‘The sun is a problem’: Search and rescue member warns of Nunavik’s warm weather
Snow melting earlier; hunters and travellers should careful on land, warns search and rescue team member
Ice on the Koksoak River is thinner and breaks earlier every year, and that calls for improved safety measures says local search-and-rescue member George Kauki. (Photo by Cedric Gallant)
Spring has brought beautiful weather to Nunavik but with melt comes risk, says a local leader from Kuujjuaq.
“The sun is a problem,” said George Kauki, president of Kuujjuaq’s Niqliit wildlife committee and a search and rescue team member.
He’s been using Facebook to raise awareness over the changing weather conditions.
Kauki said hunters and travellers should be even more careful than usual when going out on the land.
“The melting snow, which creates water and slush, increases the risk of people travelling alone getting stuck or wet,” he said.
Getting wet is the dangerous part, especially in the evenings when the temperature drops.
Some creeks and rivers have become dangerous to travel over because ice can be thin enough for snowmobiles to fall through, stranding the driver.
For Kauki, the weak ice is a clear sign that the climate is changing.
“All winter there have been these three holes” on the Koksoak River near Kuujjuaq, he said, adding one can be seen from Isuarsivik Recovery Centre in town.
The river is now dangerous to cross due to those holes and the thinning ice. Across the river is a favourite spot for goose hunting.
That spot has been used for generations because it’s accessible and it doesn’t take much gas to drive there.
“There were always, like, five hunters around that hole, it provided a lot of food for the spring,” he said, adding “I don’t think anybody is going to risk going there this year.”
Nunavik had 11.5 deaths per 10,000 residents due to on-the-land accidents in 2015, compared to three per 10,000 deaths province-wide, according to data compiled by Laval University that was included in a recent Kativik Regional Government report.
These mishaps often require a search and rescue team to be deployed.
“We risk our lives travelling through thin ice in the spring and rough waters in the summer,” said Kauki.
“You need proper training and you have to have a good understanding of what Mother Nature is capable of.”
In the past, helicopters and ski-equipped aircraft frequently landed on the ice to perform search and rescue missions, according to the report, which cites an example from 2013 when two hunters were stranded near Arviat in Nunavut. A Jet Ranger helicopter arrived and attempted to land on the ice, but immediately sank.
The stranded hunters had to rescue the pilots. And then another search and rescue team eventually came to pick everyone up.
Kauki recommended people heading out on the land bring tools like ropes, axes and snow knives to help get out of risky situations.
“Be aware of your surroundings, and what you are doing, and advise someone of your destination,” he said, adding newer model phones have satellite SOS features that can be used to contact emergency services if needed.
The snow season in parts of the North has shortened by around 40 days since the 1950s, says a report from ArcticNet, a research network from Laval University.
ArcticNet analyzed data from weather stations in Goose Bay, Cartwright and Nain in Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Kuujjuaraapik and Kuujjuaq, and used that data to publish the Nunavik and Nunatsiavut Regional Climate Information Update in 2020.
Results show snow disappeared earlier in the spring at a rate of 3.9 days per decade since the 1950s. In the fall, the onset of snow arrived later at a rate of 3.4 days per decade.
The study also found a typical sea ice season that’s deemed a “safe period” is 180 to 200 days long on the Hudson Bay, and 180 to 240 days on the Ungava Bay.
However, the study projects that the duration of that safe period might be reduced by three to four months over much of the Nunavik coastline due to delayed ice formation and earlier melt.
In Makivvik’s recently released Nunavik Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, land safety is a priority for Inuit.
It calls for strengthened travel safety on the land, better sharing of knowledge and skills, improved access to ice and trail condition information, and more effective search and rescue through improved access to equipment, training, emergency communications and personnel.
In the south we have heat and fires so intense that they create their own micro weather systems. There is no cultural force on this earth that will stop the inevitable. Technology is the only answer to survival of the species.
It’s a relief to hear concensus from regular folks that changes in weather are due to natural causes. I, too, am tired of the human-made climate nonsense that has become the enforced mainstream religion
Environmentalism is the new religion . Like the old religion , we need , more converts to save us from armageddon.
Are you saying that because this one guy said, “the sun is a problem”, that there’s conSensus from “regular folks” that climate changes are natural?
You really need to give your head a shake. A Wildlife Committee and SAR member is making a comment that the heat from the sun is a problem. Human emissions create an insulating layer around the Earth that traps the heat from the Sun. So yes, the heat from the Sun is a problem, because human activity has caused it to become more extreme.
ANYONE who is concerned that his or her “human emissions” are affecting the climate should get off the pot, that is to say, cease emitting.
This sure seems like an ad hominem. Do you have any actual arguments? You’re continually on here saying that there is not a shred of evidence of human-induced climate change. Recently, I presented you with a Cornell University article which stated, “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies”, to which you asked for a link as though they’re difficult to find.
