Canada's economy is larger than Russia's and their GDP per capita much larger. Surely they have the money, why aren't they making a play for this?
What are your opinions Canucks?
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+small+develop+Northwest+Passage+shipping+diplomat+says/5224606/story.html#ixzz1UfghUkvY
QuoteCanada "too small" to develop Northwest Passage shipping, diplomat says
By Beatrice Fantoni, Postmedia News August 8, 2011
Canada will lose out to Russia's Arctic shipping routes because it is too small to finance the infrastructure, France's ambassador for the polar regions said Monday.
Melting polar ice will make Canada's Northwest Passage more accessible in the next decades, but Canada does not seem interested in exploiting it for shipping, said Michel Rocard, who recently returned from a tour of the Arctic aboard the Canadian icebreaker Amundsen.
"I have the impression that Canada has given up on the competition to attract a large part of the traffic in 25 or 30 years," Rocard said.
The former French prime minister said Canada is "too small to finance itself the infrastructure" needed to spur commercial shipping through its Northwest Passage — a shorter route between European and Asian markets than the Suez and Panama canals. In contrast, Rocard said, Russia is an "Arctic force" with several icebreakers, including four new nuclear-powered ones.
Rob Huebert, a professor in circumpolar relations at the University of Calgary, said it's not a question of being "too small" but rather one of political will and economics determining how fast Canada moves on developing transpolar trade.
"We still haven't really made up our minds if we want international shipping coming though our waterways," Huebert said. "Because there's still ice there's not the economic argument for transpolar shipping."
Huebert said shipping companies that transit through the Panama Canal or around the tip of South America still can't be convinced to take the northern route because it requires an icebreaker escort and the shipping season is shorter.
He added there is no "concentrated effort" to chart Canada's Arctic waterways to reflect recent changes in sea ice, making it dangerous in some cases for vessels to travel through.
U.S. researchers have said global warming could leave the region ice-free by 2030.
Michael Byers, an expert in international law and the Arctic at the University of British Columbia, said the Northwest Passage will "almost certainly" be open in September and October for vessels of any kind, not just icebreakers, because the sea ice is growing weaker.
"The 'deepwater route' from Lancaster Sound through Barrow Strait . . . has the depth and width to easily accommodate supertankers and other supersized vessels," Byers told Postmedia News in an email.
However, Byers said, opening up to transpolar shipping raises some difficult questions on how Canada will protect against oil spills or criminal activity — while its sovereignty over the waterway is still a matter of dispute.
"Foreign shipping companies want world class navigation aids, charts, search and rescue, ports of refuge, policing and icebreaker assistance. If Canada builds an 'Arctic Gateway' to the world through these kinds of investments, foreign companies and governments will quickly become more accepting of Canadian sovereignty," Byers said.
Rocard said that Russia's Arctic passage along the Siberian coast is less winding and has fewer islands than Canada's Northwest Passage, but it is a bit longer. And while Resolute Bay in Canada's far north has a mere 280 inhabitants, Russia's northernmost port cities of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk are home to 300,000 and 350,000 people, respectively.
With files from Agence France-Presse
If a G7 member can't do it then nobody can.
the article tells you why its too small. its north is empty, russia`s isnt
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2011, 08:14:17 AM
the article tells you why its too small. its north is empty, russia`s isnt
That can be got around with the application of the right amount of money.
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2011, 08:14:17 AM
the article tells you why its too small. its north is empty, russia`s isnt
QuoteHowever, Byers said, opening up to transpolar shipping raises some difficult questions on how Canada will protect against oil spills or criminal activity — while its sovereignty over the waterway is still a matter of dispute.
hmmm...
If Small means lacking the political will to shell out the money to do it properly. Then yes, we are.
I thought Harper would drum that beat properly but even him is a let down in this case.
The disadvantage of having no direct mirror of the Murmansk region is something that will be, of course, very hard to overcome no matter how much money we poor into our Artic.
None the less, the Northwest passage is in Canadian Territorial Water.
I suppose the distance Murmansk - Bering Strait is the same as the distance Halifax - Bering Strait, thought in the case of the NW passage a much greater part of the distance would be expected to remain ice free.
I think the infrastructure required might be a fleet of 10-20 heavy ice breakers along with 10-20 safe harbours capable of supplying and repairing the same ice breakers as well as sheltering any ships that might seek to make the passage.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 14, 2011, 08:30:51 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2011, 08:14:17 AM
the article tells you why its too small. its north is empty, russia`s isnt
That can be got around with the application of the right amount of money.
Canada is not spending money on anything right now. :( Also to spend money on the Northwest Passage would be tacit agreement in climate change, which I'm not sure our Conservative government wants to do.
