Arctic Tipping Points

Archive for the ‘Conveying information during tourist cruises to Greenland 2009’ Category

The touristic expedition ship Fram anchoring in the fjord outside Sisimiut, Greenland. Fog from the Davis Strait dissolves by the warming sun. Photo P. Wassmann

ATP wishes to be an integrated entity the times we live in and the societies that embed the consortiums science.  Thus ATP wishes to communicate existing and future knowledge to interested parties and stakeholders.  To achieve that in an effective and first-class manner ATP has an advisory board, consisting of technical and political stakeholders in the Arctic, including social groups (Circumpolar Inuit Conference), Arctic tourism businesses, (Hurtigruten Group ASA), Oil and gas businesses (StatoilHydro) and important scientific (ArcticNet, Canada) and international environmental stakeholders (AMAP). The advisory board plays an important role in the fulfilment of the goals of ATP by serving as a sounding board that advises on the contents and formats of project results that best addresses the interests of diverse stakeholders.  It advises the ATP steering committee on policy aspects of the work programme and discusses with the ATP office policy priorities, requirements and linkage to relevant initiatives.  The advisory board will also act as an independent panel to ensure the quality of work on socoeoty related isues by the ATP project.

Scattered, colourful houses of Sisimiu, the second largest city of Greenland. Despite of being situated just north of the Polar Circle and close to the inland ice, the weather in summer can be rather warm in Sisimiut. Photo P. Wassmann

Among the economic, corporate, social and environmental NGO stakeholders in the Arctic Hurtigruten ASA is a most active ATP partner, who has a close interactions with the ARCTOS network.  Hurtigruten ASA has put the highly classified expedition vessel “Fram” at the disposal of ATP to

1. carry out research along the west-Greenland coast and
2. to provide marine ecological information to a highly interested and motivated assemblage of fellow citizens, the environmentally motivated and interested tourists that select cruises to remote places such as northern Greenland.

An ATP research group will carry out investigations on large marine algae along the west-Greenland coast on a leg with Fram that starts on September 24.  Meanwhile this group has started their investigations at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in the capital of Greenland, Nuuk (see the separate blog of this group at the ATP web site).  The main activity of ATP on the first leg with “Fram” that started on September 10 is to convey results and marine Arctic knowledge to the general public and to increase understanding of global change.  The leader of the Arctic Tipping Point project, Prof. Paul Wassmann from the Univeristy of Tromsø, Norway, will give  a suite of lectures, increasing the ecological know-how of toursits as well as the Hurtigruten cruise team.  Personal meetings and discussions with interested cruise participants will also be on the agenda.

The old church of Holsteinborg, the former name of Sisimiut, to the left and new church up the hill. Colourful buildings are typical for cities and settlements on Greenland. Photo P. Wassmann

This blog will report on science and tourism related questions, with Greenland as the nucleus.  Also, the blog will report on commonly asked questions and hopes to give answers to make information also accessible to the interested that is not in the priviliged situation to experience a cruise to northern Greenland.

Stranded icebergs off the beach of Qeqertarsuaq. Photo P. Wassmann

The so called man in the street, or in our case the average tourist to the Arctic subjected to significant climate change, is worried about what he/she can read and hear about climate change.  Here is a short list of recent, recurrent headlines:

•    Global temperature increases and we get more draughts
•    Sea level raises and regions with many million people will get inundated
•    Sea ice melts rapidly, sea ice may disappear and species such as the Polar Bear may loose its biotope
•    Glaciers melt and that may give rise to unstable drinking water for 1.3 billion people
•    The word Ocean gets warmer and this will result in more hurricanes and taifuns
•    A continuous string of records regarding extreme temperature, precipitation, draughts and floods
•    Changes in storm patterns and strength: we get more storms
•    The permafrost melts and the coast of arctic regions such as Siberia will drawn in mud

How can we cope with these dooms day scenarios?  Will we get agitated and afraid for the future?  Should we prepare our children for a World

The beach of Qeqertarsuaq. Photo P. Wassmann

to come that is worse then ours? Should we ignore the information?  Are we brainwashed by worst-case thinkers?  Whatever choice we make regarding the uninterrupted string of frightening information, we have to ask us a single, basic question.  As the cause of all this is due to warming, who has switched on the oven?