.
The European Union also claims, “Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth’s temperature”.
.
You asked for “a singular sample of data”. Here you go:
.
“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%. This increase is due to humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean. The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).”
.
“Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last ice age.”
.
“We know this warming is largely caused by human activities because the key role that carbon dioxide plays in maintaining Earth’s natural greenhouse effect has been understood since the mid-1800s.”
.
I encourage you to look up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 5th Assessment Report and read it.
I drive a pick up truck , own a boat , atv and snowmoblie . my furniture is made of wood and i love my morning BACON . I hope David Suzuki forgive me !!!
Thanks TQ; you make my point.
Quoting that someone says humans make climate is not evidence that humans make climate.
But, because folks like you think your quotes are evidence, there has been no need to try to produce evidence of human-made climate – notwithstanding that no evidence exists.
I’ve read all the reports.
So the acidity of surface ocean waters increasing by about 30% due to humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the ocean is not an actual piece of evidence?
I don’t think you’d know what evidence was if it bonked you in the nose.
I have to believe in S, what he says makes sense since he read all the reports.
He’s read all 5 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Assessments and all 88,125 climate-related studies that say humans are causing climate change. He is now a top expert in the field and knows better than NASA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Commission, the United Nations, Cornell University, Yale University, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the National Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Royal Society, The Nature Conservancy, the Australian Academy of Science, World Weather Attribution, and so many more places that employ real climate scientists.
He, above all, knows the lies and deception of scientists, agencies, governments, and non-profit orgs the world over, all looking to make us pollute less for no reason at all.
Foremost, it isn’t that I have read so much, as is the likelihood that you have read so little and probably reasoned considerably less. In essence, most likely you know only what you are told to know. That is akin to religious belief.
The pH of the oceans varies from 8.0 to as high as 12. 2 depending where and when the reading is taken. It has been so for a very, very long time.
CO2 concentration in the troposphere varies from just under 300 ppm to just over 400 ppm depending on where and when the reading is taken. When you exhale you emit CO2 at approximately 50,000 ppm concentration.
Recently, (10,000 years ago) where you sit there was a layer of ice two kilometers thick. That covered nearly all of North America as far south as Wisconsin. Typically, throughout ice ages, the more an ice sheet melts the faster it melts. Thermodynamics.
There is no human-made climate. None of your scientists are able to provide even a shred of evidence to the contrary.
Earth’s orbits, other planets’orbits, and solar orbits vary as do planetary and solar activities. On Earth, quakes, tectonic plate movement, wind, volcanic activity are complex, dynamic and interactive. It’s complicated.
No, the pH of the oceans do not vary from 8.0 to over 12. There have been readings over 12 from streams erupting through pores by deep sea volcanoes in the Marianas trench. That does not mean that the ocean’s pH is over 12. Between 1950 and 2020, the average pH of the ocean surface fell from approximately 8.15 to 8.05. In a logarithmic scale, which pH is, that means a 26% change in hydrogen ion concentration (this is an example of evidence, by the way).
.
Your data on CO2 in the troposphere is outdated, it has grown steadily from under 320ppm in 1960 to over 420ppm in May 2022 (this is an example of evidence, by the way). I’m not sure what the point is to referencing CO2 levels when a person exhales? To mean that higher levels are safe? You could try putting a plastic bag over your head and breathing in and out for a few minutes, let me know how that goes.
.
I understand that there are other forces at play in the Earth’s climate. But accounting for those factors, it is still conclusive that human activity is causing the climate to change in a way that it otherwise would not.
Thanks Glakfi; some of your comments are interesting.
It’s very important for your desired understanding of science to realize that data is NOT evidence. Saying that such and such has increased in CO2 concentration or such and such has increased or decreased in pH is data. If it’s valid or not is a different matter. Data itself is often subject to variation and validity. For example, the pH of the oceans and seas varies considerably from one ocean to the next, and from one part of a given ocean to the next – often by more than the 26% difference noted between 8.05 and 8.15 ph. In data terms that’s .00000000631 mol H3O per liter versus .00000000794 mol H30 per liter.
Many factors contribute to the variability, including temperature variation, earthquake activity and ensuing wave action, subsea volcanic emissions variations in CO2, SO2 and H2S, ocean mixing, and winds. Tides also play a role. The incidence of harvesting (marine life), freshwater run off, and seasons also are factors. It’s complicated. Understanding that the ocean is alkaline – not acidic – is critical. Acidic is any pH BELOW 7.0.
Being able to attribute a factor to an outcome is EVIDENCE, not the data itself. Let’s agree that Canada’s population was 35.6 million in 2015; 39.1 million today. Those are facts. In order to attribute those as evidence of certain other outcomes would require collecting considerable more data and analysis. We would also need to separate other variables that might contribute to the observed outcome – which is also data and would need to be collected and analysed thoroughly.
