Image: USGS
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The Yukon River is delivering upwards of five tons of mercury a year to the Arctic environment, likely in response to a warming climate, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey announced Tuesday.
The river is pumping three to 32 times more mercury into the environment than similarly sized river basins, based on limited data. And while scientists don't know the reason for the Yukon's big mercury load, they say evidence points strongly to two suspects: Melting permafrost, and the Yukon basin's unique placement as a catchment for pollution from Asia and Europe.
"What has been happening in that part of the world for the past 30 years has been unprecedented in terms of environmental pollution," said Paul Schuster, a USGS hydrologist who was the lead author of the study, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
"What we might be seeing is a combination of the release of (mercury) reserves from thawing permafrost and the more recent anthropogenic contamination."
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and takes several different forms in the environment. Methylated mercury – the type most easily absorbed and therefore harmful to food webs and humans – was found in the Yukon River but at very low levels.
The vast bulk of the Yukon's mercury load – upwards of 90 percent of what scientists measured – consists of less bio-available "particulate mercury:" mercury bound to an organic compound like carbon. Such mercury isn't as readily available to organisms, but it is important nonetheless, Schuster cautioned.
"No. 1, it's a vector by which you move mercury into the environment," he said. "And No. 2, it's an eventual source of mercury for methylation."
Mercury comes from various sources but today is released into the environment in large quantities by the burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants in Asia are one of the largest sources, accounting for 860 metric tons, according to the United Nations Environmental Program. Cement production, waste disposal and metal foundries are also major sources. The amount of mercury being ferried annually by the Yukon is one-twentieth the annual emissions from U.S. coal plants and roughly equal to emissions from U.S. iron and steel production, according to the UN.
The source of the Yukon's mercury puzzles scientists. Permafrost in the Yukon basin has been absorbing naturally occurring mercury – chiefly from volcanoes – since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Now those soils, as a result of changing climate conditions, are thawing at increased rates. That could be releasing a substantial reservoir of the metal into the marshes and streams feeding the Yukon River, the world's 19th largest river.
More recently, industrial pollution has coated the basin. Prevailing winds from Europe and Asia funnel industrial pollution, including mercury, directly to interior Alaska and the Yukon River drainage, Schuster said.
"If we had funding, we could prove this. We could determine whether this comes from coal or volcanoes. But that's very expensive," he said.
Much of what is known about mercury transport in rivers comes from studies of small streams and lakes. Data exist only on eight major river basins, Schuster said, and this was the first to look at total mercury load.
"What we can say, is that of those eight basins, the Yukon seems to be pumping out a lot more mercury," he said. "That's where we basically have to stop."
DailyClimate.org is a nonprofit news service that covers climate change. Contact editor Douglas Fischer at dfischer [at] DailyClimate.org
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add Comment"It's puzzling..." say scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So we blame it on climate change and that keeps the cheques rolling in.... and by blaming it on Climate Change SCIAM editors ensure that it gets page one exposure"
Works for me
You are misinterpreting and distorting these scientists motives. When a scientist is trying to explain something, she has to come up with a hypothesis which can then be experimentally tested. "Normal science" generally involves basing one's hypothesis on a widely accepted paradigm, for example evolution in the biological sciences, which has proven very fruitful in terms of explanatory power. In the current case this paradigm is climate change. This is nothing more than the ordinary scientific process at work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We don't really know what on earth is going on but climate change is the catchall right now so we'll attribute it to that...who knows...maybe we'll get a grant because of it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are trivializing the scientific process. Climate change is not a "catchall". It has proven very useful as a way to explain a large number of different observations regarding earth science, ecology, etc. This is no different than any other scientific paradigm, such as evolution, Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc. You can't do science in a vacuum. You have to have a conceptual framework in which to pose your hypotheses and guide your experimental investigations. Otherwise it's just blind guesswork.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, if the hypothesis is reasonable, the proposed experiments relevant and practical, the experience and expertise of the team appropriate to the problem, you might get a grant.
