it looks like equirectangular (shine horizontal lasers from a rod through the poles through the Earth's surface onto a cylinder of the same height, record its surface image, then unfurl it), which is still about as bad as Mercator (shine omnidirectional light from a point source in the centre through the surface onto an infinitely tall cylinder) since the means by which it conserves area (exaggerating horizontal distance as much as it understates vertical) make distance:area only correct for diagonal Rhumb lines.
True, climate change isn't only bad. Some parts will actually benefit at least for humans (local fauna will have more issues). It's climate change, not climate destruction.
In the 60s the Soviets actually considered damming off the bering strait to make Siberia warmer. Kennedy apparently wasn't even too opposed to the idea.
However the parts where the effect is bad for humans heavily outweigh the good parts. Because that's where humans live now, there's a reason we didn't live in northern Siberia much. We live where the conditions were favourable in the past and those are largely becoming less favourable. Meaning huge amounts of people wanting to move in a hurry, the kind of thing that tends to conflict.
Just want to point this out because there seems to be a lot of pooh-poohing going around right now, saying it's not so bad. But it is already bad for the places where we actually live and it's only beginning.
China is working with Russia and other countrys to build out a vast rail network that is pushing westward, and I think delivering small(token) trains to scandenavia already.
The bottom line is that China can deliver what you want, where you want it, when you want it, at a price you cant say no too.
According to that graph we're not currently at the absolute record low (2020 and 2016 were lower apparently), but only because so many of the recent years were record-low years.
well then you know that at the bottom of the curve, the ice area is more about potential, than anything that you could actualy see, or walk on, even at "100%" ice cover a strong wind will clear it and no huskys have peed on it.
The other factor, mentioned nowhere, is that with so much glacial melting, the top layer of sea water is fresher, and freezes easier, so with each passing year things go further out of calibration.
It's worth mentioning that I live inside the zone used for seasonal sea ice mapping, and regularly check the goes sattelites, and what is charted as ice, very often looks like open water, so...thanks for the link!
The one time a non Mercator map would have significantly helped them tell this story.. and what do they pick?
A 3D globe view "from above" was probably simplest.
it looks like equirectangular (shine horizontal lasers from a rod through the poles through the Earth's surface onto a cylinder of the same height, record its surface image, then unfurl it), which is still about as bad as Mercator (shine omnidirectional light from a point source in the centre through the surface onto an infinitely tall cylinder) since the means by which it conserves area (exaggerating horizontal distance as much as it understates vertical) make distance:area only correct for diagonal Rhumb lines.
haha I came here to post exactly this. “I bet the route doesn’t look so roundabout if it were put on an actual 3d globe”
Yeah lol this way it really looks like a boneheaded idea
Enabled by climate change right? Wonder which ports and countries will benefit from lesser ice in future.
True, climate change isn't only bad. Some parts will actually benefit at least for humans (local fauna will have more issues). It's climate change, not climate destruction.
In the 60s the Soviets actually considered damming off the bering strait to make Siberia warmer. Kennedy apparently wasn't even too opposed to the idea.
However the parts where the effect is bad for humans heavily outweigh the good parts. Because that's where humans live now, there's a reason we didn't live in northern Siberia much. We live where the conditions were favourable in the past and those are largely becoming less favourable. Meaning huge amounts of people wanting to move in a hurry, the kind of thing that tends to conflict.
Just want to point this out because there seems to be a lot of pooh-poohing going around right now, saying it's not so bad. But it is already bad for the places where we actually live and it's only beginning.
Artic sea ice is at record low area. Sea ice volume is less easily documented, but all the data points to a steady dramatic decline.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
China is working with Russia and other countrys to build out a vast rail network that is pushing westward, and I think delivering small(token) trains to scandenavia already. The bottom line is that China can deliver what you want, where you want it, when you want it, at a price you cant say no too.
My favorite website to see all the relevant climate trends:
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice_daily/?nhsh=nh
According to that graph we're not currently at the absolute record low (2020 and 2016 were lower apparently), but only because so many of the recent years were record-low years.
well then you know that at the bottom of the curve, the ice area is more about potential, than anything that you could actualy see, or walk on, even at "100%" ice cover a strong wind will clear it and no huskys have peed on it. The other factor, mentioned nowhere, is that with so much glacial melting, the top layer of sea water is fresher, and freezes easier, so with each passing year things go further out of calibration. It's worth mentioning that I live inside the zone used for seasonal sea ice mapping, and regularly check the goes sattelites, and what is charted as ice, very often looks like open water, so...thanks for the link!