Alaska's Lake Monster?: a large shark moving into fresh water could be answer

Big Foot.  Nessie.  Many regions of the world have there local monster animal legends.  Persistent folklore often invites the curiosity of scientists who wish to determine once and for all what is fact and what is fiction.  They do so because of the belief that where there's smoke there just might be fire.

In Alaska, at Lake Lliamna, there were rumors of a monster lurking about in the dark cold water. Scientists had debated the possibility that a Pacific sleeper shark, or sharks, had entered the lake. There had been anecdotal sightings of what could possibly have been a sleeper shark but there has not been any definitive, scientific proof.

This past Wednesday, a reported sighting of a sleeper shark in a similar, nearby lake has added some additional weight to the theory.  As reported in the Alaska Dispatch, "Chris Babcock of King Cove, Alaska, spotted something in the shallow water of the King Cove Lagoon, a lake of brackish water. Closer inspection revealed a Pacific sleeper shark rolling and thrashing around. The shark's antics were filmed and posted on YouTube (see video below). According to Babcock, the fish approached him when he entered shallow water, but later moved to deeper water." 

The shark's behavior was considered a bit unusual - but perhaps not.  That is to say, there is a lot that marine experts don't know about these sharks.  They can reach a length of 20 feet and weigh upwards of 4 tons.  That's a big shark by any standard.  In addition to being predators, they are thought to be major scavengers, clearing the ocean bottom of dead animals as they sink into the cold depths, but sleeper sharks caught accidentally in nets have also been found to have other freshwater fish including salmon in their stomachs.  Hence, the possibility that sleeper sharks are able to venture into freshwater or brackish lakes, perhaps drawn in by the opportunity to feed on large freshwater fish.

But how long can they survive in freshwater?  Is there a pattern or migratory cycle to their appearances in lakes?  Is it seasonal, based on weather or temperature changes, or are they following the migratory or breeding patterns of other prey species?  Scientists like Bruce Wright of the Aleutian Pribilof Island Association would like to answer those questions by tagging and tracking sleeper sharks, as is done with other shark species worldwide.

Some marine scientists think that sleeper sharks could become a major predator in Arctic waters due to climate change.  With warmer water temperatures melting greater amounts of sea ice, animals like seals and polar bears are spending more time in water.  Some caught sleeper sharks have been found to have seal and even polar bear remains inside, so this slow-moving predator - that catches its prey with a strong vacuum motion of its large mouth, biting with its teeth to get down what it couldn't swallow whole - could have an impact of the balance in the Arctic ecosystem.

Is the Pacific sleeper shark the "lake monster" of Alaskan folklore?  Seems reasonable enough.  The closely-related Greenland shark has been put forth as a candidate for Scotland's Loch Ness resident sea monster, so perhaps someday we will have definitive proof that monsters do exist.  They just might end up a bit tamer than our imaginations have conjured up over the years.

Source: Alaska Dispatch

Arctic Oil Drilling: complex issues from all sides

As a rule, I typically do not accommodate guest posts that are thinly veiled advertisements.  However, Elaine Hirsch of Online Schools did an admiral job in restraining herself and staying on point with a look at the complexity of issues surrounding oil drilling in the Arctic region.  There are a variety of environmental, logistical, and economic concerns associated with it.  Charting a sane course in the years to come, could be a tricky proposition.  

Drilling Systems May Be Online, but Not Everyone Onboard

From CNN to every environmental science class in every accredited online school, arctic drilling is part of the modern public consciousness. While many believe it is the answer to the pains caused by high energy costs, others belief it will destroy the natural beauty that still remains pristine while tucked away in the north.

On April 18, 2012, Exxon and the Russian oil company OAO Rosnef presented to New York City financiers the financial details of their 3.2 billion dollar agreement to begin drilling for oil in the Russian portions of the Arctic Ocean and Black Sea. According to a report issued by Bloomberg Media, this agreement gives Exxon the right of access to billions of barrels of oil in the Russian sectors listed above, while Rosnef receives the right to invest in oil projects in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico. In light of this agreement, of which Arctic drilling is a crucial part, it may be worthwhile to assess the costs and benefits of Arctic drilling. The controversial procedure will only be used more frequently in the future as the world’s energy needs continue to grow.

