My first day in Spitsbergen brought a very special highlight. I was fortunate enough to come on a day that coincides with a visit by Professor Roland von Bothmer from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, who also looks after public relations for the SVALBARD SEED VAULT.

You may vaguely remember hearing about this when it was set up in 2008, with the aim of storing samples of food seeds from all over the globe under super-safe conditions, deep under the permafrost of Svalbard.

You may also have heard of some damage to the entrance to the vault because of permafrost melting. Was climate change already threatening the very facility that should help ensure food security no matter what changes – climatic or otherwise – endanger the planet?
No way, says Prof. von Bothmer. The damage to the entrance to the tunnel which leads down to the subterranean vault has no effect on the operation of the vault itself, he says, and the reason for building this facility this far north and under this permafrost, is still valid. It’s thought to be one of the safest places on the planet, even in a rapidly warming world.

Access to the vault is very strictly controlled.

Human warmth affects the temperature inside. So there are only a few visits a year, often with visiting heads of state or the UN, as with the case last year. And very occasionally, a visiting journalist.
Professor von Bothmer is a man who loves his work and is dedicated to it. He has collected seed samples all over the world himself and considers himself very lucky to be involved in the Svalbard Seed Vault project, in a way the highlight of his professional activities to date. The idea of protecting crop diversity in a world where for one reason or another species are dying at an alarming rate, is one that inspires him.
The tunnel entrance is high above Svalbard airport. It’s cold outside today, but he warned me it would be much colder where we were going. We went into the entrance tunnel, where workmen are carrying out some maintenance and repair work. Then we went into the warmer “master control room” – well, the computer room – and changed into thermal suits.

They look hilarious, but I wouldn\’t like to go down into the vault without one.Minus 18 C. is thought to be the ideal temperature for storing seed material. So it was pretty “nippy” when we finally got into the main chamber, which has a complex cooling system in addition to the natural permafrost.
You go through a system of “air locks” to reduce any warm temperature impact from your body on the vault itself. It is still being extended into the hillside to increase capacity.

Seed samples are sent in from gene banks around the globe – we saw samples of Danish barley and some seeds from India, vacuum packed, ready for storage – for who knows how many hundred years?

The climate change crisis has given the vault increased relevance, even over the past two years, says the Professor. Even with “winners and losers”, areas being hit by drought, flooding, warmth, cold, new or changing pests and diseases, will need a diversity of crop types to cope. So this remote, icy area with its dearth of arable land and crops of its own, could provide the back-up seeds to feed the world of the future.
Svalbard Seed Vault

Well, here I am,Spitsbergen, Svalbard, Longyearbjen tonight. Every time I catch my first glimpse of those snowy mountain tips rising out of the clouds, I know why I love the Arctic and feel so concerned about the rate at which it is warming. Let me just share some of those images of the trip with you for now.

On the approach to Tromso, Norway’s “Gate to the Arctic”.

Svalbard peeping out of the clouds.

Moonscape in white?

Its their home:

But this fella’s reduced to keeping a wary eye on the luggage coming into Svalbard airport.

This is the view from the runway. And people ask me why I’m so keen on such a cold place…

(c) Jiri Rezac/Greenpeace
This is the Greenpeace vessel Esperanza, which is already steaming up to the Arctic, carrying special equipment from the IFM Geomar, Kiel University, which I’ll talk more about later when I get a chance to see it for myself and interview the experts on exactly what it will help them find out and how.
As I write this, I am still in Germany, packing my cold-weather gear and reporting equipment, getting ready to fly up to Longyearbjen on Svalbard, then on to Ny Alesund, where I will join the Esperanza and her crew for a few days.

This is Greenpeace scientist Dr. Iris Menn.
(Photo by Daniel Mueller/Greenpeace.) She is one of the key figures in this whole enterprise. She\’s also packing right now, as well as preparing the expedition, and will be joining the boat up at Ny Alesund later. It takes a while for the boat to sail up to the Arctic, so not everyone is able to travel this more leisurely way.
The Greenpeace boat is spending the summer up there and ‘ll be joining them and the team from the IFM-Geomar, that’s the Institute for Marine Sciences at Germany’s Kiel University, for the first part of the expedition. As mentioned in a previous entry and described in our DW article, (link provided last time), the team will be looking at how acidification affects the Arctic ocean ecosystems and biodiversity there. And if you ever catch yourself out thinking there can”t be much life in that dark cold water down there, maybe these pics will change your mind.