The UN climate panel (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC]) is the official body that regularly determines the state of our global environment.  They go through all available climate research, based upon what several thousand scientists for so to say all nations of the world report to them.  Form all this information the IPPC attempts to distil the main facts.  The conclusions and the advise of the climate panel reflect what is the dominant opinion on climate questions by thousands of the Worlds scientific experts.  The climate panel conclusions are based upon consensus and have to be politically accepted.  They are thus never radical, but strictly conservative.  To doubt the consensus of the IPPC is brave (and in this case we wish to read the important facts that several thousand of the Worlds scientists did not adequately consider), foolish or irresponsible.  How can we get hold of the “truth” if the IPPC procedures are found skewed and unbalanced?  Don’t we remove the basement on which the best of our modern societies are based upon?

Churchyard in Qeqertarsuaq. Photo P. Wassmann

The main conclusion from the 4th main IPPC report in 2007 was: “It is very likely that the emission of climate gasses by humans have caused most of the increase in global temperature during the last 50 years”.  This means basically: we have switched on the oven.  Most studies of natural variability over the last 1.000 to 900.000 years (e.g. temperature, atmospheric gas concentrations) have shown that today’s temperatures and gas concentrations are well above what has been experienced by the World for the last million years. The global temperature has increased with 0.74 °C over the last 100 years and the increase is more rapidly in recent years. Between 1993-2003 has the seas level increased 3.1 mm per year and the tendency is increasing. The concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide have increased by 148 and 35 % since pre-industrial times and that is caused by energy production based upon coal, oil an gas, garbage treatment, increased animal production and removal of woods.  Those that claim that all this natural variation, that the temperature increase is not a consequence of increase greenhouse gas emissions and that recent climate change is not caused by human population growth and the manner how human live, have, in my view, a big explanatory problem.

Global climate changes are caused by overconsumption of the generation that most adults and elderly belong to.  This is the last generation that could enjoy the services of the ”old world”. It was this generation that switched on the oven, but does not take too much of the consequences of it.  These are left to their children and the poorest on Earth. Today’s worries about climate change are of valid.  However, my greatest worries derive from statements such as:

•    It is not dangerous with an increase in temperature of 2.3 °C
•    It has also been warmer earlier and the climate changes anyhow. What is so different today?
•    Scientists just quarrel and they cannot agree on anything.  We just know too little
•    Everything with the climate is caused by humans
•    Nothing that happens with the climate now is caused by humans

Some of these questions and others will be addressed in future blogs.  The do not represent the opinion of the ATP project or the ARCTOS network, bu that of the author, Paul Wassmann, on his voyage with Fram to Thule and the Lincoln Sea (> 80 degrees N) between Canada and Greenland.

Rocks and melting icebergs off Qeqertarsuaq. The silence of a perfect summer day was interrupted by the "thunder" deriving from chunks of icebergs falling into the sea. Photo P. Wassmann

It is not dangerous with an increase in temperature of 2-3 degrees

The characterstic heart-shaped mountain of Uummannaq. Photo P. Wassmann

An increase of the average global temperature with 2-3 degrees above pre-industrial time will have more positive then negative effects in many regions of the word.  We have already a global temperature that is more then 1 degree above that during pre-industrial times.  For the time being the global temperature is not increasing so fast then during the last 10 years, but these changes go in cycles and we expect that it soon will pick up again so that we can soon experience that w ego through the upper limit of 3 degrees, as accepted by the EU.  Thus we could indeed agree with the above-cited statement.

However, the effects are unevenly distributed and while a rich country like Norway will not suffer others will.  For example: the Sahel region, countries of the Arabian Peninsula or northern Africa.  A global temperature increase is not a local and national matter, but a global one, i.e. the situation over the entire globe matters.  The climate problem infiltrates a suite of problems, such as heath, politics, economy and security.  All that has consequences for every country and every citizen.  How will the World society react to immigration of climate refugees from regions that have become unacceptably hot?  What about the advent of difficult to fight diseases such as malaria that is on the move into regions where it has long been forgotten to exist? An increase in temperature of 2-3 degrees is dangerous, if not for the region in which we live then as a consequence of the ramifications that a temperature increase has in other parts of the world.  A global economy implies also enduring the climate effects of the entire globe.

