When examining the global distribution of Nobel laureates, several countries stand out for their significant contributions, especially in the scientific fields. The United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France have historically been home to many Nobel laureates in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine. These countries have a robust infrastructure for scientific research, well-funded universities, and a culture that fosters innovation and excellence.

However, when we shift our focus to Nobel laureates per capita, a different picture emerges. Smaller countries and regions often show a remarkable number of laureates relative to their population size. According to the map I’ve created, which illustrates the number of Nobel laureates in scientific fields per 10 million people, the Faroe Islands and Saint Lucia come out on top. These regions have produced an extraordinary number of laureates given their small populations, highlighting the global reach and diverse origins of scientific excellence.

The Faroe Islands, with their small population, boast an impressive per capita number of laureates. Similarly, Saint Lucia, an island nation in the Caribbean, stands out for its high number of laureates relative to its population size. These examples underscore that while larger countries may dominate in absolute numbers, smaller nations often achieve remarkable success when their population size is taken into account.

This map and the accompanying analysis provide a unique perspective on the global distribution of Nobel laureates, celebrating not only the contributions of large, scientifically advanced nations but also the remarkable achievements of smaller countries. By considering laureates per capita, we can appreciate the diverse and widespread nature of excellence and innovation that the Nobel Prize seeks to honor.

Interested in learning more about the Nobel Prize and its laureates? These books offer fascinating insights.

• Marie Curie: The Life and Legacy of the Legendary Scientist Who Became the First Woman to Win a Nobel Prize
• Richard Feynman’s Mental Models: How to Think, Learn, and Problem-Solve Like a Nobel Prize-Winning Polymath
• The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman
• How I Won a Nobel Prize: A Novel
• The Magnificent Nobel Prize Laureates: Physics: 117 Years of Groundbreaking Achievements by 225 Exceptional Scientists and Engineers

The post A World of Genius: Nobel Laureates Per Capita Across the Globe appeared first on Vivid Maps.

At first glance, this world map is a simple narrative: Celsius has won the world, and Fahrenheit is only found in a handful of countries. But there’s a more profound story behind these numbers in terms of history, science, and human society. Let’s trace the history, advantages, and physicality of both systems—and find out why the world loved one over the other.

Who Uses Fahrenheit?

Fahrenheit is still officially used in:

• United States
• Bahamas
• Cayman Islands
• Liberia
• Palau
• Federated States of Micronesia
• Marshall Islands
• U.S. territories like Guam and Puerto Rico

These are mostly countries with historic or political ties to the United States. Most other nations have switched to Celsius.

Why Has the U.S. Not Switched to Celsius?

It’s not science—it’s culture.

• Cultural momentum: Americans grow up on Fahrenheit. Weather forecasts, ovens, A/C units—everything is Fahrenheit-based.
• Cost of change: Replacing infrastructure, signs, education, and appliances would be expensive and disruptive.
• Lack of urgency: There’s no pressing need to align since the U.S. has a huge internal market and its own standards.

That said, Celsius is still used in U.S. science, medicine, and military settings.

A Brief History of Fahrenheit

Fahrenheit was invented at the beginning of the 18th century by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, a Polish-German physicist, engineer, and instrument maker. He introduced it in 1724, and it was among the first commonly used temperature scales in Europe.

Why did he invent the scale?

The Physical Meaning of Fahrenheit:

• 0°F was the low, stable temperature of a solution of water, ice, and ammonium chloride.
• 32°F was the melting point of pure water.
• 96°F (originally) was about human body temperature (subsequently standardized as 98.6°F).

It was established to avoid unwanted negative numbers in everyday use and to be useful with mercury thermometers, which Fahrenheit had perfected. It met early acceptance in England and England’s colonies, like the United States.

Fahrenheit Disadvantages:

• It’s non-metric, thus incompatible with modern systems used in science and international trade.
• Reference points (brine mixture, arbitrary numbers) are not universal or intuitive.
• Temperature intervals are not as elegant for scientific work or computation.

The Rise of Celsius: A Metric Revolution

Celsius, or centigrade, was proposed in 1742 by Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius.

But here’s an interesting fact: Celsius’s original scale was headed in the opposite direction—he had 0° represent boiling and 100° represent freezing! The scale was later reversed after his death to the form we use today.

The Physical Meaning of Celsius:

• 0°C = freezing point of water
• 100°C = boiling point of water

(at normal atmospheric pressure)

Advantages of Celsius:

• Based on everyday physical phenomena (freezing/melting of water)
• Metric-based, thus it suits well with grams, meters, and liters
• More convenient for scientific calculations and conversions
• Utilized globally as part of the drive for metrication during the 19th and 20th centuries

Fahrenheit vs. Celsius: Which Is More Accurate?

Technically, accuracy is a property of the instrument, not the scale. But Fahrenheit degrees are smaller, and more nuanced expression of temperature in daily life is thus possible. For example:

• The difference between 70°F and 71°F feels more nuanced than 21°C and 22°C.
• For everyday comfort, Fahrenheit gives more “steps” in the range that people typically experience.

However, for scientific, global, and engineering use, Celsius (and Kelvin) is the clear winner.

Quick Conversion Tips

Fahrenheit → Celsius:
(°F − 32) × 5⁄9 = °C
Fast trick: Subtract 30, divide by 2.
(It’s not perfect, but close enough for quick estimates.)

Celsius → Fahrenheit:
(°C × 9⁄5) + 32 = °F
Fast trick: Double the number, add 30.

Convert Fahrenheit to Celsius (and vice versa) with this simple tool.

The post Fahrenheit vs. Celsius: Two Ways to Measure the Same Thing appeared first on Vivid Maps.

The story of human evolution is a complex narrative woven across time and space. One of the most intriguing threads in this tale is that of our close cousins, the Neanderthals. A recently published map provides a fascinating glimpse into the geographical distribution of these ancient hominids, offering new insights into their spread and adaptation to various environments.

Mapping the Neanderthal World

The map, created by a diligent researcher, showcases the known Neanderthal range based on skeletal remains. It spans across Europe (depicted in blue), Southwest Asia (orange), Uzbekistan (green), and the Altai mountains (violet). This visual representation helps us understand the vast territory these ancient humans occupied and raises questions about their migration patterns and adaptability.

Key Locations

Some of the notable sites where Neanderthal remains have been discovered include:

• La Cotte de St-Brelade in Jersey (English Channel)
• Kiik-Koba and Zaskal’naya in Crimea
• Mezmaiskaya in the Russian Caucasus
• Kebara and Tabun in Israel
• Shanidar Cave in Iraq
• Teshik-Tash in Uzbekistan
• Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains

Neanderthals vs. Modern Humans

Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were a species of archaic humans who lived in Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago. They coexisted with modern humans (Homo sapiens) for thousands of years before their extinction.

Physical Differences

Neanderthals had several distinctive physical features that set them apart from modern humans:

• Robust build with shorter limbs
• Large, broad noses
• Pronounced brow ridges
• Receding chins
• Larger brain cases

Despite these differences, Neanderthals might not have stood out dramatically among a crowd of modern humans if dressed similarly. Their overall body plan was quite similar to ours, although they were generally shorter and more muscular.

Timeline and Distribution

Neanderthals evolved in Europe approximately 400,000 years ago and spread across Eurasia. Their range extended from the Atlantic coast to Central Asia and from Northern Europe to the Middle East. Interestingly, they adapted to survive in colder climates, which explains their presence in Europe during glacial periods.

The reasons for their spread into harsher European climates are still debated. Some theories suggest that their robust physique and cultural adaptations, such as the use of fire and sophisticated clothing, allowed them to thrive in these challenging environments.

Population and Social Structure

Estimates of Neanderthal population size vary, but most researchers believe their total population never exceeded 70,000 individuals at any given time. They likely lived in small, family-based groups of 10-30 individuals, much smaller than the larger social structures developed by modern humans.

Intelligence and Strength

Contrary to early misconceptions, Neanderthals were not unintelligent brutes. They had larger brains than modern humans on average, although brain size doesn’t directly correlate with intelligence. They were capable of complex behaviors, including tool-making, fire use, and possibly symbolic thought.

Physically, Neanderthals were indeed stronger than the average modern human, with more robust bones and muscle attachments.

Tools and Culture

Neanderthal tools, associated with the Mousterian culture, were more advanced than those of earlier hominids but generally less diverse and sophisticated than those of contemporary Homo sapiens. They primarily used stone tools for hunting and processing food, including scrapers, points, and hand axes.

Recent evidence suggests that Neanderthals had rudimentary forms of culture. They buried their dead, possibly with grave goods, created jewelry from animal teeth and shells, and may have used pigments for body decoration.

Interbreeding and Legacy

One of the most significant recent discoveries is that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred. As a result, many modern human populations outside of Africa carry 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. This genetic legacy affects various traits, including immune response, skin color, and even certain neurological characteristics.

The presence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans has been linked to both positive and negative health outcomes. For example, some Neanderthal genes may provide enhanced immunity to certain pathogens, while others might increase the risk of depression or allergies.

Extinction and Potential “Resurrection”

Neanderthals disappeared around 40,000 years ago. The reasons for their extinction are still debated but likely include competition with modern humans, climate change, and possibly disease.

While it’s theoretically possible to reconstruct Neanderthal DNA, “resurrecting” the species raises significant ethical and practical challenges. For now, it remains in the realm of science fiction.

The story of Neanderthals continues to captivate us, offering insights into our own origins and the complex journey of human evolution. As new discoveries are made and technologies advance, our understanding of these ancient relatives grows, painting an ever more detailed picture of our shared past.

Dive Deeper into Neanderthal History

If you’re intrigued by the story of Neanderthals and want to explore further, consider these highly regarded books and educational materials available on Amazon. They offer in-depth insights into Neanderthal life, their relationship with early humans, and the latest scientific discoveries:

• How To Think Like a Neandertal – A unique perspective on Neanderthal cognition and behavior.
• Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes – A deep dive into the genetics of Neanderthals and their interbreeding with humans.
• Neanderthal: Life and Death of a Human Relative – A comprehensive overview of Neanderthal biology and culture.

These resources can help satisfy your curiosity about our ancient relatives and provide a more tactile connection to our evolutionary past.

The post Neanderthal Geography: Tracing Our Ancient Cousins appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Well, thanks to new research from the team at EmpireStakes.com, this has been revealed. Using The Paleobiology Database, we have analyzed all recorded prehistoric findings across the United States to show which states offer the most excellent chance of discovery based on population sizes and area figures.

Methodology

To collect the data, the EmpireStakes team analyzed all fossil records across the United States using PaleobioDB. They then compared these figures to population and area data in each state to determine the odds of finding the prehistoric.

Data was correct as of 01/09/2022.

Odds Of Finding The Prehistoric

New York Offers One of the Best Chances

Making up 6% of all prehistoric findings in America, New York has recorded 25,958. The 4th highest figure in the U.S., New York, only falls behind the likes of Texas (51,612), California (45,224), and Wyoming (26,633).

Breaking down each state’s findings per square mile, New York is ranked as having the 2nd most excellent chance of finding the prehistoric, with a finding every 2.10 square miles.   

The table below shows the states with the most incredible odds of finding the prehistoric, based on findings per square mile:

The map below shows where you will most likely find a prehistoric fossil.

However, when considering population figures, New York doesn’t appear relatively as high on the list.

With a population of nearly 20 million, it would mean there’s been only one discovery per 764 people, the 20th highest in the U.S. Taking the top spot is Wyoming, with one discovery per 22 people.

What Are the Chances of Finding a Dinosaur?

So, what about dinosaur bones? You’ll be looking for a while in New York, as there have only been two findings (according to PaleobioDB).

• Odds of finding a dinosaur (per population) = 1 in 9,917,957
• Odds of finding a dinosaur (per square miles) = 1 every 27,277 miles

You will most likely discover dinosaur fossils in Massachusetts, with 319 fossils and a total area of 10,554 mi², that’s one per 33 mi². And with a population of over 6.9 million, the odds of being the one to make the consequential discovery are 1 in 21,895.

The table below shows the states with the best chance of finding dinosaur fossils:

Key findings:

• U.S. states have the most excellent chance of uncovering the prehistoric based on population size and area.
• In New York, there have been 25,958 prehistoric findings–the 4th highest in the states.
• Comparing states, New York offers the 2nd greatest chance of finding the prehistoric, with a finding every 2.10 square miles.    

The post Which U.S. State Offers the Greatest Odds of Finding Dinosaurs? appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Most of what we know about the world ocean floor’s topographies was obtained from satellites’ gravity data. That’s why nowadays, seafloor topography maps have the resulting spatial resolution is about 2 sq mi (5.2 sq km). By comparison, topographic maps of Mars and Venus have a spatial resolution that’s 50 times more precise.

Seabed 2030 is an international effort to crowdsource datasets to fully map the world’s oceans at an exact 100m resolution.

Japan is the world leader in seabed research.

Unmapped seafloor by territory (percentage of exclusive economic zone)

Japan – 2.3%
United Kingdom – 9.4%
Norway – 18.1%
New Zealand – 26.0%
United States – 30.1%
Australia – 35.1%
Hawaii – 47.5%
Iceland – 50.1%
South Africa – 60.5%
Canada – 61.2%
Samoa – 65.4%
South Korea – 71.7%
Taiwan – 73.7%
Argentina – 77.4%
Cook Islands – 81.0%
Phillipines – 83.3%
China – 88.6%
Madagascar – 94.5%
Bangladesh – 96.7%
Thailand – 98.5%

The post Unmapped areas of the ocean floor appeared first on Vivid Maps.

In their 2007 study, titled “Nuclear Winter Revisited with a Modern Climate Model and Current Nuclear Arsenals,” published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, the authors present a detailed analysis of the potential consequences. This article uses advanced climate modeling techniques to explore the projected changes in surface air temperatures that could result from such a conflict.

Historical Context

The concept of “nuclear winter” was first proposed by Crutzen and Birks in 1982, with initial climate model simulations by Turco et al. (1983) and Aleksandrov and Stenchikov (1983) supporting the hypothesis. These studies suggested that the extensive fires and dust generated by nuclear explosions could lead to significant reductions in surface temperature, precipitation, and sunlight, resulting in severe and prolonged global climate disruption. This led to widespread concern about the indirect effects of nuclear war, contributing to the eventual reduction in the global nuclear arsenal.

Despite the reduction in nuclear weapons, recent work by Toon et al. (2007) and Robock et al. (2007) highlighted that even a regional nuclear conflict could produce unprecedented climate change. This prompted the authors to revisit the nuclear winter scenario using a modern climate model, examining whether the current nuclear arsenal could still trigger such catastrophic outcomes.

The Modern Climate Model and Simulations

Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov utilized a state-of-the-art general circulation model (GCM), the ModelE from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. This model includes a detailed module for the transport and removal of aerosol particles and is coupled with a full ocean general circulation model, allowing for realistic simulations of both atmospheric and oceanic responses.

The study conducted two 10-year simulations with smoke injections of 150 teragrams (Tg) and 50 Tg, respectively. These scenarios represent the smoke produced by using the entire current global nuclear arsenal and one-third of it. The results were compared to a 30-year control run with no smoke aerosols.

Key Findings

The simulations revealed that the smoke aerosols from a nuclear war would be lofted into the upper stratosphere, where they would remain for an extended period because of their smaller size and the higher altitude. The global average surface shortwave radiation would be drastically reduced, resulting in significant cooling.

Global Surface Temperature Reduction

The study found a global average surface cooling of 7-8°C, persisting for years. Even a decade after the initial smoke injection, the cooling effect would still be around 4°C. This rapid and severe climate change would be unprecedented in human history.

Regional Temperature Changes

The temperature changes would be most pronounced over land, with cooling of more than 20°C over large areas of North America and more than 30°C over much of Eurasia. These dramatic drops would have devastating effects on agricultural regions, leading to a collapse in food production and potential starvation on a global scale.

Oceanic Effects

Although the cooling effects are largest over land, substantial cooling would also occur over the oceans. This would disrupt marine ecosystems and potentially alter ocean circulation patterns, further exacerbating the global climate impacts.

Changes in Precipitation

Besides cooling, a nuclear winter would also disrupt global precipitation patterns. The reduced sunlight and lower temperatures would affect evaporation rates and atmospheric circulation, leading to changes in rainfall distribution. Some regions might experience severe droughts, while others could see increased precipitation.

Impact on Growing Seasons

The effects of a nuclear winter on agriculture would be devastating. The shortened growing seasons and lower temperatures would severely impact crop yields, leading to food shortages and famine. The period with freeze-free days would be significantly reduced, making it difficult for many crops to reach maturity.

Final thoughts

The research by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov underscores the profound and long-lasting climatic consequences of a nuclear war, even with the current reduced nuclear arsenals. The findings reinforce the importance of nuclear disarmament and the need for continued efforts to prevent any form of nuclear conflict.

In conclusion, the maps depicting surface air temperature changes following a nuclear war provide a stark visualization of the potential global catastrophe. They highlight the urgency of addressing the nuclear threat and working towards a world free of nuclear weapons to safeguard our planet’s climate and future.

For those interested in learning more about nuclear winter and its potential impacts, here are some related products available on Amazon:

• Book: “The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction”
• Radiation Detection and Measurement Equipment
• Survival Kits and Emergency Preparedness Supplies

The post The Global Impact of a Nuclear Winter appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Reddit user: bezzleford. Data: researchgate.net

Some facts:
– Over the past 20 years, the percentage of US adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40% and the percent-age of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%. The percentage of adults who were not sure about evolution increased from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.
– About a third of American adults firmly rejected evolution, and only 14% of adults thought that evolution is “definitely true”.
– The proportion of European adults who thought that evolution was absolutely false ranged from 7% in Denmark, France, and Great Britain to 15% in the Netherlands.

The post Public acceptance of Evolution in Europe (2006) appeared first on Vivid Maps.

Reddit user: trinitronbx, Data: worldbank

Countries with the largest number of scientists (per million):
Israel – 8,255
Denmark – 7,484
South Korea – 7,087
Sweden – 7,022
Finland – 6,817

The average number of scientists in the world – 1,278 per million.

The post Researchers per million people appeared first on Vivid Maps.

jakubmarian.com

The five top regions by a number of patent applications to the European patent office per 1 million people (5-year average):
1. Vorarlberg (Austria) – 612
2. Northwestern Switzerland – 607
3. North Brabant (Netherlands) – 592
4. Stuttgart (Germany) – 574
5Mittelfranken (Germany) – 541

Via jakubmarian.com

The post Number of patent applications to the European patent office per 1 million people appeared first on Vivid Maps.

The map above shows the number of plastic surgeons per one million people. Those U.S. states in shades of red have above average access to a plastic surgeon while those states in shades of green have below average density. Washington DC has the highest ratio, while Wyoming has the worst access to a plastic surgeon. California comes in at 7th place despite being home to 15% (711) of the nation’s plastic surgeons.

Source: caliper.com

The post Plastic Surgeon Density by U.S. State appeared first on Vivid Maps.