Is the infrastructure of the Arctic endangered?

Question

Concerns associated with permafrost warming and degradation, coastal erosion, the stability and maintenance of transportation routes, and industrial development may indicate that the issue is more of an economic one than a technological one. In areas of warm, discontinuous permafrost, it is challenging to find economic solutions to address he impacts of climate change on foundations or structures.

Thinner, less extensive sea ice is very likely to improve navigation conditions along most northern shipping routes, such as Canada’s Northwest Passage and Russia’s Northern Sea Route. However, decreasing sea- ice extent and thickness is very likely to affect traditional winter travel and hunting where sea ice has been used for these purposes.

Projected increases in temperature, precipitation, and storm magnitude and frequency are very likely to increase the frequency of avalanches and landslides.

Is the average American aware of these issues? Can they see the relevance?

Answer 1

NO the energy is not there.

Answer 2

In a word, no.  The arctic sea ice is thickening again per the normal cycle.  As for the predicted weather changes, they are based on models that can't even replicate past conditions so I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Answer 3

For who, the Inuit??

Traditional, migratory hunting routes do not constitute "infrastructure".  I'm pretty sure the bans on baby seal fur and ivory scrimshaw harmed the arctic industry more than global warming ever will.

Answer 4

Yes, and what a wonderful question.  I guess the biggest deal besides the icecaps themselves is the permafrost.  In Canada, Alaska and Siberia they are scrambling to rebuild everything from telephone poles to towns as the ground they're built on has become unstable.  It's been suggested that we could/are seeing huge releases of methane, as most of the permafrost is former wetlends.  The rate at which frozen paleontological and archaeological finds are being released is increasing beyond our ability to deal with it.

I think what has thrown everybody a curve on this is the polar cap melting so much faster than predicted.  It had been assumed it would just melt around the edges and continue to move toward the ocean at a few inches per year.  Instead, as I'm sure you know, it began to detach from bedrock and now is essentially floating on a thin layer of water.  That lets the ice move hundreds of feet toward the ocean every day.  It makes sense, but no one expected it.

I expect we'll see the same things in the Antarctic in a few years when the rest of the two Ice Shelves finishes melting.  There are these "streamers" that are sort of like rivers in the ice that convey ice from deep in the interior to each of the two giant bays or gulfs where the ice shelves are.  Right now they flow at around 1000 feet per year, but the ice shelves are a natural barrier, so they just kind of pile up when they reach the ocean.  When the ice shelves are gone they will be unimpeded and should begin moving ice from the interior at a much higher rate, very much like what's going on in Greenland right now.  The ice in the west is much thinner than the east, and the land slopes toward the sea.  In the east you have a giant plateau, and the ice is miles thick.  I doubt we'll see serious melting at the eastern coastline any time soon.  Rather, I'm expecting it to keep on melting in the west until the whole western half of the continent is ice free.  We know the continent was once tropical, back when it was part of pangea.  It's been under the ice since then, so we know much less about what's under there than in the north.

The other major "infrastructure" feature in the Antarctic is that the two huge cold ocean currents that cool India and northeast asia originate under the ice shelves.  When the ice shelves are gone, they will be gone too.  Besides the effects on those areas, the currents are part of the global "conveyor", so who knows what else will be affected.

Answer 5

Do you know what infrastructure means?

Answer 6

Right now the ice at the Arctic is thicker than normal and the area is just about normal levels.

The winter months just ended, but it's still far below freezing now, so the ice is still gaining.

There will probably be less ice melt this year as compared to other years.

Answer 7

Oh, you silly naysayers... your dogma is tired and poorly crafted.  Check it.  Your own beloved Fox News reports:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3516...

Now click on the "Natural Science" link and read the latest headlines.  Oh sorry, it's about science so it would probably offend you all.

Answer 8

The warming arctic may present a hazard that may make infrastructure almost irrelevant.

We are starting to see release of methane as a much more significant question. If significant volumes of methane are released, they can kill all animal life in the  vicinity. We would be avoiding the Arctic areas for fear of being there at a time when a cloud of methane covers the area we are in. No need for infrastructure.

But yes, a lot of deep frozen roads have to be replaced by air flotation vehicles. (Hovercraft)

Buildings set on permafrost my have to be moved to some place that has rock, but that is rarely anywhere close to where they are. We can not even imagine how risky it would be to leave a house on those flat lands if they are emitting methane.