Interesting Maps

The J Stands for Jay · 26-01-2021 12:42pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Aside from the drop off in population, it also highlights the Dublin centric focus of the country and how it is tied to population but when you look at so much of the rest of the country, it would be in everyone's interest if everything was not so heavily focused in one coastal area.

It's interesting how the big towns of the country maintained the population since the 1936, with the countryside dropping.

I also wonder what effect partition had in the dark blue patch from Belfast to Monaghan Vs the famine.

forgottenhills · 26-01-2021 3:48pm

McGaggs wrote: »

It's interesting how the big towns of the country maintained the population since the 1936, with the countryside dropping.

I also wonder what effect partition had in the dark blue patch from Belfast to Monaghan Vs the famine.

That dark blue patch runs down to bits of Longford/Westmeath actually.

You can see the change in county populations here

If you look at, for instance, Monaghan's stats there you can see a huge population drop from 200k to 126k people from 1841 to 1861 which can be accounted for by the Famine and emigration forced by the Famine. But you can then see a continuing population drop in every decade after 1861 all the way to a low of 46k in 1966 with only a slow recovery since to 61k in 2016. So partition didn't have any particular effect on population.

What was happening in effect was a continuing drift from the land, with not many local industrial alternatives to speak of, plus rural families getting smaller on average/lower birth rate. What is also worth bearing in mind is that midlands rural towns in the 19th and most of the 20th century were much smaller than they are now so it wasn't really a case of townspeople also leaving in droves. So basically people left small farms, the evidence for this is huge amounts of old cottages now in ruins all over the place, many now completely vanished except from handed down memories.

IAMAMORON · 26-01-2021 6:05pm

forgottenhills wrote: »

What was happening in effect was a continuing drift from the land, with not many local industrial alternatives to speak of, plus rural families getting smaller on average/lower birth rate. What is also worth bearing in mind is that midlands rural towns in the 19th and most of the 20th century were much smaller than they are now so it wasn't really a case of townspeople also leaving in droves. So basically people left small farms, the evidence for this is huge amounts of old cottages now in ruins all over the place, many now completely vanished except from handed down memories.

This is the main reason, the automation of rural practices in general. Especially in farming. I was going to say something else smartarse about the Moonichauns but I won't.

100 years ago the whole parish would take part in reaping hay or planting seed etc. The combine displaced all that. Farms that might have needed a 20 workers 120 years ago can get by on a farmer and a couple of milking machines and a tractor now.

" get up to Dublin and get a job "

KevRossi · 26-01-2021 6:18pm

Womens emancipation helped too. It was very common for the son who got the farm to wait for the mother to die before he married - "two women don't fit under one roof". So often a 50 year old man married a 25 year old woman. She did this as a man with land had a guarantee of a half decent life instead of emigration and she could also keep and eye on her own mother.

This practice started to die out after the war, but there were a couple of lads in my class in school in the 70's and 80's who had fathers who were markedly older than their mothers. But it still meant there were a huge amount of bachelors who never married and left no offspring here, meaning number died out quicker.

Emigration to England became easier for women, indeed my own mother and her sister left for London as it had better prospects than staying in the local town or Dublin. Also became very easy to come back 'home' for a couple of weeks each summer.

And the old tradition of dividing the land among more than one, or indeed all the sons died out, it became socially acceptable to give all to one son, meaning more left for Dublin or went abroad. Better access to education meant many of those emigrating could get a decent white collar job (like my Dad). The increasing service industry post war in England gave more attractive opportunities to men and women. They weren't reduced to labouring on sites or working manually in factories, kitchens etc.

Professor Moriarty · 26-01-2021 6:24pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

This is the main reason, the automation of rural practices in general. Especially in farming. I was going to say something else smartarse about the Moonichauns but I won't.

100 years ago the whole parish would take part in reaping hay or planting seed etc. The combine displaced all that. Farms that might have needed a 20 workers 120 years ago can get by on a farmer and a couple of milking machines and a tractor now.

" get up to Dublin and get a job "

Meitheal.

dan1895 · 27-01-2021 2:22pm

https://twitter.com/noriordan/status/1354411208154226693?s=19

IAMAMORON · 27-01-2021 2:27pm

Interesting to see the prevalence of squirting in Southern Italy.

Is there any fetish the Brits aren't into? It looks like the poor divils don't know their arses from their elbows?

IAMAMORON · 27-01-2021 2:32pm

I bumped into these lads when I was in Munich last summer. They were adamant that I head back to theirs for coffee. I told them I felt underdressed. They saw the funny side of it ... dirty phuckers.

Gregor Samsa · 27-01-2021 2:38pm

I had to look up “sploshing”, that’s a new one on me.

