Can you identify what these world maps represent?

[Mauritania]

Yep, for number 16 anyway.

This map is part of a series of cartograms in which the actual geography is distorted in order to demonstrate information about the countries shown. In this case, the point made is that of population, with each country’s size ‘weighted’ to reflect the size of its population. The discrepancies between your average standard world map and this one are obvious – obviousness being a good indicator of how good a map is.

 

[Mauritania]

Correct Amadeus for no. 11

Dark blue: drives on left
Light blue: used to drive on right, now on left (Namibia).
Purple: used to have mixed system, now drives on right.
Light red: used to drive on left, now on right.
Dark red: drives on right.

 

[Mirc]

#13 is comparison of US states with real countries' GDP's.

 

[mythmonster2]

Hmmmm, I wonder what Pakistan has to do with South Carolina, India and Mexico with Texas, and Mars with Switzerland.

EDIT: Mirc, is Michigan really that rich? (Or for that matter, is Saudi Arabia rich? A 12 year old boy can only know so much)

 

[Mauritania]

Correctomundo Mirc.

The creator of this map has had the interesting idea to break down that gigantic US GDP into the GDPs of individual states, and compare those to other countries’ GDP. What follows, is this slightly misleading map – misleading, because the economies both of the US states and of the countries they are compared with are not weighted for their respective populations.

 

[Mirc]

Correctomundo Mirc.

The creator of this map has had the interesting idea to break down that gigantic US GDP into the GDPs of individual states, and compare those to other countries’ GDP. What follows, is this slightly misleading map – misleading, because the economies both of the US states and of the countries they are compared with are not weighted for their respective populations.

True, that's exactly why I remembered what this map was, because I remember disagreeing with it, because of its disregard for population.

EDIT: Mirc, is Michigan really that rich? (Or for that matter, is Saudi Arabia rich? A 12 year old boy can only know so much)

I don't know much about Michigan, but I do know Saudi Arabia is extremely rich!! It's the world's largest exporter of oil!

Saudi Arabia is one of the few fastest growing countries in the world with a high per capita income of $ 15,500 (est), Saudi Arabia will be launching 6 Economic cities (King Abdullah Economic City) which will be completed by the year 2020. These 6 new industrialised Economic cities will Diversify the Economy of Saudi Arabia, and will also increase the per capita income to a high level. The King of Saudi Arabia has announced that the per capita income, is forecast, to rise from $ 15,000 in 2006 to $ 33,500 in 2020. The Economic cities will be spread around Saudi Arabia to diversify each of the regions and provinces, and will contribute $ 150 billion to the GDP.

 

[Appassionato]

14 shows comparative north/south latitude, by mirroring (and rotating) the world map around equator.

 

[empireruler]

maybe the relationship between the size of the countries and the planets for 15

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'll start with the Happy Planet Index ("environmental efficiency of supporting well-being"). It sounds nice, but misses some crucial points, how else could Columbia score so high? Sounds useless to me as a tool to analyze development.

I find it a rather odd thing to measure, also, as it takes into account two variables which can often be contradictory. A country with people who are unhappy but can continue in this method forever is ranked similarly as one with very happy people who will not b able to maintain their lifestyle for very long at all.

Hence, there are two sliding scales here (happiness and sustainability), but since there is only one continuum on which they are measured, it's difficult to extract any useful conclusion from the map, except that the best nations are probably good places to live... except that I run the risk of being kidnapped in Colombia...



Unless I'm interpreting the map completely wrong?

 

[Mauritania]

I'll give no. 14 to Appassionato.

The map specifically shows the generic terrain you would find if you were to drill through the centre of the Earth to the otherside. Dark blue represents land mass while light blue represents ocean. The map presumes ofcourse that you start drilling on a landmass in the first instance.

No. 15 is close but no dice Empireruler.

 

[empireruler]

I thought maybe the distance from the sun would be the distance from the equator and size???? I could be completly wrong.
Great maps!!! Before this I never knew I had a brain.

 

[empireruler]

just to let you know... you should cover up the site web in the corner of the image... it could give people ideas on where to find th answer *cough*. I didn't look though as it would spoil the fun... *cough, cough*

 

[Marla_Singer]

#11 is left and right hand driving.

#12 is GDP comparisons between the US and the four following countries having the largest GDPs. Japan has the same GDP as the sum of all states in yellow. Germany as the sum of all states in green, China as the sum of all states in red, and the UK as the sum of all states in blue.

#13 replaces the name of each state by the name of a country having the same GDP.

