Interview with IPCC scientist Geir Ottersen

I was so lucky that I got to interview climate and marine scientist Geir Ottersen from the Institute of Marine Research. In 2019, he was one of the main authors in the IPCC Special report on the oceans and cryosphere, in the chapter “Polar Regions”.

IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate

Following are some highlights from our conversation; how did you work on your chapter “Polar regions”? Were you out in the field?

- No, I was not in the field when I worked on this chapter. Scientists are actually not allowed to do new research when working on these reports. But the research has to be reliable. It is a long process to be chosen as a main author in the IPCC. You get a list of different points to include in the report. There are scientists at the IPCC who works on this full time, but for every new report, there are new scientists who come in each time. The topic of “ocean” is fairly new in the IPCC reports, it was first included in the AR5.

What made you interested in climate and the environment and why did you want to do research on this?

Image of Geir Ottersen, from the IMR

- There are some coincidences, for example the fact that I am from the Westcoast of Norway, means that I had a relationship with the ocean and fish, but I did not consider it as a career path before I started working at the Institute of Marine Research. The interest developed gradually in the 90s.

What are you working on at the moment?

- Comprehensive management plans for particularly vulnerable areas in the ocean. We are working towards a new paper to the Norwegian Parliament about the joint effect of different stressors to the particularly vulnerable areas. I am also in the finishing phases of EU-project, where I am charing a part of it. It is called INTAROS - The INTegrated ARctic Observation System*. Weather observations has been a part of the project, using satellites, we are also counting fish and use buoys that stand still to do continuous measurements, but there is a problem with the ice that can cause them to break.

One of the achievements when working on the comprehensive management plans was re-routing of ship traffic, where we recommended that ships that travel long distance routes outside the Norwegian coastline should take a wider circle around the coast. This has to do with the environmental impact it could cause Norway’s coastline if something went wrong. IMO, the International Maritime Organisation, supported this and it was implemented.

What has surprised you the most when working on the IPCC report?

- I was surprised by the glaciological numbers of just how much water that melted from Greenland and the Antarctic. It is hard to estimate how much that will melt, but the effect this has on sea level rise over time scares me.

Illustration from the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate of the poles

Illustration from the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate of the polar regions. According to the newest science available, we could be headed for a sea level rise of 80 centimeters by the year 2100.

…

A week has passed since the interview was conducted, but I still reflect over what Geir said. I find it inspiring that policy makers were listening to environmental advice. The decision of taking a longer route for the long distance marine traffic is one way of safeguarding our coastline. In the climate and environmental movement, there is always room for more wins. This makes it all the more uplifting when climate advice is actually listened to and made into policy. This should be the case in more areas concerning our climate and environment.

I thank Geir Ottersen for the interesting interview, and for helping spread knowledge on the state of the Earth and our oceans.

* According to their website, it is a “European Commission project aiming to help build an efficient integrated Arctic Observation System (iAOS) by extending, improving and unifying existing systems in the different regions of the Arctic”

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

Never have I read a more clearly written IPCC report, and never have the scientists behind it been more direct in their plead. Every aspect of what we do to planet Earth matters, be it positive or negative, but what we must realise is that it is all connected and it matters.

In the latest IPCC report, which is the newest climate research available, the scientists are doing their best to have clear formulations and models to show us the current state of our joint home, and give us prospects of what is to come. I find that this report is very reader-friendly, but regardless, I will try to highlight some of the main aspects and also draw attention to how we can understand some of the illustrations.

In this first model, we can see in circle (a) the way the red arrows representing climate change are negatively impacting human society and ecosystems including biodiversity. But we are also given another option, circle (b) which shows us the way to climate resilient development and ecosystem and planetary health. A key outtake here is that when we restore nature and aid biodiversity, it directly impacts both human health, well being, equity and justice to the planet. Images like this is trying to help us understand how interconnected it all really is, and that we can not have one without the other.

In this model (a), the scientists aim is to communicate the level of probability that climate change will impact the different regions of the world and their resources. This is illustrated and explained with the colour coordinates to the right in the image, where dark blue indicates high or very high confidence that climate change will impact for example species living on land in Africa (see the grey headlines at the top). In the second model (b) a minus sign indicates more negative consequences for example see the first row with Africa and water scarcity. This way, when you follow the different columns horizontally, it becomes evident that all aspects of human life as we know it will be affected by climate change, from mental health to displacement of people.

