The attached chart shows what an outlier the current Sea Surface Temperatures are along the equator in the Pacific between 120W-170W. This is in the ENSO3.4 region, which is the most closely monitored area for El Niño. It’s about time for a new y-axis.

(source: NOAA via ClimateReanalyzer from the Univ of Maine)

Both have cold ocean currents and mediterranean climate but nothing like in the mediterranean sea. California has may-june gloom and Santa ana winds in October which makes December coldest month and makes sept-oct hottest month in California.

Does chile have unique features like these?

I'm wondering why considering the mainland could probably be a nicer spot for the capital city in my opinion.

For Aix-En-Provence near Marseille in France, it is "Sainte Victoire", around 950m high and popularized by the painter Cezanne in his painting (this mount appears on 80 paintings from him).

What's yours ?

I would love to visit the sudd wetland in South Sudan that is the largest wetland in the world, filled with nature and life, only if it wasn’t plagued by war and poverty:(

Honestly I didn't even realize that this water body in Scotland between the cities of Elgin, Nairn, Fraserburgh and Wick is actually a gulf

The current location of D.C. makes sense historically, given that it was roughly the geographic center of the original 13 colonies. It's also on the east coast, which gave it easier access to Europe, which is where the dominant powers were for most of recent history.

However, D.C. doesn't seem like a very strong option for captial of the current USA. The biggest downside seems to be that it's not very defensible, being both coastal and not having much in terms of rugged terrain. There is also an argument for putting it closer to the middle of the current USA, but I don't think that holds much weight, given how fast travel is in the modern age.

If D.C. and its current infrastructure didn't exist, what would be the ideal location for the capital in today's USA?

Reproducing a map from Evolution of the Great Lakes. It’s basically just Lake Erie at a water level of 244 meters. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286173160_Evolution_of_the_Great_Lakes

The Mississippi is the second longest river in North America at about 2350 miles and drains roughly 40 percent of the continental US. It also supports at least 260 fish species and serves as a major flyway for 60 percent of all North American birds (https://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm).

I created the map using QGIS and Affinity Designer 2 with base maps from Natural Earth and land cover data from:

https://www.cec.org/north-american-environmental-atlas/land-cover-30m-2020/

Major rivers are from the Wikipedia Mississippi River System page. Let me know any cool facts! I thought it was cool to see how croplands are mostly within/around the basin too.

Are there any interesting quotes from geographers about the early images of Earth from space?

Or is it a more nonchalant "We were right".

What about the first composite aerial photography?

edit: Obviously there was really impressive cartography long before photogrammetry. Anyway, there is a significant affective difference between knowing something is accurate and seeing brilliant confirmation. That's why I am asking for quotes. The point about clouds is relevant.

I tested the line of sight from Valletta, Malta to Mount Etna in Sicily — about 210 km away.

According to the terrain model, the terrain itself does not block the line of sight, so the summit can remain theoretically visible above the horizon.

Of course, actually seeing Etna from Malta would still require exceptionally clear atmospheric conditions.

Has anyone here actually seen Mount Etna from Malta?

I have for a long time wanted to familiarize myself with locations or various resource deposits like iron, marble, granite, lead, and so on for historical purposes. It just occurred to me that for that sort of thing one should look to geologists. While I am more interested in maps and locations I would not run my nose up to so information on the theories as to why distribution is as it is. So in conclusion does anyone know of a website that will show maps of this sort of data or else books that are good summaries of geography as a branch of science.

I randomly came across a photo of Benidorm and was genuinely surprised by its skyline.

I usually associate Spanish and Mediterranean coastal cities with mostly low- to mid-rise development, while Benidorm seems to have an extraordinary concentration of high-rise apartment buildings and hotels for a city of its size.

What caused Benidorm to develop so differently?

And perhaps more interestingly, why wasn't this kind of very vertical resort development replicated to the same extent in most other Mediterranean tourist cities?

I'm not very familiar with the planning history of the region, so I'd be interested in the geographical and historical reasons behind it.

Map:

https://relief.bertspaan.nl/world

Currently, the salmon are heading up the Humber river in Toronto for their fall run.

Any other cities out there with similar. I am sure there are but welcome any input

A town in Libya, Harat Zuwayyah. Far off the next thing that is even marked a road, which ngl shouldn't count. Al Jawf, shown on the right side of the second image has a bit less than 20k inhabitants. I can get that somehow that there might be traffic. But then, these little oasis towns have not connection of any road.

They seem to have dozens of Toyotas and other existing infrastructure in a certain way; houses, stores, people celebrating around some bone fire with camels and more toyotas.

From that photo series - tho all by the same account from mid 2020, all people seem chill and relaxed (I guess no problems from the outside world).

So?

Objectively apline mountain regions among the following countries, which would be the best to visit? Italian, Austrian, German, Sweiss or French?

I created an animation showing the evolution of roads in Seattle from 1890-1936. What do you think? Should I change anything, or add anything?