Will Murmansk be: The Singapore of the north?
I suppose France will be buying gas cheap in the near future.
More like the Somalia of the north.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
Upper Volta with rockets.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
But with Aircraft carriers and Guided Missile cruisers..
QuoteFrance's ambassador for the polar regions
lolwtf
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
But with Aircraft carriers and Guided Missile cruisers..
Russia have aircraft carriers? No way!
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
But with Aircraft carriers and Guided Missile cruisers..
Russia have aircraft carriers? No way!
It breaks down. A lot.
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
But with Aircraft carriers and Guided Missile cruisers..
Russia have aircraft carriers? No way!
WAY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDgLyVkOZV0
Here's a picture with Medvedev on board the Admiral Kuznetsov (featured in the video).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgfx.dagbladet.no%2Flabrador%2F112%2F112892%2F11289235%2Fjpg%2Factive%2F503x.jpg&hash=3b6e21e98e30840be6e1bae6106ea34ca50f4201)
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
But with Aircraft carriers and Guided Missile cruisers..
Russia have aircraft carriers? No way!
It's really more of a Cruiser with a landing strip and ramp.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 02:53:08 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 14, 2011, 02:02:23 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 01:39:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 PM
More like the Somalia of the north.
But with Aircraft carriers and Guided Missile cruisers..
Russia have aircraft carriers? No way!
It's really more of a Cruiser with a landing strip and ramp.
It's almost as big as the USS CV Midway. And can carry more than 50 aircraft.
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 02:58:56 PM
It's almost as big as the USS CV Midway. And can carry more than 50 aircraft.
12-18 jump jets and a bunch of helicopters IIRC.
You mean the WWII era ship? Wow. A ship that carried 65 planes when it retired and had twice the crew? I am under impressed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2011, 03:14:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 02:58:56 PM
It's almost as big as the USS CV Midway. And can carry more than 50 aircraft.
12-18 jump jets and a bunch of helicopters IIRC.
Flankers and Frogfoots are not "jump jets", plus they have 12 nuclear capable SS-N-19 anti ship missiles as well.
Russian Carrier design philosophy FTL for putting anti ship missiles on the carriers, but I can't help that, but it the biggest non-nuclear Carrier in the world.
I think they put nuclear capable missiles on the USS Missouri for a while, which was a battle ship.
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 03:36:19 PM
Russian Carrier design philosophy FTL for putting anti ship missiles on the carriers, but I can't help that, but it the biggest non-nuclear Carrier in the world.
That's not quite true. CV-63 and CV-67 are still in existence and in reserve, although not in commission.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
I think they put nuclear capable missiles on the USS Missouri for a while, which was a battle ship.
All four Iowas were refitted to carry nuclear-capable Tomahawks in the early 80s. Reagan was wise.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
I think they put nuclear capable missiles on the USS Missouri for a while, which was a battle ship.
All four Iowas were refitted to carry nuclear-capable Tomahawks in the early 80s. Reagan was wise.
I would have thought the Tomahawks would be seen by you as a non-gun cop-out?
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 04:24:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
I think they put nuclear capable missiles on the USS Missouri for a while, which was a battle ship.
All four Iowas were refitted to carry nuclear-capable Tomahawks in the early 80s. Reagan was wise.
I would have thought the Tomahawks would be seen by you as a non-gun cop-out?
I like the guns, but it's the armour and heavy construction that makes a dreadnought so much better than any other warship built since Vanguard was completed.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
I think they put nuclear capable missiles on the USS Missouri for a while, which was a battle ship.
All four Iowas were refitted to carry nuclear-capable Tomahawks in the early 80s. Reagan was wise.
You would think that a nuclear capable hatchet would be a bad idea. I mean some people can throw them fairly well, but not that far.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 04:37:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 04:15:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 03:45:30 PM
I think they put nuclear capable missiles on the USS Missouri for a while, which was a battle ship.
All four Iowas were refitted to carry nuclear-capable Tomahawks in the early 80s. Reagan was wise.
You would think that a nuclear capable hatchet would be a bad idea. I mean some people can throw them fairly well, but not that far.
The nuclear handgrenade was a better invention.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2FFP%2FPROJECTS%2FNUCWCOST%2Fdavy6.jpg&hash=fe31873610ccd4f1c396beb618d562d9b55b3a6a)
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 08:35:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2011, 08:14:17 AM
the article tells you why its too small. its north is empty, russia`s isnt
QuoteHowever, Byers said, opening up to transpolar shipping raises some difficult questions on how Canada will protect against oil spills or criminal activity — while its sovereignty over the waterway is still a matter of dispute.
hmmm...
