PDA

View Full Version : Arctic sea ice expected to hit record low



Hans
08-17-2007, 05:31 PM
"The extent of Arctic sea ice will likely have melted to a record low this September partially due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions, researchers at the University of Colorado said on Thursday."

Now, before you state global warming is over hyped and simply untrue, you might want to take notice of the next thing :

"It could also open the Northwest Passage along the northern coast of North America and connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to shipping by as early as 2020 or 2025, he said. That could be a cheaper option for many shippers than the Panama Canal.

So there you have it, the Panama canal will not be needed anymore in 20 years. Just imagine the economic impact it will have when all that traffic goes towards Canada instead of the USA.

The Berean
08-17-2007, 09:07 PM
That would be interesting.

How about the thoght that as more of the USA turns into a desert more of Canada turns into usable farmland.

If shipping does start to be able to go north, northern Canada will boom.

Especially as the southern states either frys or gets blasted by hurricanes.

GenX
08-18-2007, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If shipping does start to be able to go north, northern Canada will boom. </div></div>

You might go from 33 million to 34 million people...where the U.S. was back in 1838 /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif

1337
08-22-2007, 12:13 AM
"And the total population for the United States had risen from 5.3 million in 1800 to 9.6 million in 1820, surpassing New Spain - soon to be Mexico - which in 1820 had a population of around 6 million. The U.S. was the most populous power on the continent, which had implications for the future."

So in 18 years they jumped another 20 some million?

GenX
08-22-2007, 09:33 AM
Of course I was just throwing any year out there, to make a point. The point being that 34 million people isn't a whole hell of a lot.

But, you are correct in a strict sense; the U.S. population certainly was not 34 million in 1838 (a year randomly picked to show distance from today).

On the eve of the Civil War, in 1861, U.S. population was approximately 34 million. So, you are getting close to where we were in 1861!

Return of Too Many Daves
08-22-2007, 10:39 AM
"The point being that 34 million people isn't a whole hell of a lot."

Would they fit in your lounge?

GenX
08-22-2007, 10:39 AM
Half would.

GenX
08-22-2007, 10:52 AM
Dave, you've been sparse around here all summer. Where'd you go (if you don't mind me asking)?

Return of Too Many Daves
08-22-2007, 11:44 AM
St Catherine's for a week, and Quebec city for a week (both conference travel), and the UK for 2 and a bit weeks (sister's wedding). Pretty busy really.

GenX
08-22-2007, 11:52 AM
How are things in the U.K.?

Return of Too Many Daves
08-22-2007, 12:32 PM
Not bad, flooding was patchy. The new prime minister is up in the poles, so we don't have to worry about Cameron. Unemployment still low, houses still high. But I was glad to be somewhere with a decent population density. So many choices. Missed the Soo a bit too though.

GenX
08-22-2007, 12:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The new prime minister is up in the poles</div></div>

The inevitable 'honeymoon period'. Tell him to not get too comfortable.

Lance
08-22-2007, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If shipping does start to be able to go north, northern Canada will boom. </div></div>

You might go from 33 million to 34 million people...where the U.S. was back in 1838 /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/lol.gif </div></div>

Your think a large population is a good thing? China,and India must have it made then LOL. NOT!

http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/mumbai-local-train.jpg

GenX
08-22-2007, 12:48 PM
Didn't say that.

But I am saying 30 million people on the second-largest landmass in the world is a bit, well, sparse.

Lance
08-22-2007, 01:01 PM
The Population of the States was 165 million in 1955 and no one ever thought anything of it. Having a pop double that is a improvement of some kind?

I would rather live in a 5 bedroom house with 2 people than a in a 2 bedroom house with 5 people anyday.

I belong to a ATV forum with both Canadians and Americans and if you read the Americans post you can tell they have a harder time to find a place thats not private property for a place to ride.

In the near future you will have to pay admission to walk in a park or swim in a lake in the States.

Canada with a Population of 100 million? Who needs it, I was fine with a population of 25 million in the 70,s.

GenX
08-22-2007, 01:46 PM
Lance, you're just throwing out stuff now to see if it sticks. What is this about paying admission to walk or swim in a park in the states? You know that is ridiculous.

http://www.wackyneighbor.com/images/us_by_population_density.jpg

That map clearly shows that the U.S. is indeed densely populated in some areas, particularly the northeast and the west coast of California. But look at how sparsely populated she is elsewhere.
According to the U.S. Forest service, there is currently 749 million acres of forest land in the U.S. That is ONLY the land designated by the Wildlife Service as federal land (for upkeep purposes and funds). There are millions upon millions of more acres of land not designated as federal.

I'm not saying a large population or small population is best. What I was referring to was the implication by someone that Canada was the best place in the world to live. All I did was ask what the relationship was of the fact that Canada is so sparsely populated to his assertion. Don't people flock to what is 'best'?

Lance
08-22-2007, 02:02 PM
I don,t think of Canada as sparely populated with 35 Million but more like some countries are more like over populated.

I,m sure both the States and Canada will double there populating in the far future,but I will garantee those people living in that time will think we lived in the good old days.

Return of Too Many Daves
08-22-2007, 02:16 PM
Hmmm, there are benefits to both, but I do miss the population density of the UK. It just gives us so much more choice in restaurants and products in the supermarket.