• Art
  • Design
  • Blog
  • About
  • Shop
Menu

Reagan Charles Cook

  • Art
  • Design
  • Blog
  • About
  • Shop
 
 
Categories
  • History 20
  • Humanity 20
  • Nature 16
  • Politics 13
  • Money 12
  • Geography 11
  • Numbers 11
  • Death 10
  • Violence 10
  • Religion 7
  • Art 6
  • Science 6
  • Design 5
  • Food 5
  • My Life 4
  • Film 3
  • Fashion 2
  • Music 2
  • Sex 2
  • Sports 2
  • Writing 1
photo-1495822892661-2ead864e1c7b.jpeg

Alaska and Hawaii are the Least Hot States

January 16, 2013

There are many different ways to measure weather. One of the most curious methods is by measuring the highest temperature recorded and ignoring averages. If you use this method to rank US states from hottest to coldest California is number one with a recorded high of 135°F (58.8°C). Arizona and Nevada follow close behind with records of 128°F and 125°F respectively. After the top three, things get much less predictable. North Dakota (5th) has been hotter than Texas (7th) and Minnesota (21st) has been hotter than Florida (40th). So what state is at the bottom? Amazingly, Alaska and Hawaii are tied for the lowest recorded high, as neither state has ever been warmer than 100°F. 

 

In Geography, Nature, Numbers
Refugees.jpg

If Everyone Could Live Where They Wanted

February 25, 2012

If all of the adults on the planet could migrate to the countries where they wanted to live, the world would be a very different place. Developed nations would be overwhelmed and many developing countries would be left relatively empty.

Gallup has gathered data over the past three years and come up with a Potential Net Migration Index (PNMI) that shows just how drastic this change could be.

Listed below are some of the more interesting findings.

Rank by Percent Change

Country, Percentage Change, Population Change

1. Singapore - 260% (+13 million) 

2. Saudi Arabia -180% (+48 million)

4. Canada - 170% (+57 million) [Canada would rank 14th in world population]

9. France - 70% (+45 million)

10. United Kingdom - 65% (+40 million)

12. United States - 60% (+186 million) [Greatest Population Gain]

15. Botswana - 55% (+1 million)

28. Germany - 15% (+12 million)

32. Japan - 5% (+6 million)

36. Thailand - 0% (no change)  [Isreal, South Korea, and Tajikstan also have no change]

41. China - -5% (-65 million)

48. India - -5% (-55 million)

172. Nigeria - -50% (-80 million) [Greatest Population Loss]

178. Democratic Republic of Congo - -60% (-40 million)

Source: Gallup World Poll

In Humanity, Geography, Politics
photo-1500089976877-76907cd384d4.jpeg

Chicago’s Not That Windy

June 3, 2011

Despite holding the title of ‘The Windy City’ Chicago is not particularly windy. Among major American cities, Boston, New York, Dallas, and San Francisco all experience stronger winds.

In fact, Chicago can’t even claim to have the strongest winds in the state; Springfield, Illinois, experiences annual winds that are, on average, half a mile per hour stronger than those in Chicago.

So why is Chicago the windy city? One reason, of course, is that in the 19th century, when the nickname was first used, Americans did not have lots of data on weather patterns that they could consult to crown Boston or San Francisco as the country’s windiest city.

The other, however, is that the name “windy city” seems to have been meant as much as an insult as an actual description of the weather. 

According to many guidebooks and local institutions, the nickname reflects the long-windedness of Chicago politicians and the attendees of its many political conventions, as well as locals’ and politicians’ tendency to overstate the merits of their fair city. “During the mid-1800s nearly any city could (and did) proclaim itself the ascendant ‘Metropolis of the West,’" writes the Encyclopedia of Chicago.

Boosters of Chicago touted the city as they “sought to secure investment, workers, and participation in projects of national scope such as the building of railroads.” The Chicago Public Library adds, “Detractors claimed they were full of wind.“

From Alex Mayyasi's article 'Chicago Is Not The Windy City'

In Geography, Nature, Humanity, Politics
photo-1460186136353-977e9d6085a1.jpeg

What if the Earth was a Cube?

March 22, 2011

If the earth was a perfect cube, what would the gravitational effect be at the edges? Could you casually step over the 90-degree bend onto an adjacent face?

The first thing you notice on being teleported to cubical earth is that you’re at the edge of a vast body of water we’ll call the Central Ocean. The land rises steeply away from the shore — apparently, the ocean lies in a basin. This strikes you as odd since you’d think the sides of a cubical planet would be flat. Patience. All will soon become clear.

Turning from the ocean and looking out over the land, you discover something else — you can see vast distances. On spherical earth, the horizon on average is a little over three miles away. On cubical earth you can, in theory, see to the edge of the planet, potentially a distance of thousands of kilometers.  Up the slope you’re standing on, impossibly far off, you can make out a gigantic mountain peak — one of the corners, you realize, of your cubical world.

Time to get hiking. I hope you’re in good shape since the path literally becomes steeper with every step — you’ll have the impression of climbing up the inside of a round bowl. Worse, the mountain is stupefyingly high. How high? Well, the tallest known mountain in the solar system is Olympus Mons on Mars, 22 kilometers high from base to peak. In contrast, the vertical rise from low point to high point on cubical earth is about 3 700 kilometers.

So you’ll need to bring a spacesuit — the atmosphere gets progressively thinner until there’s none at all and you’re in the blackness of space. One consolation is that your weight steadily decreases. If you weigh 200 pounds at sea level back on spherical earth, you’ll discover when you finally reach the peak that you weigh just 103.

But here you are, on top at last. You don’t have the sense of walking around 90-degree corners that you may naively imagine. Rather, the peak looks like the tip of a three-sided pyramid. The three sides fall away steeply — if you lose your footing you’ll have a wicked drop.

On the plus side, the view is like none on earth, or on any planet anywhere. You can sight down one edge of the cube to a far corner, a distance of some 10 000 kilometers away. Even more strikingly, you see all the atmosphere and water has been concentrated by gravity into a blob in the middle of each face, with the corners and edges poking out into space. You realize your cubical planet isn’t one world but six, each face’s segment of the biosphere isolated from the others by the hopeless climb.

Bizarre? Yup. Impossible, too. You may want your planet to be cubical. Just about every other force in the universe wants it round.

By Cecil Adams for The Straight Dope

In Nature, Science, Geography
breezes-2.jpg

Breezes About Kitchener

December 28, 2010

In 1916, after much controversy, Berlin, Ontario, Canada (my hometown) was re-named Kitchener as a result of anti-German sentiment during the First World War. A revision was necessary to the popular title of the city’s souvenir pamphlet 'Breezes About Berlin'. Rather than rework the name of the pamphlet (Kicking Around Kitchener?) city leadership decided to simply create stickers that could be placed over the old phrase. 

The decision was emblematic of Kitchener's municipal decision-making over the next century, which tended to be ad-hoc, shortsighted, and to the detriment of any coherent cultural identity.

king-st.jpg
library.jpg
river.jpg
rail.jpg
breezes-3.jpg
king-st.jpg library.jpg river.jpg rail.jpg breezes-3.jpg
In Geography, History, My Life, Politics
← Newer Posts Older Posts →

Looking for something special? Click here to explore the archive

® Reagan Charles Cook. All Rights Reserved, 2020