One of the primary objections to Arctic drilling is the environmental impact it may have. However, assessing this is challenging particularly because, according to the European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling, the Arctic Ocean has yet to be exhaustively studied. The amount of data scientists have, with regard to its baseline ecosystem conditions is extremely small. Additionally, because the Arctic Ocean is not well-charted, any sort of ocean Arctic drilling project (80% of oil in the Arctic has been found under water, rather than land) first needs to undergo extensive site studies for its suitability, environmental safety, and, of course, for how much oil may be present. As a result, any Arctic drilling project has high start-up costs, assuming that all environmental concerns are properly addressed. 

Additionally, drilling in the Arctic Circle poses significant challenges aside from the simple expense of assessing environmental impact. Due to its location, special consideration has to be made for workers, since the area is extremely cold and inhospitable for normal human habitation. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Arctic Circle is predominantly dark for half the year. During the deep winter months, or September to March, many locations within the Arctic Circle are dark twenty-four hours a day. Finally, much of the Arctic Circle is composed of ice, some of which melts in the summer and re-freezes in the winter, making it challenging to construct permanent drilling stations in such an environment. 

That said, according to an article published by Money Morning, due to overall global warming, some of these problems are becoming ameliorated – based on scientific evidence, the Arctic Circle is indisputably less icy and warmer than in was when records began to be kept in 1979. As a result, some areas in the lower Arctic Circle are now water year-round, and more areas have less ice less of the year. Scientists estimate that by the year 2050, there will be no permanent ice cap at the North Pole – in the summer, it will turn to liquid. This makes the job of drilling for oil far easier, and may encourage what is already becoming a scramble to the Arctic to find resources. 

As also reported by Money Morning, the advantages of pursuing oil in the Arctic are simple: not only do many countries have access to portions of the Arctic Circle, the amount of confirmed oil currently available is 240 billion barrels, spread across four hundred different locations. Moreover, further exploration promises to yield discovery of many billions of barrels more. The amount of money that can be made in such projects is staggering. 

For example, it is estimated that Russia, which is perhaps the most permissive country in allowing Arctic drilling projects, is propping up its economy with the practice. Currently, two-thirds of its exports are from oil, while one-third of its GDP is based on oil sales. Additionally, Greenland is using the prospect of Arctic oil as a method for gaining financial independence from Denmark by permitting international conglomerates to drill on its land and water. There are rumors that once Greenland becomes financially independent, it will then seek political independence from Denmark as well. Clearly then, the Arctic Ocean, as it continues to melt and it’s resources continue to be discovered, will be a major factor in further worldwide financial and political machinations.

However, not all international organizations are onboard with this behavior. As reported in a recent article run by the Guardian, Lloyd’s of London (the large London-based insurance company) warns all companies and countries to step back and consider their actions with regard to the Arctic. As most famously demonstrated by the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the environmental, financial, and political fallout from a botched extraction can be enormous. And it may be entirely more problematic in the Arctic. Lloyd’s of London notes that because of the overlapping jurisdictions of the Arctic Circle, the unclear environmental impact that a spill may have, and the presence of several ecosystems within the Arctic Circle, it is difficult to assess what the damage would be were a spill to take place, and how many countries would be affected. Moreover, were a (relatively) small company to spill, it would almost certainly be bankrupt, while a larger company would be severely hampered. Lloyd’s of London has said that the risk assessment of Arctic drilling is currently difficult to manage – meaning that obtaining insurance for drilling may currently be difficult or impossible – and that further research and study needs to be done before the process can be deemed safe. Therefore, even as more companies and countries enter the Arctic in search of oil and prosperity, the extraction process remains controversial and fraught with peril. 

Drilling in the arctic is a difficult subject to tackle as both prosperity and conservation are of paramount concern in modern society. However, keeping the debate nonpartisan and moving forward will ensure that the debate will be looked at clearly and the best decisions will be made.

Arctic Climate Change: subtle changes can have deadly impact

Scientists who have been studying the effects of climate change on Arctic sea ice, predict that, with its seasonal contraction and expansion, we can expect ice-free summers by the end of the century if not sooner. Disconcerting images of starving polar bears and proposed plans for extensive shipping through the Northwest Passage have been of major concern to environmentalists. However, researchers are studying a myriad of subtle effects that, collectively, could have a pronounced and deadly effect on the region and beyond.

Disrupted geography from melting ice that affects hunting/searching patterns is one of the leading concerns. A study recently published in Biological Conservation estimated that in the Western Hudson Bay area, there is a 3-6% starvation rate for polar bears when there is a 120-day summer fasting period. But it is estimated that with an increase to a 180-day fasting period due to increased loss of summer sea ice, the starvation rate climbs dramatically to 28-48%.

