What is the 'super-objective' of hydrology? What mainstreams exist in science? What is the interest of studying snow in the Arctic?—We interviewed Igor Vasilevich, junior research fellow at the Department of Hydrology of estuaries and water resources of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI).
Igor is a repeated participant of expeditions to the north, is fond of photography and maintains a group Cryosphere in VK, where he publishes his works and notes. He is currently writing his thesis Interannual variability of water balance elements in the rivers of the Gren Fjord basin, Svalbard.
— Yes, one could say that. Firstly, it is one of the strategies for survival in the scientific world. Sometimes you have to 'gain mass' this way to be more successful in terms of grants and scientific activity, so that you are more likely to be chosen for different activities.
Secondly, I would like to show a positive example. E.g. Gennady Onishchenko created an initiative to save children—'baby boxes': people who give up their children can bring them there, and the children will live. Gennady was criticised by everyone because of the initiative's high cost, but he said that it's worth it if at least one child is saved.
I thought along similar lines: even if my photo or VK post inspires someone to start a career in science, it's already great, so it's not all done for nothing.
In addition, I also like to communicate with people when I have the time and energy to do so.
— Initially I studied physics at the Russian State Hydrometeorological University, but I really wanted to switch to hydrology, because it seemed to me that it was the most 'working', applied, profession with a lot of theory inside. It suited me very well.
— It's about measuring the moisture content of snow. It's part of my thesis. I'm still working on it.
— I love snow. I have been working on this subject for ten years.
Our boss came up with the idea for the work a long time ago, and in brief it goes like this: changes in the flow of Arctic rivers are an indicator of climate change. I myself became very interested to see how climate change, especially such dynamic climate change as in Svalbard, affects river runoff, snow, precipitation, and everything else. That is, what is happening to water bodies, what is changing in them.
To study such topics qualitatively, you have to be a very bright person indeed, with an unbelievable knowledge of the subject. It's hard to plunge without intuition and an understanding of the details.
— For example, survey markers. This is a reference point when creating a geodetic network. The device is hammered in and must stand still the entire time it is working. We use them to level a river or sea level.
We also use hydrometic turntables—these are the main means of measuring the flow of the river. A rope is stretched across the river and every metre or half metre a cross section profile is measured. Based on this data and the current velocity, we calculate the flow rate of the river.
The most annoying thing is that some instruments cannot be taken back and forth to Svalbard. And we just have to check them every year or two in Russia.
Everything used to be normal, but now we wait a year for each container to be approved, described and so on. We have a lot of problems because of this.
— Yes, for example, we co—operate with a company that has developed an accurate piezo water pressure sensor. Thanks to this and parallel measurements of water flow, we get the ratio of water level to flow rate.
Based on this data, we later get a curve of consumption throughout the season: e.g. at this level, we have this consumption.
There are many other devices that we use, some of them made in Russia, for example, the Pikor—Led georadar—I love it.
— Non—contact measurement of the height of snow cover or ice. That's very handy. But the ice or snow must be free of water. In Barentsburg it often is, by the way.
It is good for some special tasks: for example, I had a job to conduct 70 kilometres of snow profiles. I thought, "Well, one would go crazy measuring with the stick [snow measuring stylus]". We ended up equipping the radar, calibrating and doing it the task.
— Yes. The research is there mainly because of a combination of two facts: the most dynamic climate changes in the Arctic and simple logistics.
— Climate changes of the last 20 years do not affect the amount of moisture in the snow cover that accumulates during the cold season in the catchments we studied. Runoff situation is more complicated, in some years the contribution to river runoff from glacier ablation has been much greater than the annual average. Work is in progress.
How it will be further — we have to watch. Nature is an inert system. Humans influence the climate, greenhouse gases play their role, but the question remains: what role do people play? Is it huge or small?
— Yes, for example glaciologists also study snow, but they analyse it more as a form of icing. Meteorologists also deal with this subject a lot.
The work that we do for ourselves, for our own objectives, can be used by others. For example, we have been doing work on the amount of water that has run off a glacier. With the data that we have measured, we can calibrate methods of measuring glacier ablation.
My interest is in the snow as an element of the water balance. Most rivers in Svalbard have snow and snow—glacier feeding. Some amount of water is also added there by liquid precipitation, some—with glaciers. Somewhere there is underground feeding. This is very interesting—how it all forms together.
— Actually, few people care: 'the snow is the snow, it's there.' Science is tied to the mainstream.
— Yes, there are a lot. But they have a slightly different approach: everything is fragmented, there are some massive, huge projects that have been going on for many years. Mostly all foreign research is specialised.
Monitoring goes on there constantly. We, on the other hand, measure the same thing every year.
There are some very interesting works. I often refer to them. It is customary that some sources should be from foreign science. I try to keep abreast of current research regardless of language, on snow especially. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult because the schools and approaches are different.
For example: they came up with curious models SnowTran-3D, SnowModel. Scientists have synthesised several models for research on Svalbard: one for snow, one for temperature and climate, and one for relief. Such work and calculations require supercomputers.