They show a type of algae and a type of sea anemone. Beautiful? I got them from Max Schwanitz, who’s in charge of the scientific diving team with the Alfred Wegener Institute and is actually now back up at Ny Alesund getting ready for the season. He took these in the Kongsfjord, which is where I’ll be heading very soon.

The acidity of the oceans is increasing because the greenhouse gas CO2 not only warms up the planet but also leads to greater acidification of the oceans. The oceans soak up CO2. In fact they have absorbed about a third of the CO2 roduced by us humans since the Industrial Revolution. The CO2 is converted into carbonic acid in the water. This makes the water more acidic. This affects the polar areas worse than others, because more CO2 is absorbed in cold temperatures.
There hasn’t been too much research into exactly what effects this has on marine ecosystems. Scientists suspect it will have a massive effect on biodiversity, and that’s what the team from Greenpeace and Kiel will be looking into. More soon.

I have been trying to pin down some elusive scientists this morning after reading a short article entitled “Research call to study climate link” on a double-page spread in the Guardian newspaper entitled “Volcano chaos”.
It quotes scientists in a series of papers published by the Royal Society calling for wide-ranging research into whether rising global temperatures could trigger more volcanoes, landslides, earthquakes or tsunamis.
Guardian online article The article says experts say global warming could affect these kinds of geological developments because it can move large amounts of mass on the planet’s surface. It seems logical that melting glaciers and rising sea levls would shift the distribution of huge quantities of water and that that could change pressure on the ground, possibly influencing ruptures or seismic shifts.
The paper quotes “research from Germany” as suggesting the earths crust could sometimes be close to moving so that quakes could be triggered by even tiny changes in surface pressure, e.g. from heavy rain. So far, my attempts to locate these German researchers this morning have been in vain. Ideas welcome.
Of course there are those who would say some of us are just obsessed by climate change and trying to relate it to everything. But if some scientists who have been looking into the distant past and think they can discern some evidence of significant warming being linked to geological activity then, it would seem foolhardy not to consider the possibility and feed the info into models for the future.
Meanwhile, that Icelandic volcano could be doing something for the climate by stopping all those planes from flying. I’m trying to get some figures on that. If I do, I’ll keep you posted.

Apologies for blog-silence. I had a few days off thanks to the “Karneval” holidays in Germany, so I resisted the temptation to sit down and blog.I have been doing a lot of reading though, trying to get to the bottom – or at least fairly deep down into – the controversy over the IPCC figures, the emails leaked towards the end of last year etc. I have strong feelings about people illegally hacking into other people’s emails. However, I must admit to being very disturbed by what I have read recently about the background to this whole affair.
In a comment posted on the Ice Blog Victoria Quade says she thinks “the emphasis on exact figures is a distraction when talking about global warming.” She continues:
“The only thing we can say with certainty is there is sufficient evidence that industrialized society is having a detrimental effect on the environment, one of which appears to be global warming. For me this is enough of a reason to support efforts aimed at reducing human behaviour that contributes to global warming.”
Victoria, I agree with the spirit of what you say. Too much nit-picking about details is distracting and doesn’t change the general trend. There are too many people who will use this kind of thing as an excuse for not changing that behaviour contributing to global warming.
But at the moment I’m worried about the effect on the credibility of scientists. The IPCC reports are based on the “peer review” process, which should mean papers are reviewed anonymously and independently. If it is true that some influential scientists are blocking the publication of research which doesn’t fit in with theirs or the mainstream view, then we have a real problem.
I come back to the talk I had with Professor Adil Najam, IPCC lead author, a couple of weeks ago. He stresses that, unfortunately, because of the huge implications for human society, climate science is being argued out in detail in our “everyday” media, where in other branches of science, the experts will conduct their debates in scientific journals without being constantly in the spotlight. At the same time he says a lot of politicians “hide” behind this scientific to-ing and fro-ing, using it as an excuse for inaction.
Let me finish for today by directing your attention to an article by climate scientist Dave Stainforth from the
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Climate science in the spotlight – on GUARDIAN website
He says we have to distinguish between “school” science and “research” science, with the latter being constantly in progress.He says whatever the disputes over details and the impossibility of exactly how and to what extent climate change will affect particular regions at particular times, there should be no disputing the fact that greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate and we would do well to do something about it.