:huh:
The Americans have tried to get the NW passage through Canada made into an international strait for years now. It's not really a big deal, as the US isn't willing to fight a war on the North American continent.
We tremble at the thought of Canadian submarines sinking in our shipping lanes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2011, 08:01:01 PM
We tremble at the thought of Canadian submarines sinking in our shipping lanes.
Did the Canadians borrow submarine designs from the Poles?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 08:11:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2011, 08:01:01 PM
We tremble at the thought of Canadian submarines sinking in our shipping lanes.
Did the Canadians borrow submarine designs from the Poles?
We usually just buy second hand British sub. Where do British sub come from?
This reminds about this really enterprising U-boat crew in WWII. They docked in Colombia and then disassembled their ship, carried into Panama and reassembled it in the canal zone. They sunk hundreds of American ships till the US Navy took wise. They were only sunk some time in 1953.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 08:37:02 PM
This reminds about this really enterprising U-boat crew in WWII. They docked in Colombia and then disassembled their ship, carried into Panama and reassembled it in the canal zone. They sunk hundreds of American ships till the US Navy took wise. They were only sunk some time in 1953.
That doesn't sound like something that actually happened.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 08:40:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 08:37:02 PM
This reminds about this really enterprising U-boat crew in WWII. They docked in Colombia and then disassembled their ship, carried into Panama and reassembled it in the canal zone. They sunk hundreds of American ships till the US Navy took wise. They were only sunk some time in 1953.
That doesn't sound like something that actually happened.
The crew was so enterprising they not only managed to transcend the boundary between the Atlantic and the Pacific, but the boundary between reality and fiction as well...
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 08:40:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 08:37:02 PM
This reminds about this really enterprising U-boat crew in WWII. They docked in Colombia and then disassembled their ship, carried into Panama and reassembled it in the canal zone. They sunk hundreds of American ships till the US Navy took wise. They were only sunk some time in 1953.
That doesn't sound like something that actually happened.
No, probably not, but I don't actually know for sure it didn't.
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2011, 08:37:02 PM
This reminds about this really enterprising U-boat crew in WWII. They docked in Colombia and then disassembled their ship, carried into Panama and reassembled it in the canal zone. They sunk hundreds of American ships till the US Navy took wise. They were only sunk some time in 1953.
Cool story, bro.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2011, 08:01:01 PM
We tremble at the thought of Canadian submarines sinking in our shipping lanes.
afaik, we don't have any working submarine anymore. All 4 subs bought from the British have problems. 3 of them are out of commission for a while, one cannot go as deep as it should because of rust.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 12:13:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 14, 2011, 08:01:01 PM
We tremble at the thought of Canadian submarines sinking in our shipping lanes.
afaik, we don't have any working submarine anymore. All 4 subs bought from the British have problems. 3 of them are out of commission for a while, one cannot go as deep as it should because of rust.
They don't really have to work for them to sink in our sea lanes.
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 11:54:51 AM
I think the infrastructure required might be a fleet of 10-20 heavy ice breakers along with 10-20 safe harbours capable of supplying and repairing the same ice breakers as well as sheltering any ships that might seek to make the passage.
Then the Canadians are being sensible; it is premature to make that kind of investment.
There is going to be a lot more of this kind of rhetoric flying around as the North West Passage becomes more viable - assuming current climate models remain accurate.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2011, 12:56:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2011, 11:54:51 AM
I think the infrastructure required might be a fleet of 10-20 heavy ice breakers along with 10-20 safe harbours capable of supplying and repairing the same ice breakers as well as sheltering any ships that might seek to make the passage.
Then the Canadians are being sensible; it is premature to make that kind of investment.
Basically the NW (or NE) passage investments need to be compared to running PANAMAX ships only, the political risk of using Suez and the costs of expanding either canal (with the ship size and political limitations that would entail).
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
Basically the NW (or NE) passage investments need to be compared to running PANAMAX ships only, the political risk of using Suez and the costs of expanding either canal (with the ship size and political limitations that would entail).
But how is that the correct comparison from Canada's point of view?
Canada would bear the full cost of upgrading its northern infrastructure - not the case of canal expansion costs.
What are the weather projections?
How long this thawing will go on until the next Ice Age (short or long) begins?
The last short one was in the middle ages, right?
They should have got the rust proofing plan when they bought the subs. Yeah, you pay a bit extra at the start, but it saves down the road.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 15, 2011, 02:31:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 01:35:46 PM
Basically the NW (or NE) passage investments need to be compared to running PANAMAX ships only, the political risk of using Suez and the costs of expanding either canal (with the ship size and political limitations that would entail).
But how is that the correct comparison from Canada's point of view?
