Consequences of Global Warming

As Scott said, the optimal climatic state is the one that has naturally been occurring. While there are changes to this state, they are gradual. Adaptations are more readily made in response to gradual changes than they are to abrupt changes. And some fauna will be unable to adapt to even these gradual changes and will become extinct.

There are certainly aspects of global warming that might be beneficial (opening up shipping lanes in the Arctic Ocean, for example), but it is difficult to say that these aspects outweigh the negative consequences of global warming. Already the State of Alaska has experienced tremendous erosion problems due to fall storms in coastal areas. Previously these storms occurred after freeze-up and little impacts occurred. Now, however, these storms occur at the same time of year, but the ocean has not yet frozen and the soil is no longer underlain by permafrost. The result is significant erosion of entire communities. The state and federal governments are picking up the tab for costly erosiion mitigation. And such spending will only increase as the consequences of global warming become more dire.

Global warming even has negative consequences to the oil industry in Alaska. Most oil exploration in Alaska is conducted during hte winter months when it is safe to drive on the tundra. That operating window used to be about seven months and now it is down to about three months. That equates to more costly or slower exploration. And those costs will be reflected in the fuel prices at the pump. So even those people in warmer climes will be negatively impacted by the consequences of global warming.

To dream that agriculture will become a dominant industry in Alaska avoids the facts of the nutrient-poor and rocky soil. To say that a wider range of outdoor pursuits will be available once the world has warmed is also foolish; the widest range is available when there are opportunities for both winter and summer activities. Removing the opportunities for participating in winter activities by removing the snow and ice certainly doesn't increase the diversity of opportunities.

When discussing aspects of global warming, both sides (naysayers and those who'd like to do something to diminish its impact) would be better served to restrict the conversation to factual and reasonable arguments. Hyperbole and fanciful arguments really don't have roles in enlightening discussion.

Alaskans are already feeling the consequences of global warming and they are by no means positive. Ken's expectations aaside, global warming has NOT been good for Alaska.