It has also been warmer earlier and the climate changes whatever we do. What is so different today?

Icebergs and the expedition ship Fram outside Uummannaq. Photo P. Wassmann

We have detailed knowledge from how temperature varied in previous times.  We have a few continuous records since about 1850.  We have investigations of tree rings growth for a few hundred years.  We have data on the ocean temperature from sediment cores on a suites of time intervals, from hundred to several thousands of years.  The longest record we have come from ice cores in Antarctica where we have detailed knowledge about temperature down to 900.000 PP.  Most of these records do indeed show that there have been warmer and colder periods.  However, the alarming signs are a) that the global temperature is now higher than during any interglacial time, b) that the final increase comes during a short time interval (100 years) and c) that the tendency over the last 30 years is ever increasing (with some variability).  The conservative consensus of IPPC states that the warming this time is not only natural, but basically caused by humans.  Many indices tell us that we should be in a cooling  period, but we face basically the opposite (right now we have a slight decline).

In contradiction to former times when climate variation was natural IPPC thinks mankind can do something with it.  This is because climate warming is caused for the most by emission of greenhouse gasses.  Two of them, carbon dioxide and methane, have increased due to human activity with 38 and 148 % since the industrial revolution.  There exists enough knowledge to take action, but out hesitation to do so, probably based upon our unwillingness to change our resource overconsumption, results in that climate warming increases further.  Despite of setting an upper limit of + 2 degrees our lack of action implies that this limit seem to have become unrealistic already.  Scientists have not been able to convince the general audience.  Thus we, the people, do not comprehend the consequences of what we do.  What is different today compared with other time periods is that warming is manmade.  And these consequences, if not for us, then for people more exposed for warming.  Our production of green house gasses should be accompanied by willingness to accept climate refugees, but I am afraid this is not the case.

Houses and ice bergs in Uummannaq. Photo P. Wassmann

”Climate researchers just quarrel – they cannot agree on anything.  Basically we do know too little about the climate.”

The old Thule, a settlement that was moved northward when the US Thule air base was bulid in 1953. The Dundas mountain to the right. Take note of the pink flowers. Photo P. Wassmann”Climate researchers just quarrel – they cannot agree on anything. Basically we do know too little about the climate.”

Climate researchers do quarrel over details of their research and interpretation of results, but the majority does not quarrel about climate change and global warming.  In fact most congresses involve quiet and peaceful procedures.  Most of the quarrelling is not between active scientists, but between scientists and laypersons or politicians.  The quarrelling is clearly visible in media because they wish to have a ”balanced” debate.  A statement from a committee or scientists cannot remain alone.  It has to be contradicted to obtain at least a debate.  Anybody who contradicts a scientific position is then welcome.  If the scientific statement is supported by a large majority and contradicted by a small minority is not so important for the press.  Many journalists have too little time or too little specific education to launch weighted debates.  The quarrels addressed in the above statement are practically not visible in international journals and at conferences.

But, off course, there is a lot of uncertainty.  And there are alternative interpretations for which good data and arguments are always welcome.  Uncertainty should support the case of nature, not the man-made world, our culture.  At the end of the day we all depend on the good and services that Mother Nature provides us with.  The sustainability of nature must be our ultimate goal and all action that undermines sustainability is a threat to mankind.

The Dundas (left) and old Thule (right) settlements as seen from Mount Dundas. Photo P. Wassmann

The US air base Thule, famous for its role in the Cold War. After a plane crash plutonium from an atomic bomb entered the marine environment. Thule is still an active airbase. In the background: the Greenland inland ice cap. Photo. P. Wassmann

Everything happening now to the climate is caused by humans

Cape Alexander at the entrance to the Nares Strait that connects the North Water Polynia, food base for the Thule inuits, with the Lincoln Sea in the Arctic Ocean. Photo P. Wassmann

Off course not.  This is a statement that an environmental fundamentalist may provide.  There is a concomitant development of the climate having natural and man-made causes.  To distinguish between those two forcings is one of the big challenges for science.  Nothing is more difficult than to solve this question.  We would often need good and long time series data that are in short supply.