Canada would bear the full cost of upgrading its northern infrastructure - not the case of canal expansion costs.
Both the NW passage and an increased panama canal have value to the shipping companies. It's the increased value to the shippers that needs to be compared to the cost to canada of building the infrastructure. So, yeah, the comparison is relevant from Canada's point of view. The NW passage would be a service to world shipping rather than a improvement in local canadian infrastructure.
The shipper moving freight from the north atlantic to the north pacific has multiple options around the capes, through the canals and through the passages. Canals are shortest but require smaller ships, round the capes is longest but has no size or safety restrictions, through the passages will require new shipping standards as well as fees to operate and maintain ice-breakers and ports along the way.
The NW passage is not only competing with the Russians they are competing with both canals and both capes. A container is a container is a container, that is the commodity. (or bulk or liquids) Time is also a factor (which is why the BDI has differing prices for SUEZMAX, PANAMAZ, CAPEMAX (unlimited size), CHINAMAX (fits certain ports) and HANDYMAX (smaller ships often with self loading capability)).
Those should all be relevant factors for Canada.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
What are the weather projections?
How long this thawing will go on until the next Ice Age (short or long) begins?
The last short one was in the middle ages, right?
Estimates vary widely but irc 30-50 years out the passage could reliably be ice free 6 months of the year. A few years ago it was ice free for a brief period of time which started the whole debate.
Who knows. 30 years ago climate scientists were warning about a coming ice age. All we really know is climate changes occur - sometimes dramatically. I am not so sure we know enough to reliably predict how things will be 30-50 years out let alone when the next cooling event might occur.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 02:46:55 PM
Those should all be relevant factors for Canada.
If the Northwest Passage ever becomes viable as an actual passage way those will become relevant factors. But they are not relevant right now. Right now the relevant factor is whether Canada has soveriegn control over the passage. And that is really the point of the aricle.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
Who knows. 30 years ago climate scientists were warning about a coming ice age. All we really know is climate changes occur - sometimes dramatically. I am not so sure we know enough to reliably predict how things will be 30-50 years out let alone when the next cooling event might occur.
Scientists do. 30 years ago much less was known and inferior research tools were available. It is not that as time progresses what we know changes back and forth. We learn more and more and clarify and understand the nature of things better. We will not all of a sudden change our minds and declare the world to be flat again. We simply get more and more precise in our knowledge as time passes, the shape of the world does not swing between flat and round, to went from flat to round to orange shaped to pear shaped, each shape being more and more accurate. At the same time we know more and more about what factors affect climate and how much these factors affect climate we become better and better at understanding and predicting future climate.
The little ice age:
"The Little Ice Age brought colder winters to parts of Europe and North America. Farms and villages in the Swiss Alps were destroyed by encroaching glaciers during the mid-17th century.[17] Canals and rivers in Great Britain and the Netherlands were frequently frozen deeply enough to support ice skating and winter festivals.[17] The first River Thames frost fair was in 1607; the last in 1814, although changes to the bridges and the addition of an embankment affected the river flow and depth, hence diminishing the possibility of freezes. Freezing of the Golden Horn and the southern section of the Bosphorus took place in 1622. In 1658, a Swedish army marched across the Great Belt to Denmark to invade Copenhagen. The Baltic Sea froze over, enabling sledge rides from Poland to Sweden, with seasonal inns built on the way.[18] The winter of 1794-1795 was particularly harsh when the French invasion army under Pichegru could march on the frozen rivers of the Netherlands, while the Dutch fleet was fixed in the ice in Den Helder harbour. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing harbors to shipping."
Wow. Way cooler than now.
I don't think anyone considers the 17th century medieval.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
Who knows. 30 years ago climate scientists were warning about a coming ice age. All we really know is climate changes occur - sometimes dramatically. I am not so sure we know enough to reliably predict how things will be 30-50 years out let alone when the next cooling event might occur.
Scientists do. 30 years ago much less was known and inferior research tools were available. It is not that as time progresses what we know changes back and forth. We learn more and more and clarify and understand the nature of things better. We will not all of a sudden change our minds and declare the world to be flat again. We simply get more and more precise in our knowledge as time passes, the shape of the world does not swing between flat and round, to went from flat to round to orange shaped to pear shaped, each shape being more and more accurate. At the same time we know more and more about what factors affect climate and how much these factors affect climate we become better and better at understanding and predicting future climate.
Granted we wont say the world if flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. But what the hell does that tell us about our current ability to predict when the NW passage will become ice free with sufficient certainty to start pouring billions of dollars in infrastructure costs into the North. You are not a member of the US congress by any chance are you? This is beginning to sound more and more like something they might do.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
Who knows. 30 years ago climate scientists were warning about a coming ice age. All we really know is climate changes occur - sometimes dramatically. I am not so sure we know enough to reliably predict how things will be 30-50 years out let alone when the next cooling event might occur.