Also, the report cited female reproductivity declining in a non-linear fashion (IE: a dramatic drop) when food searching efficiency decreases faster than sea ice habitats. In other words, it doesn't not take much in the way of a changing habitat to produce a major population crash.

Another effect of climate change and the influx of warmer waters into the Arctic is a greater exposure to parasites. A study in Polar Biology looked at the increasing prevalence of Taxoplasma gondii, a potentially deadly parasite, in polar bears and seals in Norway. It is not clear whether the parasite is being transmitted by warm water invertebrates, migratory birds, or human interactions - but climate changes can bring any or all of these potential carriers into play.

Finally, researchers from several universities and NOAA reported, in the latest issue of Nature, the possibility that several marine mammal species could become extinct over time due to interbreeding brought on by climate change. Many marine mammals are unique to the Arctic because they are geographically isolated. These isolated species have adapted to life in an ice environment. With the loss of that ice, there can be an intermingling of related species moving up from the south. But, according to the researchers, this intermingling can produce hybrids that, over time, are unable to cope with the changing environment. In essence, it's not a mixing of the best qualities but that of qualities that will actually weaken their long-term chances for survival.

As stated in a Newswise release, "In later generations, the process begins to have more negative effects as genomes mix and any genes associated with environment-adapted traits are recombined. Genes related to any trait that once allowed the animal to thrive in a specific habitat can be diluted, leaving the animal less well suited to surviving and reproducing there."

As evidence, in 2006, hunters killed a polar bear with brown patches on its fur. DNA testing revealed it was a polar/grizzly bear hybrid. Such a hybrid, borne from polar and grizzly bear contact during the summer months, may have a very poor chance of survival in the Arctic winter months.

We like simple explanations to the challenges we face, but climate change has very complex and far-reaching implications. However, the more we learn about the impacts of climate change, the better we realize that it is a challenge we must address. That much is simple to comprehend.

Arctic Sea Ice: researchers prepare to monitor 2010 summer levels

We're in June now, so it's time to dig out the sun tan lotion and down parkas, right? What, no? Well, as described by ScienceNews, "While most folks are breaking out their shorts and swimsuits for a summer of play, some researchers are packing warm-weather gear for a much colder trip — to Arctic ice."

This is the time of year when Arctic researchers prepare to monitor and measure the summer sea ice, which has been in steady decline for several decades. Scientists generally agree that climate change, in the form of increasing temperatures in both the air and water, is slowly depleting the Arctic region of its year-round sheet of sea ice. The sea ice is an undulating mass that grows in the winter and shrinks in the summer, but overall, the sea ice is shrinking. The white ice normally reflects sunlight but with an increase in overall temperatures, the ice melts and exposes more dark sea water, which absorbs heat. This "feedback loop" aggravates and accelerates the problem.

In 2007, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center recorded the lowest level of summer sea ice in recorded history. But on a year-by-year basis trends can sometimes be difficult to detect. In the subsequent 2 years, late summer weather changes produced more sea ice than the record low of 2007. But each year has still been below the mean average and the trend is still moving downward.

According to SEARCH (Study of Environmental Arctic Change), "In fall of 2009, the area of second-year sea ice [ice that has remained from one season to the next] has increased relative to 2007 and 2008. However, the arctic ice pack remains substantially younger, thinner, and more mobile than prior to 2005. The long-term trend in summer sea ice extent is still downward. Furthermore, the rate of refreezing at the end of October is less than in 2007."

As of right now, the sea ice level for May was close to the lowest ever recorded for that time of year. But scientists will be monitoring it closely and if any months experience an extended cold snap, the summer sea ice could put up a fight to stay around.

But the big picture still remains unchanged - a steady decline that is a "canary in the coalmine" indication that climate change is real and has been unusually rapid - more so than can be attributed to a natural cyclical pattern.

Read ScienceNews article.

Alaska & Arctic Oil Drilling: moves of protest within government

While many conservation groups bemoaned the recent U.S. administration's announcement of oil drilling, all is not lost. The proposed strategy, which included areas in Alaska and the Arctic, has led many to either believe that President Obama is back-tracking on campaign promises or that (as I believe) he is compromising in an attempt to gain bipartisan support for future climate and energy legislation.

However, while conservation groups are initiating email and letter write-in campaigns to voice their protest, there are significant wheels in government that are turning that could also make a difference. Here is an excerpt from an article from Los Angeles Times writer Kim Murphy about various actions which we should be watching:

What's next for oil in the Alaskan Arctic?