The UN climate panel (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC]) works hard to provide the best possible evidence to give a balanced answer to the question if recent climate change is natural or man-made.  The conclusion of the IPPC is not to be taken lightly.  The panel summarises the evidence that science can provide. The answer - in a time when there is consensus that our society should be knowledge based – is a significant one.  When IPPC states “It is very likely that the emission of climate gasses by humans have caused most of the increase in global temperature during the last 50 years”, then they do not say that climate change is only due to humans.  They state that the emission of greenhouse gases is very likely (95 % probability that this is so) the cause for the recent warming.  The human contribution of global warming comes on top of the natural.  In fact, IPPC scientists have reason to believe that the natural global temperature should decline for the time being.  Which supports the argument that the observed warming is man-made.

Nothing that happens to the climate is caused by humans

Mighty glaciers from the ice cap discharge their icy loads into the Nares Strait. Photo P. Wassmann

Off course not.  The most advanced methods – that deal with the development of many types of observations in space and time – concluded that this hypothesis couldn’t be verified.  In other words (and to translate scientific jargon): human activity is very likely involved in global warming.

Climate change takes place and this will have consequences for the livelihood of the human race.  The changes in the climate that we will have in front of us will not be the start of the end.  In times when significant changes take place dooms day prophets make their appearance.  And the pessimistic among us may listen to these prophets and our expectations for a promising (but not uncomplicated) future will be coloured.  The optimistic among us may tend to the opposite direction and expose themselves to hybris, which in our times is often connected to a strong believe that technology will solve all our problems, also those of ecosystem feed-backs and resource overconsumption.

We live in a society based on the assumption that the base for our decision should be knowledge.  Due to that sciences, and in particular natural sciences, are highly prioritised.  When it comes to climate change, knowledge has magic qualities: it keeps the overwhelming threats and the doomsday prophesies at a distance. Knowledge is the ultimate weapon against foolishness, arrogance, apocalyptic attitudes, repression and doomsday prophets.  As in previous periods of history the future will be good, but the earths reduced carrying capacity and climate change will result in lowered life quality.

Marginal ice zone at 78 degrees north in the Nares Strait. Greenland in the background. In the midle of August there is still midt night sun at this latitude. Photo P. Wassmann

What will happen to life in the Arctic Ocean when the ice disappears?

Houses in Siorapaluk, the norternmost settlement in the World. About 70 people live here. Life is based upon resources from the sea. Photo. P. Wassmann

With the long-term decrease of Arctic Sea ice since satellite measurement started in 1978 it has been predicted that the Arctic Ocean should be free of ice in summer around 2050.  The winter ice will still be in the same position, although annual, relatively thin ice will predominate.  However, after the dramatic decline of sea ice in summer 2007 many oceanographers fear that the Arctic Ocean development has entered a new phase; a tipping point may have been reached and passed.  Since 2007 the ice cover has not recovered and also in 2008 and probably also 2009 summer ice cover will be low.  What does all that mean for the ecology of the Arctic Ocean and humans that live in the Arctic realm?

It implies first of all that the primary production in the Arctic Ocean will increase and provide food for organisms that currently live under extreme food limitation.  It means also that organisms that hardly survive in the Arctic Ocean at present will experience good living conditions (e.g. zooplankton).  Capelin could be one these potential candidates.  That, in turn, will probably result in that fish will benefit from it and we may foresee an Arctic fishery in the future.  This new fishery has to be managed by the 5 Arctic states, Russia, USA, Canada, Greenland and Norway.  Lack of ice in the summer implies also that necessary substrate for organisms like seals and Polar Bears disappear in critical times of the year.  While the Polar Bear may learn to get back on land (from where he came some ten thousand years ago, developing from the Grisly Bear) and try to survive (as Polar Bears in the Hudson Bay region already do).  But what about seals?  It may look like that seals will suffer greatly from the loss of sea ice.  What the decline of the seal population will bring for the ecosystem is a matter of speculation.  Will there be less grazing pressure on capelin or leave the food to marine mammals that do not depend on ice as a substrate, e.g. whales.