Scientists do. 30 years ago much less was known and inferior research tools were available. It is not that as time progresses what we know changes back and forth. We learn more and more and clarify and understand the nature of things better. We will not all of a sudden change our minds and declare the world to be flat again. We simply get more and more precise in our knowledge as time passes, the shape of the world does not swing between flat and round, to went from flat to round to orange shaped to pear shaped, each shape being more and more accurate. At the same time we know more and more about what factors affect climate and how much these factors affect climate we become better and better at understanding and predicting future climate.
Granted we wont say the world if flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. But what the hell does that tell us about our current ability to predict when the NW passage will become ice free with sufficient certainty to start pouring billions of dollars in infrastructure costs into the North. You are not a member of the US congress by any chance are you? This is beginning to sound more and more like something they might do.
You were suggesting that the previous less good science which predicted an ice age 30 years ago could return. That is what I was criticizing.
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
When GPS satellites showed us that the southern hemisphere is a few meters fatter than the northern hemisphere. It has something to do with the southern hemisphere having more ocean.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
Who knows. 30 years ago climate scientists were warning about a coming ice age.
it's a common myth, since only a few, and not really scientists, were warning about a coming ice age, and it was longer than 30 years ago, as I've heard about the warming effect ever since I was in high-school. It's more like 50 years ago.
There are still lunatics warning us about the climate getting colder. Doesn't mean they qualify as scientist just because they say so.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:08:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 02:55:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
Who knows. 30 years ago climate scientists were warning about a coming ice age. All we really know is climate changes occur - sometimes dramatically. I am not so sure we know enough to reliably predict how things will be 30-50 years out let alone when the next cooling event might occur.
Scientists do. 30 years ago much less was known and inferior research tools were available. It is not that as time progresses what we know changes back and forth. We learn more and more and clarify and understand the nature of things better. We will not all of a sudden change our minds and declare the world to be flat again. We simply get more and more precise in our knowledge as time passes, the shape of the world does not swing between flat and round, to went from flat to round to orange shaped to pear shaped, each shape being more and more accurate. At the same time we know more and more about what factors affect climate and how much these factors affect climate we become better and better at understanding and predicting future climate.
Granted we wont say the world if flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. But what the hell does that tell us about our current ability to predict when the NW passage will become ice free with sufficient certainty to start pouring billions of dollars in infrastructure costs into the North. You are not a member of the US congress by any chance are you? This is beginning to sound more and more like something they might do.
You were suggesting that the previous less good science which predicted an ice age 30 years ago could return. That is what I was criticizing.
Ok, so bring youself back on topic given the fact that my point was that we dont have a good idea what is going to happen 30-50 years out.
The wonderful thing about scientists is that they are the first to admit they might be wrong. The terrible thing about non scientists is they insist the current scientific projection/estimate must be true.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
When GPS satellites showed us that the southern hemisphere is a few meters fatter than the northern hemisphere. It has something to do with the southern hemisphere having more ocean.
I'm not sure that's really the shape of a pear. I've seen photos of both pears and the Earth. They really aren't that similar.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 03:03:43 PM
Granted we wont say the world if flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.
we won't?
hop! (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=62)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 03:24:06 PM
Ok, so bring youself back on topic given the fact that my point was that we dont have a good idea what is going to happen 30-50 years out.
The wonderful thing about scientists is that they are the first to admit they might be wrong. The terrible thing about non scientists is they insist the current scientific projection/estimate must be true.
The thing about science is that "the current scientific projection/estimate" is the best "projection/estimate". I suppose you'd make policy based on projections/estimates known to be faulty or lacking supporting evidence?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
When GPS satellites showed us that the southern hemisphere is a few meters fatter than the northern hemisphere. It has something to do with the southern hemisphere having more ocean.
I'm not sure that's really the shape of a pear. I've seen photos of both pears and the Earth. They really aren't that similar.
Nothing's really shaped like the earth.. since fruit is the usual comparison the pear comparison explains the variation well though.. but then again, the earth was never shaped like an orange when we thought it was shaped like an orange.
Who said it was shaped like an orange? Oranges aren't pefectly round and have indentions at the top and bottom. I would say the Earth is shaped something like a globe.
Quote from: viper37 on August 15, 2011, 03:30:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2011, 03:03:43 PM
Granted we wont say the world if flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.
we won't?
hop! (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=62)
Correct We wont.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:34:30 PM
Oranges aren't pefectly round and have indentions.
