Jump to content
 

The non-railway and non-modelling social zone. Please ensure forum rules are adhered to in this area too!

Early Risers.


Mr.S.corn78
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

... the Northern part of Vietnam can be quite cold in the North (it's another big country).

It is - at least the north/south direction.

 

From north to south it is around 1,650 km, a little shorter than the distance from Seattle to San Diego (as the crow flies). Vietnam spans almost 15° of latitude - similar to London (51.5°N) to Málaga (36.7°N). 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 9
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

The distance between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) is something like 1150Km, it's a much bigger country than most realise. Another one is Indonesia, that's a huge country in terms of length across the various islands.

 

I find this site a bit of a time waster...

 

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/

 

 

  • Like 9
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

I find this site a bit of a time waster...

Similarly the "true size of" website, which compares the actual land mass area of countries when you move them around a Mercator's projection.

 

This is Vietnam contrasted with the British Isles:

image.png.c1ddaf93c36d8e7a3ce6fe627b985231.png

 

Edited by Ozexpatriate
  • Like 7
  • Informative/Useful 8
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

The CIA almanacs are quite good on this stuff, for all I'm not a big enthusiast of such agencies (however necessary they are) their information digests can be excellent.

With the popularity of spy novels and movies, I think we forget that much of the work done by intelligence agencies is to provide (as objectively as possible) an understanding of world cultures for their government institutions and elected officials. Cloak and dagger espionage is not necessarily the primary focus.

 

These days of course electronics intercepts (chatter) have a valid national security interest.

  • Like 9
  • Agree 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

I find this site a bit of a time waster...

 

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/

 

 

But interestingly so.


It’s interesting to learn how many countries, known for proclaiming how great they are, actually compare across the board.

 

I think the only questionable evaluation the site makes is that of viewing a higher number of babies born/100’000 as a “positive” (green circle) comparison (e.g. In Switzerland, there are approximately 10.5 babies per 1,000 people as of 2020. In United Kingdom, there are 11.9 babies per 1,000 people as of 2020 - which was seen a plus [green circle] for the UK)

Edited by iL Dottore
Typo
  • Like 9
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

On comparing countries, this is a chart I did on our world in data to annoy people at home in the UK and Europe, America etc. It's childish but that's the way I am. A big part of my job is GHG emissions and I get tired of people in the developed world blaming China, India etc for emissions without looking at which countries emit what. This figure is per-capita, i.e. it indexes emissions to population, since aggregate emissions tell you as much about the size of a country than anything else (it would be rather unfair to expect China or India to have the same aggregate emissions as Lichtenstein).

This illustration doesn't say anything at all about virtue or whether countries are good are bad, it effectively tracks the state of economic and industrial development of a country. Those countries which industrialised in the 19th century have emitted the most, those late to the party were emitting next to nothing by comparison until very recently. However, I do use it to suggest to people that before blaming developing countries for burning coal etc and feeling virtuous it might be worth looking at who made the problem. If you visualize the area under each line as indicating cumulative per-capita emissions you start to understand why people in the developing world get so annoyed when we start hectoring them. Which isn't to deny that all countries need to shift to low GHG emission economies.

 

 

image.png.ef1a1fb844f85cbc2f1b011cad0118dd.png

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote on hurricane damage in Florida (regarding Sanibel Island which was overtopped by the storm surge) struck me:

Quote

“There are a lot of places that are not livable. There are places off their foundation, and it’s very dangerous out there,” Briscoe said. “There are alligators running around, and there are snakes all over the place.”

It's not surprising of course. The 'gators and snakes are as displaced as the human residents and most of their prey is likely gone (for now).

 

CNN: Hurricane Ian’s death toll rises as crews in Florida go door to door in search for survivors in decimated neighborhoods

 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

But interestingly so.


It’s interesting to learn how many countries, known for proclaiming how great they are, actually compare across the board.