#14 I don't know, but I'd guess it's about regions losing vegetation or animal life. Maybe this is about drought?

#15 compares the size of countries to the size of planets. At scale, considering Mercury to be the size of El Salvador, Jupiter would be the size of Russia. I guess this is a land area comparison.

 

[empireruler]

#11 is left and right hand driving.

#12 is GDP comparisons between the US and the four following countries. Japan has the same GDP as the sum of all states in yellow. Germany as the sum of all states in green, China as the sum of all states in red, and the US as the sum of all states in blue.

#13 replaces the name of each state by the name of a country having the same GDP.

#14 I don't know, but I'd guess it's about regions losing vegetation or animal life. Maybe this is about drought?

#15 compares the size of countries to the size of planets. At scale, considering Mercury to be the size of El Salvador, Jupiter would be the size of Russia. I guess this is a land area comparison.

what do the numbers on the side of 12 represent then... I think it cant be as the blue states have high GDP... they should be china... but what if its done by products produced... it would make sense as Northeast is US buisness center... China is lots of open area with large cities.. the West... dont know bout japan or germany but there must be some relation there.
Why would it be loss of animal life. I would say affects of global warming, ice sheets gone and flooding, but why then would argentina be affected. I have an inkling of an idea... maybe fault line... or volcanoes as I remeber Greenland was called the world of ice and fire... and the dark blue zone in china is on a fault line... also so it argentina!

 

[Marla_Singer]

what do the numbers on the side of 12 represent then...

The GDP at current exchange rates, in trillion dollars.

The US GDP is of US$ 12 trillion, Japan's GDP is if US$ 4.5 trillion, Germany's GDP is of US$ 2.8 trillion... Actually, it's thanks to these figures that I've found out what the map actually meant.

 

[empireruler]

but what about china... china has more GDP then the US doesn't it? Sorry I didn't realize that. We need to wait for the person who put it up to come back on as he left.
Super smart

 

[warpus]

but what about china... china has more GDP then the US doesn't it? Sorry I didn't realize that. We need to wait for the person who put it up to come back on as he left.
Super smart

Hmmm.. where'd you get such a bizarre idea?

 

[empireruler]

I thought that this year the chinese economy beat the US economy. Maybe Im completly wrong. I am pretty sure that the planet one is size of planet= distance from 0,0.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, the problem when it goes about comparing GDP's is that we don't use the same currency all around the world.

As a result, there are two kinds of way to compare GDP's:

- GDP's at current exchange rates: you calculate the GDP in each local currency and then you use the current exchange rates in order to see what it would mean in dollar.

- GDP's in purchasing power parity: countries don't have the same standards of living, and you can buy more in one country with the same amount of money as in another. As such, this GDP consists in calculating GDP's according to the purchasing power parity.

Generally, life is cheaper in poorer countries than in richer countries. As a result, GDP's of poorer countries are generally higher when calculated in purchasing power parity than in current exchange rates. For instance, the GDP of China was of 2.67 trillion dollar in 2006 at current exchange rates, however, it was of 10.17 trillion dollar the same year in purchasing power parity. If there's such a difference, it's because life is 5 times cheaper in China than in the US.

As a matter of fact, the numbers written on the map are now a bit off. In 2006, the GDP of the United States was of $13.2 trillion and the GDP of the European Union was of $14.4 trillion.

 

[Theige]

Well, the problem when it goes about comparing GDP's is that we don't use the same currency all around the world.

As a result, there are two kinds of way to compare GDP's:

- GDP's at current exchange rates: you calculate the GDP in each local currency and then you use the current exchange rates in order to see what it would mean in dollar.

- GDP's in purchasing power parity: countries don't have the same standards of living, and you can buy more in one country with the same amount of money as in another. As such, this GDP consists in calculating GDP's according to the purchasing power parity.

Generally, life is cheaper in poorer countries than in richer countries. As a result, GDP's of poorer countries are generally higher when calculated in purchasing power parity than in current exchange rates. For instance, the GDP of China was of 2.67 trillion dollar in 2006 at current exchange rates, however, it was of 10.17 trillion dollar the same year in purchasing power parity. If there's such a difference, it's because life is 5 times cheaper in China than in the US.

As a matter of fact, the numbers written on the map are now a bit off. In 2006, the GDP of the United States was of $13.2 trillion and the GDP of the European Union was of $14.4 trillion.

China's GDP in PPP also reflects how its currency is artificially kept low, by having it pegged to the dollar and not letting it float freely, as all other major currencies are.