So,any mention the remote possibility that climate change is even partly contributing to some phenomena, we have the knee-jerk reactions from the climate change deniers jump in with their predigested rhetoric ("deniers" in the sense that no amount of evidence will convince them that human-induced climate change is even a remote possibility). This time, here, on this blog, it's the predigested words of Rick Perry, saying that the only reason climate change exists, is so that scientists can get grant money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that's it. You have it all figured out. And, oh yes, we cannot forget the other reason human-induced climate change cannot be real: God would not have given us fossil fuels to use if their use caused us harm. And so God also gave us tobacco, so it cannot cause harm either. So cancer researchers only want grant money,
So there's no way to have a discussion with people who deny something existence, a-priori.
Since the real phenomena is climate change, not simply global warming, that change --- no matter what it's source, is going to have complex, multifaceted effects. Many that might be dire. No the sky is not falling, but we need to take the science seriously. There's no room for the lug heads who deny a phenomena, simply because their favorite politician or talking radio head without a lick of sense or scientific training, uses climate change as a punchline and who think that science is the work of the devil.
Skepticism is a good thing: It drives science forward. Denying shoves us back to the dark ages.
I'm looking forward to a new Dark Age myself, as a human I have the ability to live on the Earth. I'll never be homeless. The rest of you uneducated animals can die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Yukon River also happens to drain one of the most heavily mineralized zones in the western hemisphere is not relevant I guess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut why let facts stand in the way of a good climate change story?
Excellent example of letting politics stand in the way of science. You automatically assume that climate change is the cause without knowing anything about drainage systems, geochemistry, geochemical prospecting, mineralization aureole, and the list goes on and on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I guess as an exploration geologist I'm not allowed to comment on these issues, but a Nobel Laureate in children's literature is.
Maybe I`m just stupid but considering how much consensus there is among real climate researchers any one who could find convincing evedence [real evedence] to the contrary would get big funding from goverments who find buisness as usual profitable and convienent!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin Says: And I guess as an exploration geologist...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: And I am a Ham Sandwich.
I’ll grant you that. One that has been left in the sun inside a plastic bag. Helps to explain your offensive behaviour & your denigration of your non taxpayer funded critics. It also explains your penchant for supporting porkies told by some of the warmists. If you want examples just visit one of the sites you most love to denigrate. http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it's climate change. Nothing else could explain it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for the climate change deists, stop your own knee-jerk reactions assuming that everything must be because of climate change. And read the article's oh-so-brief mention of industrialisation up-river.
Oh, and I was a little slow. I've finally read the line about the origin of this "story". "DailyClimate.org is a nonprofit news service that covers climate change".
Pushing a barrow much?
@Shoshin: Since you are an exploration geologist, please shed some light for me: do heavily mineralized zones typically contain mercury bound in carbon particulate matrix? For that matter, is saying "heavily mineralized zone" any different from saying "a substrate containing chemicals?" I thought all earth is composed of minerals which are made up of chemicals, but then I am not an exploration geologist. Please explain the distinction you are attempting to make.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you care to explain what you mean by the Yukon basin being "one of the most heavily mineralized zones in the Western Hemisphere"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can call it "automatically assuming that climate change is the cause", but I think it is more accurate to say that because climate change has been shown to be a factor in so many different aspects of earth science and ecology, it is a reasonable starting point for hypothesis building. Of course the other factors you mention would also have to be considered. But it is now well accepted that climate change is particularly pronounced in the Arctic, so one would have to consider climate change as a potential factor in any anomalous observations from this part of the globe. Keep in mind that scientists would be testing the hypothesis; it's possible that they may come up with a negative result, i.e., rule out climate change as a factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle Says: Helps to explain your offensive behaviour...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Oh, goodie another one sided demand for gentlemanly conduct from a poster who regularly eschews in said behavior.
Carlyle Says:.. & your denigration of your non taxpayer funded critics.
Carlyle Translated: Your denigration of fossil fuel and conservative think tank funded critics offends me.
