Canada "too small" to develop Northwest Passage shipping, diplomat says

[Neil]

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.

[Neil]

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.

[Tonitrus]

[timmah]We should just run maglev trains through underwater tubes across the ocean floor! [/timmah]

[Berkut]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[Razgovory]

Maybe pears have different shapes in Iceland then they do in America.

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

More 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.

[HVC]

If scientists can't even figure out what shape the earth is how can the predict the weather?

[garbon]

If scientists can't even figure out what shape the earth is how can the predict the weather?

[Viking]

If scientists can't even figure out what shape the earth is how can the predict the weather?

[Berkut]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

More 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.

[grumbler]

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. 

[viper37]

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.

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

More 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.