Personally, I find that this clear language makes it just all the more evident that climate considerations needs to be at the foundation for every decision made, be it from politicians or house builders, because every little or small action will have a massive impact on a global scale. It already matters, but the significance of what we do today will increase tenfold. Which is clearly illustrated by this next image:

The horisontal line of this model (a) shows a timeline at the bottom stating the years passing. The vertical line shows the temperature rise. The different colour codes shows the very likely range of temperature rise. To understand the rest of these models (b),(c),(d) and (e), you have to look at the same vertical temperature line and read both the heading and the text at the bottom. For example model (b) shows us a coloured graph of impacts and risk of global warming assuming low or no adaptation to mitigate. You can read the coloured graph from white (undetectable), to yellow (moderate), to red (high) to purple (very high). You can then follow the different temperature rise and read for example that at 2 degrees temperature rise, there will be a very high risk to unique and threatened systems.

This last model is a picture of hope. Even though this model illustrates a path that we have already made more difficult for us to achieve, (see the “missed opportunity” line at the top), it is still possible to achieve the 1,5 degree target goal, and with it be on the path to a climate resilient future. But the model clearly states that the way to this future is by taking into account all the steps of ecosystem stewardship, equity and injustice, inclusion and knowledge diversity into all decisions being made. This is truly key for us to end up at the scenario to the top right with well being, low poverty, ecosystem health, equity and justice, low global warming levels and low risks.

The climate literature is now very clear - we adapt right now, not in 10 years time, because this coming decade will determine how the future on planet Earth will be. Most of us is not climate scientists, but all of us still have a way to make an impact in each of our communities, be it at your school, your workplace, at national level with elections or in your personal life. The sum of all the decisions we take will impact how the graph is pointing. It is not a matter of which actions to take, we must take all the right actions at this point in time. The luxury of time has passed us. It is up to all of us to make the right decisions for the climate.

Source: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

IPCC report and Norwegian climate election

This week, the IPCC published the first part of the Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. The findings are alarming. The photo I have included shows our world at different temperature scenarios.

As you can see from both the 1,5, 2 and 4 C temperature rise - the warming will be more severe at the poles. It is already known that due to the albedo effect, warming of the poles will increase global warming, as the white surface reflect more heat than dark melted waters.

LUCKILY - at least in Norway, there is going to be a national election on the 13th of September. It is vital that we vote in politicians who take this report seriously and understand the consequences of a warming world.

It is necessary for the world to abandon fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas. Norway is an oil and gas producing nation, that needs to turn of the oil tap and invest more in greener jobs. See the second and third picture from Our World in Data.

The report also states that we still have time - but we need to act now. Not in 15 years and not in 30, but right now. Now is the time to start making the right decisions for our common Earth. We already have the knowledge of what needs to be done. What we lack is political leadership and will to make it happen. So please, if you are Norwegian, please vote for our Earth this election. This is the time for good decisions.

Statsbudsjettet ignorerer klimakrisen

I dag kom Statsbudsjettet og der @unfccc anbefalte 40 prosent utslippskutt av klimagass svarte Norge og @regjeringen med svake 12 prosent. Det er til å bli alvorlig bekymret av. Det virker overhode ikke som de tar klimaengasjementet til folket og @fridaysforfuture og #skolestreikforklimaet #klimastreik på alvor.

Hadde de tatt @ipcc s siste rapporter på alvor, der de beskriver hvordan polene våre varmes opp raskere enn det forskerne trodde og hvordan dette akselererer oppvarming generelt av kloden, hadde de tatt dette alvorlig ville ikke dette vært den samme regjeringen som har satt rekord i utdeling av oljekonsesjoner og fortsetter å tro på fossileventyret.

Nettopp derfor er det så viktig at vi ikke gir opp, at vi fortsetter på alle tenkelige måter, med #klimastreik og alle andre tiltak! For å gi opp og resignere er ikke et alternativ! 🌏💚 Dette er så lett å forstå, at vi kan ikke fortsette å koke kloden -> 🔥🌏 ingen ønsker det scenarioet. Derfor må vi fortsette å fortelle og forklare de som skal være våre folkevalgte at en ulevelig klode er ikke den fremtiden vi ønsker! 🌱

Også; hvis du blir handlingslammet eller klimadeprimert av så dårlige nyheter som dagens statsbudsjett så er motgiften handling!💪💚🌏 Finn ut hvordan du best kan hjelpe, engasjer deg, og ikke gi opp! For 12 prosent utslippskutt er rett og slett for dårlig!

Final results and conclusions!

3.12 Current oil spill recovery systems for oil in ice

A study done in Canada by Look North named ‘Oil Spill Detection and Modelling in Hudson and Davis Straits’ (2014) summarizes how in most oil spill models available, sea ice is not a factor, and for the studies where it is added, the risks are down-played and over-simplified. There is a good body of knowledge on how to retrieve oil in tempered water, but limited on how oil behaves in cold water. The field research on Arctic oil spill is also limited, and a knowledge gap remains connected to the challenges surrounding ice.