"Just because the Obama administration has finally settled on its strategy for offshore oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf, don't think the issue of what happens in the Alaskan Arctic is settled -- far from it.

Already, lots of new developments are underway. New briefs have been filed in the attempt to stop Shell Offshore Inc.'s plan to drill exploration wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas; a new Government Accountability Office report criticizes the Minerals Management Agency in Alaska for how it conducts its environmental reviews; and now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is turning attention back to the classic battleground over Arctic oil, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The agency announced it is beginning its first update in more than two decades of the conservation plan for the 19.2-million-acre refuge that lies west of the Prudhoe Bay oilfields on Alaska's North Slope -- home to grizzly bears, moose, wolverines, Dall sheep, birds, a massive herd of caribou and, if you're feeling optimistic, as much as 10.4 billion barrels of oil.

About 8 million acres of the refuge already are protected as wilderness. The new study could recommend additional areas for wilderness protection (read: no oil drilling, ever) including, conceivably, the so-called 1002 area of the coastal plain designated by Congress to study for possible oil development.

'There are no avenues of discussion closed off to the public,' Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Bruce Woods said."

Read the entire article to learn who, within government, is supporting the protection of the Alaskan/Arctic wilderness and what is going on behind the headlines.

Polar Bears: PSA's bring message to over 90 million

I'm sure that all of the readers of this blog are aware of the threats polar bears are facing with the decline of arctic sea ice. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has pressed the issue not only through legal and decision-making channels but also through the media.

Much attention is being placed nowadays on "new media" which includes avenues like blogs and other social media and online sites. They are certainly coming into their own, but good public relations strategy incorporates all media channels - and that includes "traditional media" (believe or not, but not all people get their news and information from the Internet; I know, shocking but true).

The Center for Biological Diversity, with the help of media supporters, produced two public service announcements about polar bears for television that have, to date, reached over 90 million viewers. Here's CBD's commentary, followed by one of the two ads:

Save the polar bear? We’re doing it. Not just in court and in the papers — also in the homes of millions of people across the country. Our polar bear TV ads, showing the stark reality of warming’s effects on the bear and its habitat, have educated 90.7 million and counting, in both English and Spanish, from Alaska to New York to Arizona. Since launching, the ads have ranked 13th most popular of all public service announcements nationwide, creating the groundswell of public fervor that helped us deliver 94,000 petitions telling the Obama administration we won’t let climate change doom our polar bears, planet, and selves.



You can check out both ads and learn more about what you can do by clicking here.

Bycatch, Arctic Ice, Methlymercury: still issues to keep an eye on

Seaweb.org recently released some interesting ocean conservation news - a bit of a mixed bag really.

The U.S. has been making some marked improvement in regulating the level of bycatch by commercial fishing operations. Bycatch is a critical issue in ocean conservation as it represents millions of tons of wasted sealife, from the loss of marine mammals, sharks, and turtles in longline nets to the "scorched earth" effect exhibited in shrimp harvesting techniques. Through the application of four different regulatory laws or agencies (the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act), the level of bycatch is being federally monitored and managed through the use of government observers.

One major issue though is the problem of having four different pieces of regulatory legislation, each with its own focus or emphasis on a particular situation or species. Involving this many cooks makes it difficult to get a more unifying and holistic approach to the entire issue. A recent report issued by Duke University's Marine Laboratory cited an approach by NOAA to establish a single set of regulations in 2006 for the Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries that proved to be a promising model and suggests that a review of existing regulations to develop a more cohesive strategy should be undertaken.

I had the opportunity to fly over the Northwest Passage in 2007 and see for myself the shrinking summer sea ice that had reached its lowest level in recorded history that year. As one could expect, there was a lot of alarming news coverage predicting an ice-free Northwest Passage within a few decades. Many computer models predicted the Arctic would lose its summer sea ice by 2080. But according to research by UCLA's Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Department, many of those models relied on ice data that reflected a gradual decline, but did not include the data from recent ice levels.

With the growing awareness of the feedback effect of melting ice (exposing more heat-absorbing ocean to sunlight, thereby accelerating the melting process), the department's revised computer models move the clock forward by almost 20 years wherein we will be faced with an Arctic region devoid of most, if not all of its, summer sea ice - a monumental ringing of the alarm bell that global warming is now upon us.