Will he recognise himself? Two girls taking care of their brother. Photo P. Wassmann

For the only people that depend on the marine food web, i.e. the Inuit, all changes in climate and ecosystems have an immediate effect on their living conditions. Before modern times they were flexible in their manner to live.  They would move from winter to spring and summer places, according to the availability of prey animals.  Modern civilisation with schools, hospitals, infra structure etc. resulted in permanent settlements that cannot be easily changed when the food resource in the near by ecosystem is changing.  Let us, for example, look at the Inuits in the Thule region.  They live in this inhospitable region because of the North Water Polynya with its high productivity and the overwintering and sea mammals in the open water.  It may well be that the polynya will disappear as so many other polynyas have and will do.  In this case the main food source of the Thule Inuits will decline or move towards the Arctic Ocean, with negative ramifications for a population that is now geographically inflexible.  It would make life more difficult and probably depended on a different economy or support from the south.

For many other people living in the Arctic the situation is different.  Arctic agriculture and logging may in many cases profit from warming.  For reindeer herders the situation seems more difficult, but most probably they will experience more difficult times, with more ice in winter, invasion of woods from the south or the difficulties that arise when permafrost is melting.  For fishermen the situation may also get difficult with changing species composition, but new fishing fields in the north may compensate for different species and changes in ecosystem in the south.  For tourism and transportation a decrease of sea ice cover will be beneficial.  New and so far unreachable destinations may be in reach and the possibility to use the Northeast and Northwest Passage open up shorter transportation routes to important markets.  For the oil and gas industry less ice is a great advantage.  There will be strong arguments to explore the 25 % of the Worlds remaining gas and oil reserves that are expected present in the Arctic Ocean.  And with our seemingly inability to create and continue a prosperous life without the use of fossil fuels great pressure to extract oil and gas from the Arctic Ocean can be expected, in particular when receding ice eases the operational challenges.

Graveyards are important in Greenland. The dead forefathers need a fine view in Upernavik. Photo P. Wassmann

In summary, there is no clear answer to the question of what will happen to life in the Arctic Ocean when the ice disappear in summer. The challenge to give answers is far too demanding for today’s scientists that work in the region.  Scientific knowledge from the Arctic is rather limited and the climatic development is too fast to give the clear answers that society provides.  Nobody suffers more for this weak answering capability then the scientist working in the Arctic Ocean.

A dog sledge for any purpose. Four sledges ready for use in winter. Photo P. Wassmann

There is so much conflicting evidence regarding climate change in the Arctic.  What shall I believe?

The view above the village of Qaanaaq on an overcast day. Photo P. Wassmann

Headlines and news regarding the climate and climate change have been regular event in recent years.  They hit us like ice grains during a hailstorm.  And many headlines hurt us.  Droughts, storms, heat waves, hurricanes, floods, melting sea ice, disappearing species, drinking water shortages etc.: we could list endless lists of miseries that befall the human race in recent decades of increasing climate change.  The media wishes to attract the attention of people and thus it is partly ourselves that “create” the frightening headlines.  If we would not be so, the number of climate related headlines would be much smaller and reserved for the big events that we call catastrophes.  I hesitate to use the word because it is so often misused.  Most of what often is called catastrophes are just events that are overexposed by the media.  This can create a dooms day scenario that upsets people.  In this manner media can keep the attention of people.  A balanced statement on sea level rising, ice-melt or fauna changes often do not make it to the main headlines, partly due to the cool, precise and unemotional nature of scientific communication.

The front of the Eqip Sermia glacier discharges in the fjord. Photo P. Wassmann

Often the information presented is, over time, discussed by the media, which wishes to have debates about burning issues.  In order to commence a debate one or other person will be selected who has an opposite opinion to most scientists or an alternative explanation.  Here the media often make the mistake that they initiate a debate that is not based on opinions that are weighted, for which the journalist had to have very good scientific insight.  Often any opinion opposite to one launched by scientist is given as much space then science.  Some of the debates are net between scientists of different opinion, but scientists and politicians, members of environmental movements or others with critical opinions regarding mainstream science.  This can easily result in superficial debates that give the reader or listener the impression that scientists do not really know what they talk about.   Presented to the fear for the future and the insecurity that derives from – what I would call – unbalanced debates, people get tired and give up their “engagement”.  By which nothing has been gained.  In particular an important issue for the livelihood of mankind like the climate can suffer from that sequence of events, resulting in passivity and repression.