3.13 Oil spill surveillance in Arctic waters

The SINTEF report ‘The Utilization of Satellite Images for the Oil in Ice Experiment in the Barents Sea, May 2009’, funded by the 6 oil companies; Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni Agip Kco, Statoil, Shell and Total, describe how a combination of aerial and satellite surveillance has become the preferred method for monitoring off shore areas where an oil spill could occur in open waters. The aim was to test if the same conditions applied for the Barents Sea. This report was the outcome of a joint industry program with the aim to learn more about how oil behaves in ice covered waters. After several tests where oil was spilt under controlled conditions it was found that if the ice density was higher than 40%, it was impossible to trace an oil spill that had occurred under the ice with the current satellite monitoring. This caused concern as this means that it is not only no oil spill recovery system that is currently available that would be able to collect spilled oil, but an oil spill will neither be possible to spot, as the concentration of ice in the Barents Sea can be over 40% all year around, and with most of the year it is a certainty that it will be frozen near the Polar Front and the Ice Edge. 

4.0 Results and Analysis

This chapter aims at drawing conclusions from the main body of data and analyzes the findings from the case study in light of the literature review. 

4.1 Implications of Research Findings

In question 5 of the case study when I asked ‘Has anyone informed specifically about the risks of an oil spill for you who live close to the South-East Barents Sea?’ and the unanimous answer was ‘No’ could be an indicator towards that the Coastal Sámi I interviewed could have received such information from the Sámi Parliament, but this dissertation claims that even the Sámi Parliament can not have been given adequate information on this, as there are no scientific solutions on how to treat an oil spill in ice covered waters. This breaks with The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that Norway has signed on the ‘Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent’. 

4.2 Conclusions

When treating land and sea resources where indigenous communities are involved it is necessary to meet the indigenous on their terms. The ocean holds a great value to the Coastal Sámi inhabitants, both as the primary source of food, but with a strong sense of identity being connected to the continuous living near the ocean. The planned oil activity in the South-East Barents Sea will pose a threat already under safe practice, as the seismic shooting the Norwegian oil industry uses in order to locate oil wells have a negative effect on larvae and fry that are to spend the first part of their lives in these areas. Among a limited amount of research on the effects on other fish species than cod and larger sea mammals from seismic shooting, there is still not a finished mapping of the sea bottom, which makes it impossible to predict further consequences of the marine life before 2020 when the sea bottom report is estimated to be finished. Large scale oil spill recovery test were made in the Barents Sea on a joint program by 6 oil companies that own oil concessions in the Arctic to test if the methods they had developed could be used in cleaning oil from ice covered waters. The results concluded that they had learnt a great deal from the experiments, but there are still many insecurities, both regarding how the oil changes and behaves in such cold waters, but the greatest gap in knowledge remains on how to extract oil that is trapped under or between the ice. The part of the oil spill program that regarded monitoring of oil under ice concluded that a higher ice density than 40% makes it impossible to spot the oil from under the ice when satellite monitoring is used, which is the preferred method for detecting oil spills in open waters. 

4.2.1 Recommendations based on key findings

Based on the key findings from both the case study and the literature review this dissertation recommends to decision makers, in this case the state of Norway: 

1. An Arctic Legal Treaty should be drawn up specifically regarding the topic of how natural resources in and around the sea should be distributed between the Sámi population and the non-indigenous population of Norway. 
2. As the sea bottom of the Barents Sea is currently being mapped by Mareano, and this report is estimated to be finalized in 2020, this dissertation recommends that no oil license allocations are made before this process is finalized so marine habitat can be preserved and important natural values will be saved.
3. The IPCC estimates that the climate emissions needs to decrease 85% within 2050, and 40% within 2020 in order to avoid a temperature increase on more than 2 degrees celsius, and in order for Norway to achieve this, who has set out to reduced their national emissions with 20% within 2020, even Statoil's manager Helge Lund has said that it is a necessary to leave some of the oil reservoirs unexplored. This dissertation recommend that these areas are the South-East Barents Sea areas. 

4.3 Literature and methodological discussion

The literature of this dissertation was gathered in the request of highlighting as broadly as possible how Arctic oil drilling is a new policy step for Norway as an oil nation, and how prior knowledge from more southern latitudes will not be sufficient to safely drill for oil in the Arctic regions of Norway. The aim was to highlight the Coastal Sámi’s perspective on the consequences of an oil spill in their close environment. My chosen method was to contact Coastal Sámis as individual persons, not the organizations that represent them. The organizations were contacted, but only to ask if members were willing to participate. This might have been a flaw of the study, and more politically engaged members of the Sámi community could maybe have been a part of the study if they spoke on behalf of their organizations. Another methodological concern is the decision to not consult ‘experts’ from outside the Sámi community. The study could have been broadened by adding a closer perspective from academics working on issues concerning Sámi rights. Additional depth could have been gained if glaciologists and biologists who specialize in how oil affects the nature were consulted directly, and not only through academic sources. However, from the case study that was executed the answers served a great purpose of highlighting the same concerns that the scientific community raises.