2024 Arctic Report Card is Here

I’ve been a no-show at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall meeting last few years – partially due to Covid concerns, partially due to funding issues.
The Arctic Report card is always much anticipated, as painful as the updates have become.

NBC News:

The Arctic just experienced its second-hottest year on record. And concerningly, the region’s tundra has transitioned from being a sink for carbon to a source of emissions as permafrost melts to release methane. 

That will only amplify the amount of heat-trapping gases that enter the atmosphere, paving the way for further warming. 

The findings, shared Tuesday in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Arctic report card, show how climate change is scrambling ecosystems and shape-shifting the landscape in the part of the planet where global warming is most intense.

Considered a bellwether region for the effects of climate change, the Arctic is heating up far faster than places at lower altitudes — two to four times as quickly, depending on the baselines scientists use for comparison and which geography they include in assessments. The last nine years in the Arctic have all had the highest average temperatures recorded since 1900. 

That dynamic is the result of a phenomenon called Arctic amplification. As the Arctic loses snow cover and sea ice, more dark-colored ocean water and rock emerge. Those dark surfaces reflect less radiation back to space, absorbing heat, instead. In addition, patterns of circulation in the oceans and the atmosphere are increasingly transporting heat toward the Earth’s poles. 

Together, that means the Arctic is a fundamentally different place from what it was just 10 years ago, said the lead editor of the new NOAA report, Twila Moon, deputy lead scientist and science communication liaison at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

“The Arctic is in sort of a new regime, not a new normal, of course, but it’s decidedly different than it was even just a couple of decades ago,” she said.

Overall, the Arctic is becoming a greener landscape with more extreme precipitation and less snow and ice, according to the report. The effects of that transformation are increasingly apparent closer to American homes, as fires in the Arctic send smoke to populated areas and as melting ice raises sea levels, scientists said.

“These issues are not not just staying in the Arctic, right — they’re impacting all of us,” said Brendan Rogers, an associate scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, who studies permafrost and contributed to the report.  

This year’s report includes a detailed accounting of how the carbon cycle is changing in the Arctic. Scientists have been closely watching what happens when permafrost melts, releasing potent greenhouse gases as it thaws and decomposes.

“The permafrost region contains about twice as much carbon as is in the atmosphere now and about three times as much carbon as in the aboveground biomass of all the world’s forests, so it’s a lot of carbon that’s at stake here,” Rogers said.

He added that permafrost regions have “been carbon sinks for millennia, on average, largely because of cold temperatures and frozen soils.” A carbon sink, by definition, absorbs and captures more carbon dioxide than it releases. But now, Rogers said, such regions have instead become a source of greenhouse gas emissions as they thaw and release that carbon and methane into the atmosphere. 

Wildfires are also contributing to Arctic emissions. Last year, wildfires burned more than twice as much area in the region as in any previous year — exceeding the emissions from Canada’s economic activity. 

“It’s roughly three times the amount from all other Canadian sectors,” Rogers said of Canada’s total wildfire emissions. “It’s higher than in any other country’s annual emissions except for China, the U.S., India and Russia.” 

Wildfire forced the evacuation of Yellowknife, the capital of Canada’s Northwest Territories, last year. About 19,000 people had to flee the city, which is in an area with discontinuous permafrost.   

Temperature records are organized by Arctic water year, so the most recent one ran from October 2023 through September 2024. Every September, scientists measure the extent of Arctic sea ice at its seasonal minimum. 

This year, sea ice was the sixth-lowest in the 45 years since satellites began measuring; sea ice extents have decreased about 50% since the 1980s. Meanwhile, the Arctic tundra was the second-greenest since records began in 2000, indicating that more shrubs had taken root and expanded into new terrain. 

Measurements of Arctic permafrost, which are taken from boreholes drilled below the surface, had higher average temperatures than in all but one previous year. 

“There are many metrics in which we’re just seeing this consistently extreme and near extreme,” Moon said

6 thoughts on “2024 Arctic Report Card is Here”


  1. So why isn’t there more of a push to increase clean aerosol albedo, and allot serious research money to this end now, since we we’ve been doing that with the worst of air pollution for centuries anyway? We know temperature are going to continue to climb and we know this threatens opening up the methane bomb, so I would think more environmentalists would get on board supporting atmospheric research for the purposes of temperature mitigation sooner than later. But I’m not seeing much (maybe I’m just looking in the wrong places). The issue tends to receive more end-of-days coverage and is almost always called ‘geoengineering’ which has a strong but widely distributed negative correlation to trust… which seems quite purposeful not just by media but by those scientists and their organizations who are trying to get countries and industries to reduce greenhouse emissions as if it were a zero sum competition between either reduction of greenhouse gases or implementing atmospheric albedo. The situation seems to clearly indicate both as essential.


      1. The problem with so much of the gee-whiz suggestions for “geoengineering” is that they’re pushed by bold visionaries and theoreticians without the practical input from about engineering issues or political pushback. Why research an expensive technique when implementing it would require paying for, say, the developing, programming and manufacturing a half a million drones for a limited reduction in warming.

        In contrast, the people on real-world proof-of-concept research projects know that there’s a huge jump from initial results to scaling them up planetwide.


    1. So why is there not more a push to cease using fossils for energy and utility materials ? we have known for a long time it is necessary to ensure a healthy future, and enough people have been communicating that fact loudly. Tell me why ? Geoengineering can be a very dangerous path to rely on to get us out of this trap we have fallen in, and continued greed keeps us from climbing out.

      “We are excited about the results of the Ewing Bank 953 well. The well logged better than expected rock properties, which we believe should lead to a robust initial flow rate.”

      https://www.earth.com/news/jaw-dropping-deep-sea-oil-find-talos-energy-sparks-global-anxiety/


    2. “So why isn’t there more of a push to increase clean aerosol albedo…and allot serious research money?”

      That’s putting the cart before the horse. There shouldn’t be a “push” before there’s good research in favor of it.

      I’m sure there are plenty of grants available for various aspects of the research. We (OK, the researchers) already know that it’s a complex domain (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52255-z).

      There is, of course, at least one journal dedicated to aerosol research:

      https://www.aerosol-research.net/

      [BTW, the downside of cooling without reducing atmospheric CO2 is faster ocean acidification, as cooler water more readily absorbs CO2 in the form of carbonic acid.]

Leave a Reply

Discover more from This is Not Cool

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading