Four Infographic Morsels 3

Monday, December 14th, 2009

Earth In Space
Volume Of Living Space On Earth
Thanks to Steve Haddock for that one. Apparently this map is secreted on Google Earth somewhere. Can anybody find a link for it? Thanks!

And on a similar theme – the undiscovered country, Antarctica, grokkable for size.

The Size Of Antarctica
(Apols. I lost the original link for this image. If anyone knows where it comes from, please let me know so I can credit)

Mark Coleran – Visual Design for Film
An INCOMING EMAIL alert in 200 point text suddenly flies across your monitor. Only the movies eh? This talented dude, Mark Coleran, is responsible for many movie infographical displays. Normally you only see them fleetingly reflected in Denziel Washington’s anxious glasses. But today they are in unveiled in their full glory for a long, proper look.

Mark Coleran - Visual Design for Film

Why Are Europeans White Skinned?
North Europeans are the palest humans in the world. Why? Here’s a clue: Blame Alpen. Explore this fascinating theory and nice story on skin colour.

Why Are Europeans White Skinned?

(Thanks to Peter Ayres) Knol, “Google’s Wikipedia”, rules BTW.

Mind Mapping A Mind Map
Lunchbreath’s amusing dig at Mind Mapping (which I personally find rubbish)

Mind Mapping A Mind Map

There’s a bunch more hand-drawn infographical goodness on LunchBreath’s Flickr Stream.

Hmmm, strangely map themed this time. If you’re still hungry for more infographical morsels, check out the last selection.

In the meantime, if you come across any visual delights, please send them through.

Books and Store

Our Beautiful Books - Information is Beautiful Information is Beautiful Store

Show Comments ( )

  • Narcís Calvet


    Some of the links or links under the images in this post are “broken”.

    Keep up the good work!

    • david

      Bizarro paste spasm caused errors. Have fixed. Thanks. D

  • Andy Woodruff

    A cartography nerd would point out that the United States-Antarctica comparison is not exactly accurate because the map is not an equal-area projection. But I’m not a cartography nerd.

    Meanwhile, I love the lunchbreath stuff!

  • Peter Roberts

    I suppose while lunchbreath – isn’t that the bilious smell of post-prandial breath overladen with garlic? – is amusing itself with its amusing little Core cartoons, it’s staying out of my hair.

    Now what do I usually do with cores such as apple cores? Ah yes, bin them.

  • Peter Roberts

    On climate change, you need to distinguish between those who deny that there is any climate change (I’ve heard a team of Oxbridge geologists question the importance of research based on data gathered “since records began” (less than 200 years), compared with the length of time our planet and its infinitely varying climate has been in existence: “flat-earth” climate change deniers? Hardly. (Isn’t denier a measure a thickness of stocking material?)) and those who deny that any acknowledged climate change is being largely or significantly caused by humans.
    If you don’t specify this at the outset, your report of your research is no more than misguided and misguiding rhetoric, however prettily illustrated (those were the days when visual information was called simply an illustration or a diagram).

  • Flavio

    The Antartica/North America picture was released by NASA via Twitter:

  • ropes

    Excellent Article. I had got the useful information from this article regarding the Map.

  • Harrison
  • Darren

    I’d love to hear more about why you feel mind-mapping is “rubbish”. Personally, I’ve found that it’s a helpful technique to use as a first step toward organizing my ideas; though it does seem that many people are attempting to “elevate” a simple tool to some masterful and formal process, thus defeating its point.

    Is it this type of “let’s make mind-mapping seem like something more than semi-structured scribbling” that you object to, or is it the entire concept itself? In either case, why?

  • Alex Chan

    The picture of Antarctica is a NASA shot, from their IceBridge project. It was released via Twitter and Twitpic in mid-October.

    Here’s the Twitpic link:
    And the original tweet: “Okay, how BIG is Antarctica? Do you have a mental picture? No? Well, here it is, courtesy NASA.”

    [Thanks Alex! David]

  • armrha

    re: Andy
    I think the Antarctica/Continental US comparison is accurate, and not faulty based on projection. This isn’t a fancy projection map, just a snapshot of one face. Antarctica is around 36 million km^2 while the continental US is like 25 million km^2. It’s distorted in shape but the distortions are equal for both the US and Antarctica (just because of the curvature) and are factored in. It’s not like a mercator projection where Antarctica is like, the size of Jupiter or anything…

  • maya tutorials

    Great map, but you should explain that the map is not conserving areas, so it can be a bit confusing.

  • Savagela

    I don’t get the ” Earth In Space, Planet by volume of living space” graphic it looks like it’s supposed to be a small sphere within a large blue sphere but I’m not sure what the black represents and what the blue is supposed to be. ‘In Space” and “volume of” implies that this is not a 2D graphic but a 3D one.

    Taking a stab at meaning it would be the black is the area (since the surface of the earth is essentially 2D) of all the inhabited places on earth and the blue is all the uninhabited areas both land and sea.

    If that’s the intention I’m extremely dubious. I’m wondering what definition of uninhabited they used because to my mind there is hardly an inch on earth that isn’t connected by roads. I was just looking at a map of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Kentucky and the roads are a spiderweb. I would call that 100% inhabited. Siberia has roads all through it, There are multiple settlements on Antarctica and the Hudson bay. I can’t think of a place that isn’t caught in our web.

  • Me

    Good points, I think I will definitely subscribe! I’ll go and read some more! What do you see the future of this being?

  • aboulien

    Have to say, I agree with Savagela, the top graphic isn’t clear enough.

    But I’ve often thought a good way to bring home to climate agnostics the tenuous nature of human existence — comparable to Sagan’s ‘pale blue dot’ — would be to calculate the ‘total habitable volume’ of our galactic locale, as we know it. Even at a generous estimate — say, for vertical length, the distance from lowest to highest human habitation, and for area every square kilomere inhabited by at least one human — this is infinitesimal next to the volume of the solar system, beyond which we have no chance of travelling in centuries.

    We’ve got nowhere else to go: best not fuck it up.

    You could even make it 4-D. I recall a science fiction author explaining how Earth was for most of its history uninhabitable by human life.

  • Martin Lapietra

    Even at a generous estimate — say, for vertical length, the distance from lowest to highest human habitation, and for area every square kilomere inhabited by at least one human !!