Hacker News Reader

Comment by BurningFrog | Hacker News Reader

So far Greenland is a relatively poor and miserable place, with a population of only 56,674.

Comparatively, Alaska offers a much better role model for arctic governance.

Alaska is much warmer. Only a few sheltered coastal bays on Greenland can sustain any trees at all. Meanwhile, Sitka and Ketchikan often enjoy snowless winters. This is due, I believe, to the Aleutian ridge blocking the transport of cold water from the Arctic (contrast with the Labrador current).

Don't you think using two points along the narrow strip of land at the southwestern tip of Alaska as indicative of the overall Alaskan climate is just a wee bit dishonest?

They are apparently the 4th and 5th largest cities in the state, so not a terrible example [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska

They're also unreachable by road from the Alaska "mainland".

Anyway, however you think about the state, those cities are clearly not part of the Arctic.

Indeed. Also consider that vikings managed to colonise Iceland but not Greenland.

But they did colonise Greenland. They were there for 500 years.

Well, they had a struggling little outpost. Greenland is vast.

Edit: i'm wrong, they did spread out some.

And Greenland is still Danish, so the decendants of the vikings did manage to hold on to it, even after their settlements died out, they came back.

> miserable place

How are you assessing that?

I lived there for 5 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com