I wonder why you never ever see such guardians of polite public discourse ever level such critiques at the likes of Lord Monckton-I-Falsely Claim-to-be-a-Member-of-the-House-of-Lords or Anthony Watts-It-Is-All-A-Fraud? I wonder.
Carlyle: It also explains your penchant for supporting porkies told by some of the warmists.
Trent Says: What "porkies"? Be careful not to recited blatant propaganda from the fake skeptics such as Anthony Watts who regularly engages in misinformation.
Want some examples? How these flat out lies that WUWT propagates with out a retraction:
You know like the Sunday Times having to retract the utterly bogus story about the Amazon rainforest. A story given large play on WUWT. I would normally just point you to the retraction on the paper itself but apparently it has disappeared. But you know the Internet does not forget. Here is a scan of the apology.
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/ST_Correction_img007%5B1%5D.jpg
How about the Sunday Times being forced to issue a retraction for blatantly lying about the head of the IPCC? Another piece of propaganda that blared with gusto.
Here is the Sunday Times retraction, it is still there:
Dr. Pachuri Retraction
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7957631/Dr-Pachauri-Apology.html
See that retraction on WUWT? Thought not.
Yes, everyone can see that all the people who belong to the AGW church are living saints who can never be wrong. You single out Dr-Pachauri. This is the head of the IPCC who declared that mankind was responsible for Earthquakes & Tusanamis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sure that Shoshin could answer your query but the answer is that heavily mineralised areas, particularly those having gold & silver, also often have Cinnabar, the ore of mercury. I have seen photos of these deposits where beads of mercury are being exuded from the ore. There have been many deposits of Mercury discovered in Alaska. In fact the very first reported discovery of minerals in Alaska was of Cinnabar & was made by the Russians, long before Alaska was purchased by America. If you wish to research it, mercury is also called quicksilver.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this the part where you post up a tired link to Indian Newspaper and yet seem unable to provide a video or transcript? Did you ever notice that the article provides no quotes? I have a challenge how about you go find a transcript of the speech or full length video of it.
Now about those demonstrable lies that were told about Dr. Pachauri and repeated breathlessly by Anthony Watts...
Carlyle Says: Yes, everyone can see that all the people who belong to the AGW church are living saints who can never be wrong.
Trent Says: You give good strawman.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose your hero did not write this either: Rajendra K. Pachauri, Director General of TERI & chief of the IPCC
Author: Return to Almora.
If you like your heroes so much, no doubt you would enjoy it. Others have called it sleaze. The sexual fantasies of a dirty old man.
The newspaper you insinuate would denigrate him in fact seems to dote on his every word & wrote this glowing report on his sleazy novel. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-01-23/book-mark/28113816_1_pachauri-novel-engineering-student
By the way, the article about his claim that earthquakes & tsunamis were caused by humans, was first published by his own organisation, TERI & was reproduced word for word by The Times of India, then picked up around the world. If it was false, find me a report where he refutes it.
So let me get this straight: You think a prudes judgment on the content of a novel is a debunking of the science. Can you say Ad hominem? What relevance could that possibly have to the findings of science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to remind the lurkers that to spite several intervening posts, Carlyle still refuses to address the demonstrable fact that Anthony Watts and other fake skeptics have repeatedly lied about the science.
Any lrkers as you call them, can read for themselves & make up their own minds as to the honesty of the protagonists. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Honesty also relates to not divulging source data. A favourite of those with something to hide. Take the fake IPCC claim about glaciers in India as just one example. Dr Pachauri knew the data was false but claimed he was too busy to correct the record. That is until it became a scandal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy reference to the novel was to demonstrate that the Times of India is a fan, not a protagonist where Dr-Pachauri is concerned. I sugest the lurkers as you call them realy research this mans history & ongoing sponsorships from companies & other organisations. Just what is his qualification to head the IPCC would be one good area for investigation.
