Mr. Sergeyev, please tell us about your lab.

We deal with the permafrost's reaction to external stimuli, specifically, global warming and engineering-related human activities.

Were you able to pinpoint the factors that cause the melting of the permafrost? Many believe that human activities and global warming are to blame.

There's no reliable data about the permafrost actually melting. It's a myth that is built, among other things, on the trendy concept that the climate is getting warmer irreversibly. The fact is that sudden, sustained warming began only in 1965 and caused concern in international public opinion. However, since 1965, it has had very little impact on the permafrost. Roughly, the air warming by two degrees results in rocks warming also by about two degrees. But this is the average temperature. Clearly, if the temperature was five degrees below zero, and is now four degrees below zero, it's okay.

But this is only one side of the matter. The other side is that an area with the permafrost is subject to different processes: melting or frost heaving. These processes aren't good for humans. Any human activity, especially construction, may run into a situation where, after a while, the earth can suddenly turn bumpy or cave in causing economic losses. However, these processes are not directly related to climate change. They happen just because they happen. They happen in the Arctic with an average annual temperature 12 degrees Celsius below zero, and in the south, such as the Trans-Baikal region, where temperatures average zero degrees Celsius. They happen everywhere. Of course, global warming has some effect, but human impact is invariably stronger. That is, engineering or improper operation of equipment always cause more damage than global warming.

Global warming revealed another problem that is regulatory in nature. All construction projects are carried out according to established standards. Designers use them in their work. These rules and regulations do not take into account the changes that take place in the permafrost and are based on figures dating back to the 1970s and 1980s.

Why?

What they do is take the average temperature over the past 30 years, and use it to crunch the numbers. However, the temperature has changed. In this sense, global warming is dangerous, but this danger is only on paper, as it has to do only with rules and regulations. This issue cannot be used as an excuse to say that soon things will get really bad, and everything will melt. No, nothing will melt. The permafrost is highly inert, and it keeps itself protected from climate change. In many areas, such as Vorkuta, average soil temperatures are above freezing, but the permafrost is still there. If you create proper conditions, such as add sawdust and peat, you can create the permafrost even in Moscow.

It's not so bad. It just needs to be taken care of. Data should be collected and properly processed. There must be a network of observation stations, just like with the weather forecast service, only for the soil and climate observations. It's too early to say that the permafrost is melting. So far, we don't have enough data to say so.

How long has permafrost research been conducted?

The first station, which focused on regular cryogenic research, was created in Igarka in the 1930s, followed by research stations in Vorkuta, Yakutsk and Anadyr. There were many of them. Now, there's not enough of them, but the research is nonetheless underway.

In what part of Russia are observations conducted?

Fixed-site observation stations were built in Yakutsk, Nadym, Vorkuta and the Northern Trans-Baikal Territory. Our institute has the latter one on our balance sheet. There are other stations as well.

In one of your public speeches you mentioned that few people are now interested in permafrost research. Why do you think this is the case? Is this only because of poor funding?

Regrettably, Russia's policy goals, including the ones related to developing the Arctic, tend to consistently leave out permafrost research, meaning that our country does not have a national permafrost research program. This issue should be taken to the Ministry of Education and Science, the Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations and government agencies. There must be an understanding that such research is in our national interests and must be properly represented. No one wants to deal with it now.

Do other countries engage in such research?

Yes, they do. The United States has adopted a regulatory document signed by President Obama on Arctic research priorities, including the permafrost. We don't have that in our program documents on the Arctic, even though we put together some projects.

Do you have an explanation for the Yamal craters?

We looked into this issue and analyzed all eight hypotheses that are available to date. Our key finding is that we don't know enough at this point to understand what's going on. Unfortunately, the craters have revealed a weakness in modern science.

What is the most accepted explanation of their origin?

They are caused by the long-term development of permafrost cavities, which develop in freezing conditions in the presence of gas bubbles.

So, it's nature, and human activities have nothing to do with it?

Yes. The fact that it's due to natural causes is not debatable. Humans have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's a natural process, a very complicated one with a long history. There are eight craters already, so there's a certain trend in place, which has so far remained poorly studied.

What will happen to the permafrost in the distant future? Will it melt completely one hundred years from now?

Of course, not. I think it will remain intact. No matter how the climate may change, it is unlikely that such changes will be drastic. There will be certain limited areas affected by such changes, but that's all there will be to it.