From what I’ve read, it sounds like it involves some plump Yorkshire lass in a paddling pool, being covered in pie and mash, suggestfully rubbing herself with handfuls of mushy peas. A typically British kink.

PommieBast · 27-01-2021 3:12pm

dan1895 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/noriordan/status/1354411208154226693?s=19

After seeing "choking" listed for the UK I decided it best not to Google what some of the others actually are.. :eek:

IAMAMORON · 27-01-2021 3:59pm

Provincial Iberia

Capt'n Midnight · 31-01-2021 12:00am

Diagram showing difference in crust thickness on near side of Moon vs. far side

magicbastarder · 31-01-2021 12:01am

is that to scale?

Victor · 31-01-2021 1:08am

magicbastarder wrote: »

is that to scale?

Hardly. The real moon is much larger.

31-01-2021 1:20am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Diagram showing difference in crust thickness on near side of Moon vs. far side

Interesting, more of a diagram though. Although I never thought about such a possibility, Id have considered the far side being more cratered would have been thinner or negligible difference, is the suggestion that the Moon hit with that much material its built up? the other thing is, it suggests a partially molten core, Id always been of the understanding the Moon was completely inactive.

JupiterKid · 31-01-2021 4:09am

Reconstruction of the palaeoproterozoic era supercontinent Rodinia, which coalesced about 1.2 billion years ago.

Parts of this very early landmass are now found in the cratons of Australia, North America and India.

Victor · 31-01-2021 3:33pm

1874 wrote: »

Interesting, more of a diagram though. Although I never thought about such a possibility, Id have considered the far side being more cratered would have been thinner or negligible difference, is the suggestion that the Moon hit with that much material its built up? the other thing is, it suggests a partially molten core, Id always been of the understanding the Moon was completely inactive.

I read recently that the near side of the moon is actually more cratered. The faults created by the major impacts led to some volcanic-type activity.

magicbastarder · 31-01-2021 3:41pm

it's not, unless you mean would be more cratered were it not for volcanic activity having obscured the near side craters?
though this link suggests there's no way of telling which side has been bombarded more, the surface would be long past saturation point:

https://sservi.nasa.gov/?question=3318

magicbastarder · 31-01-2021 3:42pm

Victor wrote: »

Hardly. The real moon is much larger.

more fool you, i went out the other night to look at the moon and it's smaller than that diagram appears on my screen.

ablelocks · 31-01-2021 4:14pm

responsive_large_webp_UKbZnegwYCfo5CvSXAMP_jO9dj4Mux6Q0-Tb8kqUjjw.webp

Less than 30% of the 510 million square kilometers of area on the Earth's surface is covered by land.

The largest countries by surface area are Russia (3.35%), Canada (1.96%), and China (1.88%).

more info here

Victor · 31-01-2021 5:33pm

"Territorial waters (including EEZ*)"- pretty much by definition, EEZ is larger than territorial waters.

Gregor Samsa · 31-01-2021 10:59pm

Victor wrote: »

"Territorial waters (including EEZ*)"- pretty much by definition, EEZ is larger than territorial waters.

But according to the definition of territorial waters you linked to, it includes the EEZ.

The term territorial waters is sometimes used informally to refer to any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

Victor · 01-02-2021 12:09am

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

But according to the definition of territorial waters you linked to, it includes the EEZ.

"informally" seems to be the operative word there.

Gregor Samsa · 01-02-2021 1:00am

Victor wrote: »

"informally" seems to be the operative word there.

Yeah, but it's an informal term. "Territorial waters" is not used officially anywhere. But even so, when it is used, it generally includes the EEZ, and is commonly understood to mean the maximum extent of costal waters that a state has any of the various kinds of legal claims upon.

"Territorial sea" is a formal term (it has a legal definition in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), but that's a different thing to "Territorial waters". The two do sometimes get confused for each-other, but clearly the Earth's Surface diagram above is not doing that, as it expressly mentions that it includes EEZ in the "Territorial waters" category - which it would not do if it simply meant "Territorial sea" (which by definition is smaller than the EEZ).

Seth Brundle · 02-02-2021 1:11pm

Ever heard of Hy-Brasil?
It allegedly was an island about 300km off the west coast of Ireland, and included on maps from 1325 up to the late 1800s. Often spelt as Hy-Breasal, Hy-Breasil, Brazir just named as Brasil, it apparently was covered in mist except for one day every seven years. In Celtic folklore, this island country takes its name from Breasal, the High King of the World. (Apparently the country Brazil is most likely named after brazilwood)

From a mapping perspective, it was often drawn with a channel running through it.

mr_24_f_8_mr_24_f_8_typis_orbis_terrarum_europae_detail_of_brasil880x440.jpg