Hot answers tagged

16

The idea of a southern continent is older than the actual discovery of the Antarctica. There was an expectation of the possible existence of a Terra Australis balance the global landmasses and the theory went far back. However, those models were not based on true evidence but rather aesthetic arguments that later just happened to come true. In contradiction, ...


9

About 80th. I counted the earthquakes of each magnitude on the List of deadly earthquakes... article. If the Nepal earthquake is about M7.8, then it's in the range 69th to 86th on that list: Note that there are more earthquakes than this in recent history, the list has already selected for deadliness. Also note the point in the comments about different ...


8

Probably the first recorded observation (and certainly one of the first) of the Antarctic mainland was of the Trinity Peninsula, part of the Antarctic Peninsula, by Edward Bransfield in 1820. Even from a distance, it's obvious that it's solid land. Picture source: swisseduc.ch It could have been by the fact that if you stand there you don't drift ...


6

Sounds like your question, like most questions about historical data, might be a little challenging to find the right source, as it often is around the world. But seeing you said Atlanta brightened my eyes! For if one is seeking information for a US climate observation sites (most big cities, and a fairly reasonable web across the US... there's about 2-6 ...


3

Nur & Cline (2000) constructed a map of sites destroyed in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean region during the years 1225–1175 BCE. They also provided a map of earthquakes of magnitude above 6.5 that were measured during the XX century. They claimed that "virtually all of these Late Bronze Age sites lie within the affected (“high-shaking”) areas". ...


2

EDIT -- Found the full report ... in Norway. The quote you are trying to source was an oft repeated (1999-2002) talking point by Klaus Toepfer (Töpfer), head of UNEP. The oldest instance I can find is in London, 1999. The rate at which arable land is being lost is increasing and is currently 30-35 times the historical rate. Only about one and a half ...


2

It's a curious question. I agree with Gordon Stranger, without context, (and a mention of some link to peer reviewed research, or at least, some kind of measurement), it's pretty meaningless. I did a a google search and checked links with books.google.com in them to search for a source but everything refers back to UNCCD and UNCCD, as far as I read ...


2

No context is given, but at face value this is a meaningless quotation. Globally there is a net increase in arable land from close to zero about 8000 years ago, to the current maximum of just over 40% of the gross biological productivity of the planet. 'Arable land loss' can refer to the land lost to urbanization, salinization or desertification. One might ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible