Showing posts with label geography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geography. Show all posts

Sunday, January 05, 2020

The Geography Of The Assassination of General Soleimani

I was hoping to post pictures of flowers or something like that today.  Australia is burning because we can't give up our luxuries to fight climate change.  But we are in a huge crisis of our president's making. We are focused on possible war with Iran.  (No I don't think it will be anything like a conventional war.  It will be a 21st Century guerrilla war, with lots of cyber terrorism.)

So let's just look at something simple - geography.  

Distance from Tehran to Baghdad.


For those with vision issues, and whose computers can't read text in images, Tehran is 433 miles from Baghdad.

Here's a map from StatsAmerica of all of the US within 425 miles of Washington DC. to get a sense of how far 432 miles is.




Distance from Iranian border to Bagdad.



Baghdad is 209 Km = 129 miles from the Iranian border


Distance from Washington DC to Bagdad.



DC is 10,009* km (or 6,219 miles) from Baghdad.
*different sites show slightly different distances.

Imagine if an avowed enemy of our country had troops within 130 miles of our border.  How would the US react?  (I'd note that when Castro took over in Cuba  (90 miles from the US border) he came to the US and ultimately both had issues with each other. And the US imposed an embargo on Cuba.  But when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba, we risked a nuclear war confronting Soviet ships coming to Cuba.)

If we only consider geography, it is clear that Iran has a much larger vested interest in what happens in Iraq than the US does.  Imagine if any country assassinated a top US official in while he was in Toronto or Acapulco. I was told the other night by an Iranian/American who had just returned that a special position had been created for Soleimani that made him, in essence, second in command.  Reuters says he reported only to the Supreme Commander.  CNBC quotes defense policy expert Roman Schweizer, 
"This is the equivalent of Iran killing the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and then taking credit for it."
The US came to be when a relatively small, rag-tag army, used some conventional and some essentially guerrilla warfare to defeat the greatest power in the world at that time.  Eventually the US took over that position.  In Vietnam we discovered that guerrilla soldiers, fighting for their own land, could defeat the world's most powerful conventional military.  And that's the way General Soleimani advanced what he saw as Iranian interests.  He killed a lot of Americans as well as civilians that way.  But the president has taken an action now that demonstrates his belief that  killing enemies is not wrong.

We couldn't win in Vietnam.  We haven't been able to win (whatever that might mean) in Afghanistan.  We can't win in Iraq.  What would it even mean to 'win' against Iran, 6,000 miles away?  Against people defending their homeland? Ask Iraq War vets in the United States how it felt to battle in a foreign land where they didn't speak the language or know the terrain.

The geography is telling.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Meeting Folks And Learning Things Through Blogging - Do You Know What Psychogeography Is?

In most cases, notes from blog visitors is a good thing.  In other cases, well, it's still interesting.  

I've had several people contact me regarding the blog in the last week or so.  

John Hussey, of Liverpool, read my post on Hitler's 1942 visit to Paris and wanted to share his post on the same topic.  Mine was based a passage from on Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, No Ordinary TimeFranklin and Eleanor Roosevelt:  The Home Front in World War II and the account of that day by Albert Speer.  I have a picture up of Speer and Hitler in front of the Eiffel Tower.  Hussey's account comes from the third person in that picture - sculptor Arno Breker.  

I finally got around to adding a link to John's post at the bottom of my original post.  But lest you think I'm trying to force you to go back to my post, here's a link to John's post on Hitler's visit to Paris. 


I also got a post from someone saying they had a rolled up canvas painting and did I know anything about it.  There was a picture of the artist's signature.  The name sounded familiar so I searched my blog - assuming the writer had seen something  on the blog that made her think I might be able to help - and found the post with the painter's first name and last name.  I googled that and quickly found an obituary of someone with the same (unusual) last name as the writer that also included the full name of the artist.  I also found out where the artist works through a LinkenIn account.  


Those two are the kind of emails I enjoy getting.  

Then there are the ones that I categorize as 'interesting.'  I learn something about internet promotion.  

A guy named Brian said he liked my post on hiking Doi Suthep in Chiangmai, Thailand and asked if I would put up a link to his website on boots.  He specifically gave me a link to long distance hiking trails in the US, but it seems like the site is really about boots.  I'm guessing he might write reviews that get him either free boots or other consideration from bookmakers, but I don't know that.  I'd emailed back to him for clarification - if I link to your site, where are you going to link back to mine.  His response:
"Thanks for your reply. I think you were misunderstood my proposal.
I will not give you a link from my site because Google hate 2 ways link
But I will share your article to thousands of my social followers after you add my link to your article."
The original email was in good grammatical English, but my questions got him off script.  So not only did he want a link from me, but he also wanted to repost my original post on his site.  Or maybe on his FB page.  I decided not to follow up on this second email.   I do get lots of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) spam, usually in the form of comments which I try to delete immediately.  This one was a little more personalized.  

And here's another, less subtle, but still more personalized request:

Hi,
I was look at your blog recently and noticed this article: whatdoino-steve.blogspot.com/2012/06/packaging-good-bad-ugly-tofu-bagels.html 
I noticed it's now a little outdated and thought it might be worth updating for your readers and consumers.
I just wondered if you'd consider a newer up to date article from ourselves - Direct Packaging Solutions - I'm happy to update the article and work to make it better for your readers as well as making sure everything is up to date and relevant. I'd also be open to working on anything you might have in the works yourself, that perhaps you feel would be better written from a expert point of view; We've been in the packaging industry for just over 15 years.
Let me know.
Thanks. 
Obviously another SEO guy who googles for things on packaging and then sends emails like this.  Again, more personalized and sophisticated than the spam comments with links to their sites, but still an attempt to get more hits for his client's website.  

But what about Psychogeography, your ask?

A followup email from John Hussey caused me to look up a book called Paris: the Secret History, and I found this snippet on psychogeography in a review of the book.
"The Situationists practised what they called "psychogeography", described by Debord as "the study of specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organised or not, on the emotions and behaviour of individuals". Hussey makes it sound far more exciting. ''Psychogeography' was a game, or series of games," he explains, "in which the participants set out to create an atmosphere that had the power to disrupt the routine and functions of everyday life. Drink, drugs, music, boredom, despair, fear and awe all had a role to play.'"
While I didn't have that word - psychogeography - like many Alaskans, I have been very aware of the impact of our geography on our emotions and behavior.  In geographically extreme areas, it's much more pronounced.  But the geography of cities also have their impacts on the people living in them.  

Friday, October 31, 2014

Good Design Or Just An Accident?


This was the view from the room where the complexity presentation was held.  It's really a peaceful landscape.  What impressed me was . . . well look at the next picture.


Yes, there is a road that goes through this landscape.  But from this room, at least,  you don't see the road.  When there's no car, you don't even realize it's there.

So, I was wondering - was this designed this way?  Or just an accident?  From the second floor, you won't have this same illusion that it's just an unbroken field to the trees.

Now, on the way to the presentation, I did pass an accident.  There were at least two other cars behind me that were also involved.  I didn't see an ambulance and you couldn't crash much closer to the emergency room than this intersection right between UAA and Providence hospital.   Not sure how this car got in this position.  Well designed intersections have fewer accidents. 


 
And putting some thought into land use can avoid making terrible mistakes too.

At the complexity talk, Dr. Jamie Trammel's presentation was titled: Alternative Landscape Futures: Using Spatially-Explicit Scenarios to Model Landscape Change.

OK, that title sounds pretty academic.  Basically, he was looking at ways to look at land use by gathering data, then projecting maps of the landscape with different possible futures based on different conditions.  If you, for example, see where threatened species live, leave wilderness corridors, look at the best land for urban areas, you can make maps that show different possible land use patterns.  He gave examples from Australia, Las Vegas, and the Kenai Peninsula.   This slide probably gives a better sense of how this works. 



Clearly Trammel's work is to try to bring some sense and order to future land use rather than letting things just happen haphazardly.



This was the slide that I didn't quite understand and I didn't have a chance to ask him to explain it more fully.  But it's a diagram, as I understand it, for developing these alternative futures so that people can visualize all the data that normally is too dense for most people to make sense of. 

This is a little late, but UAA at 11:30 today - Alternative Landscape Futures


Title: Alternative Landscape Futures: Using Spatially-Explicit Scenarios to Model Landscape Change.
Presented by: Dr. Jamie Trammell. UAA. Geography and Environmental Studies.
When: October 31st 2014 11:30-12:45
Where: CPISB 105A (see map)
There are ways to strenuously stretch your mind  in Anchorage.  

Jamie was one of the new faculty I worked with a couple of years ago and this should be good.  Parking is free at UAA on Fridays.  The last one I went to, two weeks ago, was really good.  

Monday, March 03, 2014

From Kiev to Crimea is about the same as from New York to ?

The Russians have moved into the Crimean Peninsula, but I'm guessing only about two or three Americans out of a thousand could point to Crimea on a map.  So here's a post to raise those numbers.

First, here's a map of Europe with Ukraine in the black box.

Basic map from Infoplease
The black square is enlarged below, with the Crimean Peninsula highlighted in the black box. 


Just to get a sense of things, Kiev is about 430* air miles from Sevastapol.  Here are some other cities that are about the same distance apart.


Paris to Munich
New York to Detroit
Mumbai to Bhopal
St. Louis to Ann Arbor
Hanoi to Chiengmai
Seattle to Calgary*

I understand that Russia's action is a big deal.  But it's also, apparently, a common event in this region.  From Wikipedia:
Crimea, or the Crimean Peninsula, located on the northern coast of the Black Sea, currently under the jurisdiction of Ukraine, has a history of over 2000 years. The territory has been conquered and controlled many times throughout this history. The Cimmerians, Greeks, Scythians, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Khazars, the state of Kievan Rus', Byzantine Greeks, Kipchaks, Ottoman Turks, Golden Horde Tatars and the Mongols all controlled Crimea in its early history. In the 13th century, it was partly controlled by the Venetians and by the Genovese; they were followed by the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire in the 15th to 18th centuries, the Russian Empire in the 18th to 20th centuries, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and later the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union. In 1991 it became part of independent Ukraine, as the Autonomous Republic Crimea.
And while there will be calls for the US President to take decisive action, it makes sense to look at the geography of the Crimean Peninsula first.  It's almost inside Russia. It's as close as Mexico to the US.  You know how the US would respond to a military incursion by Russia or China in Mexico.  Russians will respond the same way.  Realistically, there's not a lot we can do militarily that wouldn't cause far more harm than doing nothing.  (But then Iraq and Afghanistan are distant memories for many.)  Our response will have to be patient and more nuanced than missiles and bombs.  First we should look at maps and maybe read some history.  Diplomacy and economics will be far more effective weapons in the long term. 

We tend to remember a place first by our own involvement in it.  If Americans know anything about the region, it's from Yalta and from the Crimean War, whose lasting legacies through the English to the US, include  Florence Nightingale,  and the Charge of the Light Brigade, a terrible debacle for the British.

The Charge Of The Light Brigade
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Memorializing Events in the Battle of Balaclava, October 25, 1854
Written 1854


Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
- See more at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/ChargeoftheLightBrigade.html#sthash.cuFNI4jM.dpuf
The Charge Of The Light Brigade

by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Memorializing Events in the Battle of Balaclava, October 25, 1854
Written 1854

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

From the National Center.


*I got most of these from Time and Date's distance tables which are air miles.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Earth Null School Follow Up: Is Greenland Bigger Than Brazil? UPDATED For Images

[UPDATED:  I've redone the images, so they should be visible this time.  Sorry.]

Former Alaskan and aviation faculty member and a pilot, Bill Butler, offered some followup info and images to my Earth Null School post.  I asked if I could post his email as a guest post.  He graciously agreed.  So here's a little more on this topic, which because it deals very visually with distortions of "how we know," is very dear to this blog's underlying theme.
I'm told, that geography isn't taught much in school these days.  My sense is that there are people who really, really know this stuff, people like me who sort of know it, and then most other people who don't have a clue.

With GPS people don't even need to read maps at all any more.  But understanding this helps us understand other geo-political issues.  Plus maps are a good metaphor for other representations of reality that aren't as tangible - like words and theories. And this issue about Mercator projections and how they distort size is certainly important to Alaskans.  (Relax, even after undistorting us, we're still bigger than Texas.)

So, for those of you for whom this is a stretch,  I invite you to do a little mental yoga.   I'm also trying to use parts of my brain that usually don't have to move at all.  And so, you'll see at the end of this post, my questions to Bill, and his further response.  

Part I - Bill's Guest Post

Because Mercator "straightens" the meridians of longitude, making them appear parallel instead of converging at the poles, he needed to mathematically stretch the distance between the parallels of latitude to keep proper relations between two points in the same region and then slice open the resulting cylinder to make a flat surface.  Note how the squares (known as graticules) become rectangular toward the poles.  The distortions are huge and obvious when we hang a map of the world on the classroom wall, but if our object is to make an accurate map for a voyage from, say--Norway to Scotland--they are insignificant :


[Steve's note:  Greenland (green) is mostly between 0˚ and 60˚ W and between 90˚ and 60˚N.  Brazil (red) is between 30˚ and 60˚W and 0˚ and 30˚ S]


On Mercator's Projection, the only place where there is no distortion is along the equator.  The farther you move from it, the greater the distortion.  The traditional comparison is Greenland to Brazil.  Brazil is 2.5 times the size of Greenland, but if you are navigating from Thule to Godthaab, that doesn't matter.

Johann Lambert (1728-1777, an Alsatian) figured out that if instead of creating Mercator's cylinder, you built a cone, it could also touch the surface at some parallel other than the equator and that would be the circle of zero distortion, and by moving the apex of the cone up or down in theoretical space you could choose whatever parallel suited the cartographer's need.  The flattened shape is awkward, but if you are making a series of smaller charts, they can be made in the traditional square or rectangular formats :





Further, Lambert discovered that you could project your cone through the Earth's surface and "touch" at two reference parallels with very little distortion:




You just sort of "tamp down" the bulge of the earth between the "standard parallels" and ignore the very small distortions, as in this example (note the bottom of the legend):






Here's a common use of Lamberts.  The table at the bottom of the legend shows the series of charts, using a variety of "standard parallels" to assure  the minimal distortion.  The lack of distortion in the Lambert projection is especially important for aerial navigation because it permits us to draw a straight line on the chart which is truly represents a great circle on the spherical earth, and great circles are the true path of the radio waves we use to establish positions and courses:




Pedantically yours,

Bill Butler
Professor of Aviation Technology (retired)


PART II - Steve's Questions and Bill's Response

Steve:  Can you explain a little more about the Lambert Charts?  Like, what are they for?  Who uses them? 

Bill:  Actually, they are used for a lot of things, but aircraft navigation may be most common  They come in different scales and with differing levels of detail, but their use is universal, and even with electronic mapping in most airline cockpits, these are the charts which are digitized.  The curved parallels of latitude are a natural outcome of projecting a sphere onto a flat surface, but they are only obvious over a great distance.

Steve:  Why does it say north to the right and south to the left when the map looks like those should be east and west?  Could use a more current one?
 

Bill:  What you are looking at is the cover of an aeronautical chart, where the legend appears explaining what is inside.  "north/south" tells you that this is a two-sided document and if you unfold it from this edge... 

Steve:  Why does it say Seattle, when it has the whole northern part of the US on it?

Bill:    It [the map below] says "San Francisco", for reasons which seem obvious...at least to me [;->  It is one of a set covering the entire nation and the little map shows you what all the others are named.  Note that the Lambert standard parallels for this chart are different than the ones used for the Seattle chart.




Steve:  OK, this is the cover page of your map.  And the little map that is cross hatched - in this case San Francisco - is what is inside this cover.  And in the previous map, I now see that Seattle is also cross-hatched. And thus the north and south designations on the sides would make sense when I opened the map.  Right?

Bill:  Exactly


Bill:  Let me back up a bit to Mercator, who shows that any "great circle" can be projected without distorting it.  He did this mathematically, but graphically, it looks like a sphere within a cylinder.  Note that the when the sphere was inflated to contact all points of the cylinder, only the equator stays exactly where it was, i.e. undistorted.  Now the meridians, while bent, retain their spherical nature, just like the equator.  That is, if you draw a straight line from say Kodiak to Hilo, it is truly the shortest distance and undistorted because they are both on the 150th Meridian, but if you draw a line from Anchorage to Oslo on the map below, even they are both roughly on the 60th Parallel, the track is hugely distorted, because as we both know, the shortest way is over the north tip of Greenland:





This problem can be attacked by what is known as a Transverse  or Oblique Mercator, that is by rotating the sphere within the cylinder so that any line we choose is a "false equator, that is, the line of zero distortion.  This is actually how Pan American attacked the problem when they began flying long overwater routes in the mid-30s; they would make special charts specific to each route and the crew could plot out their course knowing that what was on the paper was the shortest line between two points on a sphere, i.e. a great circle:




This solution is unworkable in a system where tens of thousands of aircraft fly hundreds of routes every day, but Lambert, provides the solution because we can use his theoretical cone (cones, actually, because we choose the one which touches the surface in the zone we are interested in) to map the entire earth with parallels, meridians and course lines drawn to look straight on the flat paper.  This is what the inside of that Seattle aeronautical chart looks like.  I have drawn a line from Portland to Boise in this example:





Notice that the meridians and the parallels appear to be straight (well, the parallel does show a bit of bend, but the error induced is miniscule), although they are segments of a great circle.  Lambert's genius is that the cartographer can select any "standard parallel" for zero distortion, and when he makes the next map to the south or north, choose a different parallel (actually two are used for each chart with acceptable error).

Steve:  Let's see if I got this.  With the original Mercator charts, you're saying, if you just focus on a small portion, even though there is distortion away from the equator, the distortion is the same throughout that small portion, so it's still usable.  Is that right?

Bill:  Almost.  There is a difference between the drawn line and the great circle which truly represents the shortest distance, but an 18th century sailor who was going from Newcastle to Bergen, unless he understood the spherical geometry (unlikely) would be unaware of any error, except it would take him a bit longer than he thought it should.  If he was sailing from Cardiff to Cadiz, there would be almost no error at all because the north-south meridians drawn as straight lines are still great circles.  Generally speaking, these errors were inefficient, but harmless until we started navigating over great distances in short times and using radio to determine courses and positions.

Steve:  And Lambert, by changing the "equator" for each map, clears the distortion that way?

Bill:  Exactly.

And I'm sure Bill would be glad to answer further questions in the comments.