So in other words, something like the Earth...:P
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:34:30 PM
Who said it was shaped like an orange? Oranges aren't pefectly round and have indentions at the top and bottom. I would say the Earth is shaped something like a globe.
eh? thats like saying my head is shaped like my head.
What the fuck do you think a globe is?
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:38:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:34:30 PM
Who said it was shaped like an orange? Oranges aren't pefectly round and have indentions at the top and bottom. I would say the Earth is shaped something like a globe.
eh? thats like saying my head is shaped like my head.
What the fuck do you think a globe is?
Something shaped like the Earth. Duh, I thought you would have figured that out by now. :rolleyes: I should note that saying the Earth is round is not mutually exclusive with it being pear shaped, globe shaped or eggplant shaped. All of which are round things. I think the fact that Earth is round has been accepted in the West for thousands of years. No clue what the Chinese thought.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
That's stupid.
Everybody knows the Earth is flat, otherwise we would slide off the sides.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
That's stupid.
Everybody knows the Earth is flat, otherwise we would slide off the sides.
" Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
What parody?
This is how the Earth really looks like:
(notice that Antartica is really a wall of ice surrounding the continents)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F2%2F2f%2FFlat_earth.png&hash=cbe012fc1196d467454bb55ae86267f1eb136ae9)
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 04:03:07 PM
What parody?
this one
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
That's stupid.
Everybody knows the Earth is flat, otherwise we would slide off the sides.
You can't bet that stupid..
seriously dude...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_3RBEswSkE-w%2FTLAi_GcavuI%2FAAAAAAAAAa8%2FcXus-thL4F8%2Fs400%2Fii_earth_in_space.gif&hash=a7de8a6b0d0ba59db94578ddc9f5e16139e59627)
What's that?
A picture from the Moon hoax?
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 04:06:57 PM
What's that?
A picture from the Moon hoax?
I name thee Poe!!!
Either that or I demand you take the black and protect the kingdom from the others on the wall.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:51:45 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
That's stupid.
Everybody knows the Earth is flat, otherwise we would slide off the sides.
" Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
I'm skeptical of anyone who claims their political beliefs are "rational".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:10:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:51:45 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 03:48:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
That's stupid.
Everybody knows the Earth is flat, otherwise we would slide off the sides.
" Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
I'm skeptical of anyone who claims their political beliefs are "rational".
from Irrational Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Some guy on the Internet said it! Wow! How asinine. I will admit, I was amused by the Rational wikis observations of Conservopedia. The way they view of facts is honestly chilling.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:09:07 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 04:06:57 PM
What's that?
A picture from the Moon hoax?
I name thee Poe!!!
Either that or I demand you take the black and protect the kingdom from the others on the wall.
Why Poe? I'm not a writter.
Though I did enjoy the balloon hoax and the rats in the wall.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Some guy on the Internet said it! Wow! How asinine. I will admit, I was amused by the Rational wikis observations of Conservopedia. The way they view of facts is honestly chilling.
rationalwiki has a good definition of Poe's Law. I wasn't relying on them for fact, but rather for a definiton of a proposed "law". It's a bit like referring to the usenet for the definition of Godwin's Law (which all you schmucks get wrong constantly).
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Some guy on the Internet said it! Wow! How asinine. I will admit, I was amused by the Rational wikis observations of Conservopedia. The way they view of facts is honestly chilling.
rationalwiki has a good definition of Poe's Law. I wasn't relying on them for fact, but rather for a definiton of a proposed "law". It's a bit like referring to the usenet for the definition of Godwin's Law (which all you schmucks get wrong constantly).
Bothering to define some arbitrary law conceived on a usenet forum is stupid. Why would anyone bother giving him the time of day?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:24:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:19:54 PM
Some guy on the Internet said it! Wow! How asinine. I will admit, I was amused by the Rational wikis observations of Conservopedia. The way they view of facts is honestly chilling.
rationalwiki has a good definition of Poe's Law. I wasn't relying on them for fact, but rather for a definiton of a proposed "law". It's a bit like referring to the usenet for the definition of Godwin's Law (which all you schmucks get wrong constantly).
Bothering to define some arbitrary law conceived on a usenet forum is stupid. Why would anyone bother giving him the time of day?
Calling someone a poe is not claiming the law is true, but rather claiming that somebody is performing a hoax.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 02:46:55 PM
Those should all be relevant factors for Canada.