— They write that the coefficients of determination are 0.88 or 0.8, which is a lot for such complex models.
These are strong mathematicians, people who are experience in numerical methods and have good hardware. I don't know how much the physics of the processes itself is important to them, but as modellers they are excellent.
Nevertheless, I do not like models, and I especially do not like neural networks. If a model at least gives some formulaic representation of your ideas, relationships and coefficients confirming the work, in a neural network you just get a concrete solution for each specific case, which you cannot depict on paper.
— When the Special military operation in Ukraine started, some foreign scientists broke off contacts, some remained neutral. We have maintained a huge number of contacts, but they remain on a private level. As a rule, they do not refer to us and do not contact us.
— I managed to participate in a big workshop—ArcticWorkshop—in March 2022. The person who was in charge of the organisation that year, works at the local UNIS university and at the University of Boulder Colorado, a geologist from America, said the following:
— I'll be honest with you, there are some people who don't really want you here.
— What has changed?
— We're having an active discussion, not everybody wants to see you here.
And these were people who have worked with me before….. It's an amazing position, because it said how?—"Don't work with Russians, that's it, it's over…" There's a mainstream—'Russians are bad'—that's it, what else?
I believe that science is beyond politics.
— We recognise climate change as it is recognised in the general global community. But there are problems: how can it be adequately assessed? For example, there is a problem with correlating data: if you want to, you can find a statistical link between your mood today (if you tick a score from 1 to 100) and the level of some lake in Africa, but there is no real link.
Natural processes are as complex as possible. There is, for example, ocean acidification, a really scary thing. Evidence of this is found indirectly by damage to corals and diatom algae: their skeletons form badly.
Another question: is carbon dioxide really that efficient at turning into the ocean? Then there's the greenhouse effect. Is it exactly how it works?
How does it work in science? There's a mainstream, someone said something—that's it—we're now going to assume it's true and start tweaking our own studies.
My study has the following data: the climate is changing. Over the last 20 years, the trend is rather weak, but it is present. Winters in Svalbard have definitely become warmer, I won't give exact figures. As mentioned above, there is no effect of these changes on the amount of water stored in snow between seasons, at least in the west of the Svalbard archipelago.
— My subjective opinion, humans are not the leader in influencing climate change. It's just very convenient for green policies. The same Greta Thunberg: 'I don't fly aeroplanes.' She ended up taking a boat to New York from Stockholm, and to bring the boat back, five people flew there instead of one…
Actually, none of us are ready to go really green. It's not that I like wearing old clothes, I just don't like to consume a lot. It's much more important than running around shouting 'Stop the climate change, close the nuclear plants'.
Any thesis has to be disproven. If it can't be verified, then it's a bad thesis. I think you have to check yourself and monitor yourself, be critical of any thing and admit you are wrong if it has been proven or your opinion has changed. That's very important.
— Basically, a massive volcanic eruption can release more of various gases and aerosols than a human can in a year.
Unfortunately, the climate issue is compromised by the strong politicisation of the green agenda.
— That's why our icebreaker fleet is constantly growing!.. Russia does not benefit from climate change: we have too many settlements on permafrost.
— The glaciers that are on Severnaya Zemlya are not going away as dynamically as on Svalbard. Svalbard is in the warm zone of the Arctic because the archipelago is under the great influence of the West Spitsbergen Current (it is a branch from the Gulf Stream).
— On Svalbard and parts of Novaya Zemlya, it's real. If you look at a map of temperature anomalies, you can see a huge red spot there. Nevertheless, the Antarctic has become colder in some places, yet nobody cares.
The glaciers of Spitsbergen are really melting very fast, how fast Russia is melting, I can't say.
— One of the main mainstreams is remote monitoring. I had a dream to somehow learn how to measure snow remotely. But it is difficult, and microwave radiometers have too low resolution at the necessary wavelengths.
The second trend is modelling. But the trouble is that modelling is resorted to only when all other empirical methods of research are unavailable. Modelling is a forced measure, not a research goal.
— Hydrology in Soviet times was developed from this point of view: water as a source of energy, water as a source of food, water as a source of life. The economic importance of resources was emphasised.
— Man cannot do without fresh water. All industry and human life is tied to fresh water. There will be competition for water, certainly.
You can't build a rocket without water.
And there was such a trend: "A litre of water costs more than a litre of petrol." Then I came to a shop: just a second—here are 5 litres of water for 50 rubles, and petrol—a litre for 50. Somehow I was tricked…
Hydrology is, after all, an engineering and applied science, which is designed to study water in order to use it rationally and not to commit catastrophic actions. Plus, indeed, it is forecasting, predicting dangerous hydrological phenomena, floods and the like. There's a certain risk of being left in a tragedy if you don't know anything about hydrology.
The interview was conducted and prepared by Dmitry Tarasov
Also read the publication:
The New Polarstern: A Neverending Story