 

I think the only questionable evaluation the site makes is that of viewing a higher number of babies born/100’000 as a “positive” (green circle) comparison (e.g. In Switzerland, there are approximately 10.5 babies per 1,000 people as of 2020. In United Kingdom, there are 11.9 babies per 1,000 people as of 2020 - which was seen a plus [green circle] for the UK)

although some of the statistics seem to be selectively presented. In the UK vs Netherlands, it's a positive that you see more coastline in the UK (and not a lot else) whereas that does not even come up in the vs Switzerland (and neither does you'll get to see a whole load of beautiful mountains in Switzerland).

  • Like 2
  • Agree 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

If you visualize the area under each line as indicating cumulative per-capita emissions you start to understand why people in the developing world get so annoyed when we start hectoring them.

Area under a "per-capita" curve is meaningless. Area under a "total emissions" curve is directly relevant to your point about historical emitters. It is the total mass in the atmosphere that is relevant.

 

What is interesting in the "per-capita" curve is the dramatic reduction since ~2020 for many western offenders.

 

The gulf oil states and a couple of island outliers* (using oil for electricity and water desalinization) are the worst per-capita offenders.

 

For example, New Caledonia is 1.6x the US, Curaçao is 3x, and Palau is 3.5x.

 

Edited by Ozexpatriate
  • Like 9
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

On comparing countries, this is a chart I did on our world in data to annoy people at home in the UK and Europe, America etc. It's childish but that's the way I am. A big part of my job is GHG emissions and I get tired of people in the developed world blaming China, India etc for emissions without looking at which countries emit what. This figure is per-capita, i.e. it indexes emissions to population, since aggregate emissions tell you as much about the size of a country than anything else (it would be rather unfair to expect China or India to have the same aggregate emissions as Lichtenstein).

This illustration doesn't say anything at all about virtue or whether countries are good are bad, it effectively tracks the state of economic and industrial development of a country. Those countries which industrialised in the 19th century have emitted the most, those late to the party were emitting next to nothing by comparison until very recently. However, I do use it to suggest to people that before blaming developing countries for burning coal etc and feeling virtuous it might be worth looking at who made the problem. If you visualize the area under each line as indicating cumulative per-capita emissions you start to understand why people in the developing world get so annoyed when we start hectoring them. Which isn't to deny that all countries need to shift to low GHG emission economies.

 

 

image.png.ef1a1fb844f85cbc2f1b011cad0118dd.png

There has to be a certain amount of sympathy with those nations which have developed later because, let's face it, we destroyed our forests long ago, etc. I

 

But I am interested in a couple of things in that chart - China is increasing at a vastly rapid rate and has overtaken the UK which is declining rapidly on a per capita basis, and also that Brazil is declining at present.

 

But looking the other way around, firstly China has a population of enormous magnitude and that means its current emissions are of far more impact than much smaller countries because of this, secondly although the cumulative figures are not good reading, the earth was absorbing CO2 at a rate that at least masked if not actually prevented temperature rise until at least the 1950s (let's face it, the early worriers/warriors re a warming planet were still warning about a new ice age coming in the 1970s - sometimes the same people, which kind of diluted the impact they wanted to make), and thirdly, we know a lot more now than we did in the 1950s. The Clean Air Act which started reducing pollution here was of course nothing to do with climate change, it was all to do with getting rid of pea soupers and the attendant health problems.

 

Edited by The Lurker
  • Like 11
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

But interestingly so.


It’s interesting to learn how many countries, known for proclaiming how great they are, actually compare across the board.

 

I think the only questionable evaluation the site makes is that of viewing a higher number of babies born/100’000 as a “positive” (green circle) comparison (e.g. In Switzerland, there are approximately 10.5 babies per 1,000 people as of 2020. In United Kingdom, there are 11.9 babies per 1,000 people as of 2020 - which was seen a plus [green circle] for the UK)

Those figures should not be taken in isolation. I looked at the UK compared to Germany which showed similar figures with more babies in the UK than Germany. But both countries have an ageing population and Germany also has a shortage of care places for its senior citizens so in that context a greater birth-rate is not a bad thing. 

Edited by PhilJ W
  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 9
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...