How is this not 'good'? This is exactly what nature/life has been doing, adapting and responding to changing conditions. Life as we understand it does not evolved to maintain a static equilibrium of any given region but a global biotic stability (this has been recognized at least 6-7 decades) - this is exactly what is needed (as per nature determination) for stability of climate, hence life.
If Alaska is warming and (biotic) life does not respond at all, then we have something to worry about. It would be a dessert.
In itself it just is what it is, and in the abstract entirely to be expected. But it has implications for humans.
Trees replacing tundra causes more sunlight to be absorbed when the sun is at low angles in the sky (spring and fall). The trees themselves are darker than the sedges and herbs they replace, which further increases sunlight absorption throughout the light part of the year.
This increases air temperature and so increases the amount of water vapor that the air can hold, which increases the intensity of storms when they happen, possibly thousands of miles away.
Locally, the heating might destabilize permafrost more rapidly than previously modelled, as one further effect. The implications of that would also have bad effects on humans and their structures.
On the positive side, models of forest colonization processes might be improved.
As a general note, this pattern of climate and cryosphere scientists saying "that's not supposed to happen yet!" has been a constant theme of the last 20 years.
It's not good in that it indicates that conditions are changing faster than anticipated. Organisms will adapt by living and dying, but we should be less complacent about accepting the deaths of many millions of humans.
The faster it moves, the more deaths there will be, and the more money we'll spend preventing them. On top of the money we spend preserving the trillions already invested in the climate as it is: where our cities are, how they're constructed, our vast agricultural infrastructure, etc.
"Life" will be fine. Our culture, probably not so much.
3 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 21.2 ms ] threadIf Alaska is warming and (biotic) life does not respond at all, then we have something to worry about. It would be a dessert.
Trees replacing tundra causes more sunlight to be absorbed when the sun is at low angles in the sky (spring and fall). The trees themselves are darker than the sedges and herbs they replace, which further increases sunlight absorption throughout the light part of the year.
This increases air temperature and so increases the amount of water vapor that the air can hold, which increases the intensity of storms when they happen, possibly thousands of miles away.
Locally, the heating might destabilize permafrost more rapidly than previously modelled, as one further effect. The implications of that would also have bad effects on humans and their structures.
On the positive side, models of forest colonization processes might be improved.
As a general note, this pattern of climate and cryosphere scientists saying "that's not supposed to happen yet!" has been a constant theme of the last 20 years.
The faster it moves, the more deaths there will be, and the more money we'll spend preventing them. On top of the money we spend preserving the trillions already invested in the climate as it is: where our cities are, how they're constructed, our vast agricultural infrastructure, etc.
"Life" will be fine. Our culture, probably not so much.