Not really. Those factors are only relevant in the limited sense that they are inputs that help determine how much shipping would actually be conducted through the Canadian NW passage if the improvements were made vs. not. But that doesn't come close to addressing the issue of whether the investment should be made, much less whether it should be made now. The factors that matter for that decision include:
+ Direct benefits to Canadians of being able to ship goods through the passage
+ Revenues that could be obtained from others shipping goods through the passage (speculative)
+ Drawbacks of having significant shipping moving through the passage (environment, burden on infrastruture and regulatory resources, etc)
+ Effect investment will have on shipping volumes
+ Cost of investment
+ Timing - how long it will take to acquire infrastructure vs. how long before large-scale shipping is feasible through the passage for sufficient time of the year.
You've addressed #4 only.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:28:32 PM
Calling someone a poe is not claiming the law is true, but rather claiming that somebody is performing a hoax.
I think it's more indicative of the person saying the word "poe".
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:28:32 PM
Calling someone a poe is not claiming the law is true, but rather claiming that somebody is performing a hoax.
I think it's more indicative of the person saying the word "poe".
I keep forgetting that I shouldn't reply to Raz' posts.
Sorry, I'm up on my kook lingo. Carry on.
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:32:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 04:28:32 PM
Calling someone a poe is not claiming the law is true, but rather claiming that somebody is performing a hoax.
I think it's more indicative of the person saying the word "poe".
I keep forgetting that I shouldn't reply to Raz' posts.
He as been fairly sane lately. The Fate rule need not always apply to Raz.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
For a very short period of time. Between Jan 12, 1390 and Jan 14, 1390 the pear-shapers were all the rage.
Canada would be silly to develop the NW passage. It would take a hundred years of transit fees just to pay off the infrastructure upgrades that it would take, given that the land is current a wasteland inhabited only by criminals and soldiers.
Quote from: Siege on August 15, 2011, 04:06:57 PM
What's that?
A picture from the Moon hoax?
Hoax? Flat earth?
This is how we know you're an Arab, Siege, with all those conspiracy theories. Jews are creatures of science and logic.
[timmah]We should just run maglev trains through underwater tubes across the ocean floor! [/timmah]
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:32:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:29:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 15, 2011, 03:16:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
When GPS satellites showed us that the southern hemisphere is a few meters fatter than the northern hemisphere. It has something to do with the southern hemisphere having more ocean.
I'm not sure that's really the shape of a pear. I've seen photos of both pears and the Earth. They really aren't that similar.
Nothing's really shaped like the earth.. since fruit is the usual comparison the pear comparison explains the variation well though.. but then again, the earth was never shaped like an orange when we thought it was shaped like an orange.
WTF are you going on about?
The earth is an oblate spheroid, it is larger around the equator than around the poles.
It is not shaped like a pear.
Quote from: Josephus on August 15, 2011, 06:29:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When did people think the Earth was pear shaped?
For a very short period of time. Between Jan 12, 1390 and Jan 14, 1390 the pear-shapers were all the rage.
There are still demonstrations that pop up now and again advocating for the Pear over the Orange. Recently violence broke out at one such demonstration when some pancake flatlanders tried to suggest they were right.
Maybe pears have different shapes in Iceland then they do in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
QuoteMore complicated figures
The possibility that the Earth's equator is an ellipse rather than a circle and therefore that the ellipsoid is triaxial has been a matter of scientific controversy for many years. Modern technological developments have furnished new and rapid methods for data collection and since the launch of Sputnik 1, orbital data have been used to investigate the theory of ellipticity.
A second theory, more complicated than triaxiality, proposed that observed long periodic orbital variations of the first Earth satellites indicate an additional depression at the south pole accompanied by a bulge of the same degree at the north pole. It is also contended that the northern middle latitudes were slightly flattened and the southern middle latitudes bulged in a similar amount. This concept suggested a slightly pear-shaped Earth and was the subject of much public discussion. Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure: they are represented by the spherical harmonic coefficients C22,S22 and C30, respectively, corresponding to degree and order numbers 2.2 for the triaxiality and 3.0 for the pear shape.
If scientists can't even figure out what shape the earth is how can the predict the weather?
:P
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2011, 11:37:03 AM
If scientists can't even figure out what shape the earth is how can the predict the weather?
:P
:hmm:
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2011, 11:37:03 AM
If scientists can't even figure out what shape the earth is how can the predict the weather?
:P
:frusty:
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2011, 11:00:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
QuoteMore complicated figures
The possibility that the Earth's equator is an ellipse rather than a circle and therefore that the ellipsoid is triaxial has been a matter of scientific controversy for many years. Modern technological developments have furnished new and rapid methods for data collection and since the launch of Sputnik 1, orbital data have been used to investigate the theory of ellipticity.