Methylmercury - that dangerous party favor that lies within much of the seafood we consume - must share its host fish with the more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. Can a risk/benefit analysis determine which seafood would be more or less safe depending on species and frequency of consumption? This was the question that was studied recently and reported in Environmental Health Perspectives. The results of the study were not definitive but suggested that such a matrix could be developed. The report noted that farmed salmon, herring, and trout had a significant higher benefit vs. risk based on levels of methylmercury and omega-3 fatty acids. The opposite was true for swordfish and shark. Flounder and canned light tuna had a small benefit, while canned white tuna and halibut had a small risk.

While the elimination of all methylmercury should be our ongoing focus, such a risk/benefit analysis matrix would be helpful in dealing with current seafood stocks, since methylymercury is retained in the tissues and would be present in many species for some time in the future.

The Arctic Continues To Melt: AMAP report confirms rapid advance

The latest report from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) confirms what other scientific agencies have been saying, that the Arctic ice is melting at a rate faster than previously thought. Previous scientific models are not keeping up with the rapid changes taking place due to the feedback effect (when warmer temperatures melt ice that exposes dark water which absorbs sunlight and therefore warms the water even more), complicated by the influx of warmer water currents as climate change begins to impact the temperature/current relationships in the oceans.

I had the opportunity to see and film firsthand the 2007 summer sea ice that had reached its lowest level that year in recorded history. It was impressive to see until you realized that the ice floes and floating shards were supposed to be one solid sheet of impenetrable ice. The following year, even with a cooler spring, produced the second lowest level.



The AMAP report, Update on Selected Climate Issues of Concern, noted the need for improved models (a subject I mentioned in an earlier posting) to determine the long-term impact of negative and potential positive effects. As an example, will the newly exposed seas increase plankton growth which can absorb more carbon (a positive) be offset by the loss of marine life, including plankton, due to the influx of more fresh water from melting ice (a negative) or vice-versa?

One thing is certain: whether you watch the summer ice in the Northwest Passage or the reduction of ice in Greenland, climate change is a real growing threat and must be addressed. Nature won't wait while the decision-makers muddle it over.

Marine Life & Climate Change: possible species invasion & extinction

Seaweb.org recently reported on a study published in the journal Fish and Fisheries which provided projections as to marine species invasion and extinction due to climate change, specifically the increasing ocean temperatures. The projections were based on climate change models including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The results of William Cheung and his colleagues at Canada's University of British Columbia were also presented at a recent Chicago meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

What the report postulated was that with increasing ocean temperatures, many marine species would migrate towards the temperate to sub-polar regions. Extinctions would occur in tropical regions because of a species inability to migrate, while species in colder waters would be faced with both the same negative impact due to temperature increase plus the impact of invasive species (increased predation and competition). Semi-closed bodies of water (ex: the Mediterranean, the Red Sea), could experience high levels of extinction because of the species' inability to migrate due to geography.

The study pointed out the rate of extinction would be much lower than for terrestrial animals, the theory being that marine animals have a higher dispersal ability and can more easily migrate to suitable habitats. However, the impact by and to human populations can also enter into all of this in the form of decreased fishing in low income tropical economies - economies that depend on seafood on a very basic subsistence level, and in decreased fish populations in colder waters due to industrialized fishing for moderate to high income economies.

We often look to the Arctic and Antarctic for critical signs of climate change, indicators of profound changes. But we must realize it is a worldwide change which challenges all of nature, including man, on many different levels.

Arctic Methane: from theory to harsh reality

In mid-December of last year, I posted information regarding the potential for climate change in the Arctic to allow for the release of possibly vast amounts of methane gas from warming permafrost. The info came from scientific and academic journal articles and posed a serious but little publicized consequence of global warming.

It looks like the issue caught the eye of mainstream media with an article in last Sunday's edition of the Los Angeles Times. What caught the attention of the Times was research taking place in Alaska and Siberia that documents the actual effect that was once theorized.

Melting permafrost is producing sinkholes that fill with water and rapidly become ponds which ultimately merge into small lakes. In these bodies of water organic matter decomposes and releases methane - a greenhouse gas considered to be more potent than many of the other gases, like CO2, that are typically known to the public. Scientists have found streams of methane bubbles emanating from these lakes and have actually been able to ignite these bubbles streams to form a "methane flare."

The extant of the impact of Arctic methane gas is not completely clear at this time, so research will continue in Alaska and Siberia, funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. But Alaskans have seen the effect of warming permafrost with houses collapsing and trees falling from softened soil. It has been estimated that repairs to affected schools, roads and bridges will cost $6 billion over the next two decades.

In December, I described the issue as a potential land mine right under our feet. It may becoming harder to watch where we step. Time to act.

Click here for online L.A. Times article and excellent video.