At last leading scientists are admitting that the world has not been warming as predicted over the past ten years. Desperately trying to find out where their models went wrong. Try that big bright thing up in the sky for one. they are having another look, reluctantly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
Carlyle Says: Honesty also relates to not divulging source data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: What data has not been released? Name it. We know that the fake skeptics as Stephen McIntyre over at Climate Audit were screaming for data sets that they later admit they had for years
"In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004."
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/05/yamal-and-ipcc-ar4-review-comments/
Carlyle Says: Take the fake IPCC claim about glaciers in India as just one example.
Trent Says: You presume facts that are not in evidence.
Let us get this straight. In a 3000 page document in one subsection is a mistake that does not appear in the chapter summary, or the Summary for Policy Makers and you claim intentional fraud based on no primary evidence. How much more slimy can you get? Fascinating the amount of lying you lot engage in.
Carlyle Says: My reference to the novel was to demonstrate that the Times of India is a fan, not a protagonist where Dr-Pachauri is concerned.
Trent Says: That is great example of bovine scatological musings that you so often engage in.
1. It is a pretty tepid review. Take for example these passages "Throughout the novel, an intrusive and not particularly charming narrator alternates lectures on the destruction of the environment, and the value of the spiritual, with apparently trivial details."
2. I think that any lurker can see that you are again engaging in distraction tactics. You have never presented any evidence of your assertion. You have introduced an irrelevancy about the literary section of the Indian Times for goodness sakes to cover the naked truth of being incapable of providing primary evidence.
If this is something that Pachauri believes then in all of his speaking engagement you would think he would repeat it. Funny that you can find such a thing, eh?
Carlyle Says: concerned. I sugest the lurkers as you call them realy research this mans history & ongoing sponsorships from companies & other organisations.
Trent Says: Remember this?
"How about the Sunday Times being forced to issue a retraction for blatantly lying about the head of the IPCC? Another piece of propaganda that blared with gusto.
Here is the Sunday Times retraction, it is still there:
Dr. Pachuri Retraction
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7957631/Dr-Pachauri-Apology.html"
No lie to low to repeat no matter how debunked, huh?
Carlyle pay attention. This past decade was the warmest in the instrument record. You guys are suppose to now be claiming you never said that Global Warming was real. Get with the program. Your embarrassing your fellow Deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you have already digested & rejected all the information in the link I posted. Marvellous. What a brilliant mind. I bow to a superior being. The good Dr not sponsored by Toyota after all? The review was glowing by comparison to all the others I have come across. Look them up yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif we want to see the importance of water for humans we should take a look at history the first nations and civilizations started near water like the between two rivers in iraq or the nile in egypt and for understanding the bad influence of pollution on health we should see the new health disorders witch are clear and i dont want to talk about them from these statements we can see that i we humans keep on what we are doing there will not be any civilizations any more
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlye Says: So you have already digested & rejected all the information in the link I posted. Marvellous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: And once again, Carlyle proves his dishonesty and incompetence by not being the one to read the article he posted up. Typical.
Take for example this little morsel:
"Recently, working with Gerald Meehl and others, Trenberth proposed one answer. In a paper published last month, they put forward a climate model showing that decade-long pauses in temperature rise, and its attendant missing energy, could arise by the heat sinking into the deep, frigid ocean waters, more than 2,000 feet down. The team used a new model, one prepared for the next U.N. climate assessment; unlike past models, it handles the Pacific's variability well, which "seems to be important," Trenberth said."
Or how about this one?
NASA's Hansen -- it's a search for an answer that doesn't need to be solved.
That is because, according to Hansen, there is no missing energy.
"Over the past decade, for the first time, scientists have had access to reliable measures of the ocean's deep heat, down to 5,000 feet below sea level, through the Argo network, a collection of several thousand robotic probes that, every few days, float up and down through the water column. This led Hansen to conclude that net energy imbalance was, to be briefly technical, 0.6 watts per square meter, rather than more than 1 watt per square meter, as some had argued."
It is so sad that you guys are so incompetent.