A second theory, more complicated than triaxiality, proposed that observed long periodic orbital variations of the first Earth satellites indicate an additional depression at the south pole accompanied by a bulge of the same degree at the north pole. It is also contended that the northern middle latitudes were slightly flattened and the southern middle latitudes bulged in a similar amount. This concept suggested a slightly pear-shaped Earth and was the subject of much public discussion. Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure: they are represented by the spherical harmonic coefficients C22,S22 and C30, respectively, corresponding to degree and order numbers 2.2 for the triaxiality and 3.0 for the pear shape.
You should read more carefully. The article is stating that there is a theory that orbital irregularities could be explained by slight bulging of the earth in the northern hemisphere. That doesn't mean the earth itself is shaped like a pear - there is no question that it is a oblate spheroid (after all, they have measured with great precision the circumfrence around the equator and through the poles - the equator is 43km longer, which is vastly more significant than the theorized depression/bulging). Saying it is "slightly pear-shaped" is simple a way of describing the depression/bulge - not an attempt to suggest that the earth itself is shaped like a pear. Unless is was a pear that was larger around the middle than either end.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 11:59:51 AM
You should read more carefully. The article is stating that there is a theory that orbital irregularities could be explained by slight bulging of the earth in the northern hemisphere. That doesn't mean the earth itself is shaped like a pear - there is no question that it is a oblate spheroid (after all, they have measured with great precision the circumfrence around the equator and through the poles - the equator is 43km longer, which is vastly more significant than the theorized depression/bulging). Saying it is "slightly pear-shaped" is simple a way of describing the depression/bulge - not an attempt to suggest that the earth itself is shaped like a pear. Unless is was a pear that was larger around the middle than either end.
Do you actually have so much lifespan to waste that you can spend some "debating" with Viking?
I find it better, as well as more amusing, to allow Viking and Raz to "debate" uninterrupted in a thread while the rest of us enjoy relatively Viking-and-Raz-free threads elsewhere. :bowler:
Quote from: Neil on August 15, 2011, 06:58:58 PM
Canada would be silly to develop the NW passage. It would take a hundred years of transit fees just to pay off the infrastructure upgrades that it would take, given that the land is current a wasteland inhabited only by criminals and soldiers.
on the other hand, if we don't develop it, we will have problems as traffic increase.
I believe Harper had plans for a deep sea port in the North. So has Quebec, though theoritically, the ports would be built in foreign waters when the tide lowers.
I think we need to occupy the spaces as they are rich in natural resources and it will be the only way to control access. It's not a question of choice.
But it shouldn't concern you, afaik, you were against Kyoto and unconvinced of that whole global waming thing, so, really, there should be no NW passage.
Quote from: Berkut on August 16, 2011, 11:59:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2011, 11:00:15 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
QuoteMore complicated figures
The possibility that the Earth's equator is an ellipse rather than a circle and therefore that the ellipsoid is triaxial has been a matter of scientific controversy for many years. Modern technological developments have furnished new and rapid methods for data collection and since the launch of Sputnik 1, orbital data have been used to investigate the theory of ellipticity.
A second theory, more complicated than triaxiality, proposed that observed long periodic orbital variations of the first Earth satellites indicate an additional depression at the south pole accompanied by a bulge of the same degree at the north pole. It is also contended that the northern middle latitudes were slightly flattened and the southern middle latitudes bulged in a similar amount. This concept suggested a slightly pear-shaped Earth and was the subject of much public discussion. Modern geodesy tends to retain the ellipsoid of revolution and treat triaxiality and pear shape as a part of the geoid figure: they are represented by the spherical harmonic coefficients C22,S22 and C30, respectively, corresponding to degree and order numbers 2.2 for the triaxiality and 3.0 for the pear shape.
You should read more carefully. The article is stating that there is a theory that orbital irregularities could be explained by slight bulging of the earth in the northern hemisphere. That doesn't mean the earth itself is shaped like a pear - there is no question that it is a oblate spheroid (after all, they have measured with great precision the circumfrence around the equator and through the poles - the equator is 43km longer, which is vastly more significant than the theorized depression/bulging). Saying it is "slightly pear-shaped" is simple a way of describing the depression/bulge - not an attempt to suggest that the earth itself is shaped like a pear. Unless is was a pear that was larger around the middle than either end.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. When accounting for mountains and other geological features the southern hemisphere is slightly larger than the northern by two or fewer meters in radius. Ultimately the earth doesn't have a shape, it is earth shaped and get a new shape when I dig a hole in my back yard. Calling the earth an oblate spheroid is not correct, though it is a very close approximation. Given the tradition of comparing the shape of the earth to food (pancakes and oranges) the pear fits best in explaining the nature of the shape of the earth. Ultimately the only true description of the shape of the earth is a monstrously long 3 column (angle, azimuth and distance) matrix which changes every single second.