The Inglefield fjord outside Qaanaaq with the Fram and icebergs. Photo P. Wassmann

Hot debates in the media result in that important question are forgotten by the general public.  Is there no acid rain any more, much debated 30 years ago?  There is less acid rain now, but there is still the acid rain question that we never hear anymore about.  And what about dying woods, a major debate in central Europe 20 years ago.  Are the woods healthy now because we never hear about it?  No, the situation is as bad as before (except for specific regions with large industrial emission that have improve) or worse.  But the issue is “used up”, does not make it not the headlines anymore.  I can foresee a time, not far from now, where we will not hear anymore about melting sea ice anymore because it is not a hot issue anymore for the general public.  Already now journalists have to fight an decreasing interest in climate change issues in the Arctic by focussing upon them in particular manner, e.g. through personal interviews with scientists.

What shall we then believe when we have great interested in issues such the climate, the Arctic or ecosystems?  The core question will always be the following: “What is the quality of this information? Who has provided it?  Has it gone through an evaluation and referee process?”  The best one a do is to look for international reports such those from ACIA* and IPCC**.  Both reports have good and readable summaries that are written for the general citizen.   My answer to the question raised above is thus that one should not believe too much into the debates about climate change and the Arctic Ocean in the media, but go to the best available sources such as ACIA and IPPC.  Knowledge has magic qualities: it keeps the worries at a distance.  The future will be good one for many regions of the world, but reduced carrying capacity and climate change will result in lowered life quality

Clouds, iceberges and a ships that becomes rather small. Photo P. Wassmann

At the end I wish to launch a wish.  I notice a trend where some citizens believe that the ultra conservative ACIA and IPPC reports are documents of a environmentalist and scientific clique.  An elite that wish to indoctrinate citizens and limit democratic freedom (e.g. driving cars, protecting nature, introduce environmental taxes etc.).  These conspiration theories are wrong and dangerous.  They can easily become the place where we move in the political landscape because we do not wish to change our life style.  All reason tells us that we need a controlled lading after decades of overconsumption to omit the crash that will be the inevitable result of today’s life styles. ACIA and IPP do not wish to indoctrinate people and limit their freedom.

*ACIA (2004). Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact and assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 144 pp.

** IPCC (2007). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm#1.

Across the fjord outsde the glacier Eqip Sermia. Photo P. Wassmann

Historical examination has shown that climate-induced ecosystem change, for example that reported in the waters around Greenland, have major consequences for fish catches. In a situation where the status of many living marine resources is precarious, abrupt ecosystem change may have major socio-economic impacts on local communities (e.g. Inuits) dependent, both culturally and for subsistence, on these natural resources. Economic activities dependent upon marine ecosystem services, such as Arctic tourism, may also be vulnerable to abrupt, climate-driven changes to marine ecosystems, and face major challenges in adapting to the new conditions. In the high North, management of fisheries and marine food-web exploitation by native peoples, tourism, and oil and gas extraction is nested within larger, global-scale initiatives, reducing the ability of Arctic states to adapt to change. The development of a management plan for activities in the Arctic seas represents a major institutional experiment on how to address abrupt changes in the Arctic marine ecosystem. The challenge lies in developing managerial models than can help discount anticipated risks and at the same time profit from emerging opportunities. Lessons could be drawn from other management systems that have experienced major shifts in recent history (for example the Northwest Atlantic and Bering Sea areas). The success of these new models is dependent on three key factors, the availability of reliable scientific forecasts on the future changes of Arctic marine ecosystem in response to climate change, the development of regionally focused resource-use models, and communication conduits to efficiently and reliably transfer this knowledge into managerial and political frameworks.

A view of the Kangia Eqqaalu glacier south of Ilulissat. The daily fresh water discharge out of this fjord is equivalent to the annual freshwater consumption of New York. We see the hed of the fjord right in front of the inland ice cap, about 70 km east of Ilulissat. Photo P. Wassmann

Through scientific work, analysis of time series data and by communicating knowledge ATP wishes interested parties and stakeholders in Greenland and the pan-Arctic region (e.g. Inuit Circumpolar Conference).  ATP wishes also to reach relevant policy actors in Greenland and will search for possibilities to transfer knowledge.  Finally ATP wishes to convey results to the general public on this island.  This blog and the scientific work (see science blog on experimental work concurrently carried out in Greenland on the ATP web site) is a first step in this direction.  I wish to thank the ATP partner Hurtigruten ASA for the support during the expedition cruise to northern Greenland.