pers who are still acti­ve in Spits­ber­gen, seem to share a very cri­ti­cal per­spec­ti­ve. Remar­kab­ly, rather than gene­ral oppo­si­ti­on to the idea of huts (the­re are, of cour­se, pros and cons to this as well), the state­ments most­ly offer a detail­ed dis­cus­sion of the spe­ci­fic sites.

The sites in ques­ti­on are:

The­se sites are being dis­cus­sed for new huts for com­mer­cial use in Spits­ber­gen.

• Elve­ne­set (point 1 on the map) at the mouth of De Geerd­a­len in Sas­senfjord. The idea of a new, com­mer­ci­al­ly used hut in one of the last low­lands and river del­ta are­as clo­se to Lon­gye­ar­by­en curr­ent­ly wit­hout any infra­struc­tu­re is not met with any enthu­si­asm at all. The values of this tun­dra area for wild­life such as reinde­er and polar foxes are high­ligh­ted and stand in con­trast to regu­lar use. A new hut would be near a fox den. Pret­ty much all state­ments look cri­ti­cal­ly at the idea of a hut at Elve­ne­set. This includes the Mil­jø­di­rek­to­rat, which will pre­su­ma­b­ly have an important say in this dis­cus­sion.
• Svel­ti­hel (2), a low­land area in Sas­send­a­len on the coast of Tem­pel­fjord. This site does not seem to con­flict too much with the local envi­ron­ment, but accor­ding to the important Mil­jø­di­rek­to­rat, it is too far away from Lon­gye­ar­by­en and too clo­se to a natio­nal park.
• Kre­kling­pas­set (3), bet­ween De Geerd­a­len and Hel­ve­tia­da­len. Accor­ding to the various state­ments, one of few sites that can at least be con­side­red for a new hut, wit­hout too much poten­ti­al for envi­ron­men­tal or other con­flicts. Locals, howe­ver, see their regu­lar­ly used tour are­as com­pro­mi­sed.
• Tverrd­a­len (4), south of Advent­da­len. Away from the coast as Kre­kling­pas­set, and addi­tio­nal­ly not near the com­mon­ly used rou­tes for pri­va­te and com­mer­cial tours and wit­hout much poten­ti­al to dis­turb the local envi­ron­ment. The site is hence likely to remain in the dis­cus­sion.
• Lang­ne­set in Van Mijenfjord, bet­ween Sveagru­va and Reind­a­len (5). All state­ments are expli­ci­te­ly cri­ti­cal regar­ding this site. Van Mijenfjord is the only fjord on the west coast of Spits­ber­gen that does still free­ze during the late win­ter, at least in its inner rea­ches, as it is shel­te­red from the open sea by the island Akseløya. Hence, Van Mijenfjord is an important area for seals to give birth, and the­re seem to be seve­ral polar bears rather sta­tio­na­ry in this area, inclu­ding fema­les who use the area to give birth in snow caves. Exten­ding regu­lar tours into this area is an idea that most peo­p­le and insti­tu­ti­ons do not like. If the Sys­sel­man­nen takes the state­ments serious­ly, then this site should not have a chan­ce to remain in the dis­cus­sion.

The num­ber of per­mits that will be issued in the end is not defi­ned. In theo­ry, it might be all sites or none. In any case, the­re will be strict regu­la­ti­ons for the use of the huts: only within the con­text of orga­nis­ed tours, no addi­tio­nal traf­fic in the field and pre­fer­a­b­ly non-moto­ri­zed access etc. But some fear that it may be dif­fi­cult to con­trol how the huts are used and rela­ted tours are ope­ra­ted in prac­ti­ce, once the huts are the­re.

Also the aut­hor of this artic­le sees the estab­lish­ment of new, per­ma­nent infra­struc­tu­re in so-far lar­ge­ly untouch­ed natu­re are­as cri­ti­cal­ly. If addi­tio­nal infra­struc­tu­re is to be used in the field, then one might also opt for mobi­le solu­ti­ons that can be used sea­so­nal­ly and easi­ly be remo­ved wit­hout a trace after the sea­son. This would also make it easier to con­trol the future deve­lo­p­ment in case of unex­pec­ted, unde­si­red deve­lo­p­ments.

Source: Sys­sel­man­nen