Careful that your knowledge isn’t just what you are told to know. The most fundamental aspect of science is that science is belief in the ignorance of experts. On the other hand, religion is belief in the infallibility of experts.
From isuarsivik point of view and et, allow the rescue person of kuujjuaq. Ex this and that, to tell the hunter/drinker to steer clear of the booze and drugs while venturing out as well. Don’t we all know how many lives that combination takes sided with thin ice, the hot weather and so forth. This climate change stuff is very real, but most of death , even on land is from booze in kuujjuaq and most Nunavik communities. Climate change hasn’t caught up to that yet, and don’t let it demise the battle against the senseless drunken fool who takes intoxication to dangerous levels
Data itself is not evidence, that is correct. The application of data to test a claim is evidence, and the data that I provided supports the claim, therefore it is evidence.
Yes, I agree that “in order to attribute those as evidence of certain other outcomes would require collecting considerable more data and analysis. We would also need to separate other variables that might contribute to the observed outcome – which is also data and would need to be collected and analysed thoroughly.”
And that has been done, many times over. For 100 years. Ever since 1896 when Svante Arrhenius argued that if quantities of carbonic acid – or CO2 for our purposes – in the atmosphere were to drop by half the current amount, then the Earth’s surface temperature would drop by 4 degrees. Conversely, if the concentration were to double, then it would warm by four degrees. He suggested that human-caused emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would raise the global temperature. That’s why I quoted a 2021 article that states, “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies”.
But if I provide you evidence, you say it’s not enough evidence. If I provide you with a summary quote stating that 88,000 studies agree that climate change is caused by humans, you say that quoting someone is not evidence (despite the fact that those 88,000 studies contain evidence). You simply deflect and say “it’s complicated”. It sure is, which is why I can’t provide all the evidence in a comment thread, That doesn’t disprove what an overwhelming majority of studies have indicated.
How about you go ahead and provide evidence that the exact level of climate change we are experiencing is attributed to other factors? Not that other factors contribute to climate change, I want you to provide evidence that every single other factor has contributed to the exact amount of climate change we are experiencing. Because the scientific community has provided plenty of evidence that humans are contributing significantly to climate change.
S tends to deflect away from evidence by citing something that is small in nominal values, such as “.00000000631 mol H3O per liter versus .00000000794 mol H30 per liter”. He does not include the fact that there is 1.335 sextillion litres of water in the oceans, meaning a difference of 2,176,050,000,000 moles of H30 overall in the ocean.
Maybe he would also argue that changing your body mass by 0.0000022% of fentanyl is totally not dangerous, it’s just very small.
Thanks, Simpleton and Deflection, it’s good you are a little bit engaged.
Historically, the biggest problem with non-science (religion) is that it tries to overwhelm by substituting hypothesis for evidence, big numbers without measure for materiality and relevance, consensus for rigorous debate, confirming studies with confirmation-bias..
Since you don’t have a scientific background and aren’t scientifically-inclined there’s no sense continuing the discussion. Become curious. Lose your complacency. Learn for the exercise of learning.
I believe that the sun is not the root cause of our problems. While climate change is certainly noticeable, it’s not as bad as some of the poor decisions made by humans. Many people who have participated in rescue missions over the past 10 to 15 years would agree with me. The real issue is that people are not being responsible enough when they venture out into the wilderness. They often fail to bring proper gear, travel alone, or travel while under the influence of alcohol. I don’t understand why Mr. Kauki is speaking on behalf of the SAR team when he hasn’t been involved in rescue missions for that long. Who appointed him to do so? Is he just seeking attention? We need to wake up and realize that if people were more careful when they ventured out on land or water, there would be fewer search and rescue missions.
I think he seeks out attention. And he’s always coming from the point of being an ex member , new and improved. Agree that no one in kuujjuaq amongst the Mr kauki are anywhere near an authority on rescue. Been known to pull some drunks out of frozen areas and along swamps and koksoak, but I wouldn’t trust their judgement on a ball game let alone life amd death, and yes he’s all they got to represent, the dump there got half the population sick from toxic, unawareness is bright in that community. George is tops of what’s available.
Yes, he is constantly seeking attention. He can’t seem to hold a job and is all over the place. He even makes ridiculous statements like “The sun is the problem”. Do we really want to be represented by someone like that? It’s truly pathetic!
Me , i m going to blame the moon and Trump.
No evidence that sun is the problem. Google NASA take on it.
This is as much about the sayer as much as it’s about what is said. One of our problems in Nunavik is not having insight into world issues, thereby confined to limited, guarded local knowledge of incompetence. Not Inuit in historical aspect, but the new age of jump to conclusive ( like I have a right to say what I think without question). From herds on caribou depletion, moose arrival knowledge (not), to warmer climate. It’s the same tune that some of us got to listen to time and time, turn off your fm time of day, and ignore the news of such, but just had to say it. Pathetic don’t cut it.