5 ms·

This is almost interchangeable with a light pollution map. E.g. http://www.cleardarksky.com/maps/lp/large_light_pollution_map.html http://www.cleardarksky.com/m

This is almost interchangeable with a light pollution map. E.g. http://www.cleardarksky.com/maps/lp/large_light_pollution_map.html http://www.cleardarksky.com/maps/lp/large_light_pollution_ma... Funny how often human effects on the environment correlate with human population density.

jimmaswell 5y ago
Relevant XKCD as always: https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
joe-collins 5y ago
It might be more interesting to subtract one data set from the other, showing how much of the noise is human-induced? Perhaps there are some outliers.
- quesera 5y ago
  Absent humans, this still applies: > The trend is higher sound levels in wetter areas with more vegetation. This is due to the sounds of wind blowing through vegetation, flowing water, and more animals (especially birds and frogs) vocalizing in more fertile locations.
  - shmageggy 5y ago
    I find those sorts of natural sounds to be way less annoying and offensive than machine-originated sounds, even at equal decibel levels. Perhaps it’s because of a learned/cultural associations, but I’d bet there’s something inherently annoying to most manmade sounds, probably due to the periodic nature of motors, fans, etc. I’d be interested in the above suggested diff map showing (approximately) machine-originated sound levels.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  One can already tell you some factors deductively (and verifiedly): it's not the density, it's the presence. Mass is phonoabsorbent; there where you have buildings, you have both noise from the inhabitants and shielding from the constructions. In the open spaces, one single source can pollute for even ten kilometers or five miles of distance, and more. The added effects of natural acoustics can be worsening - barkings bouncing in the echo from valley to valley, starting in front and returning behind etc.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > Mass is phonoabsorbent Sorry, I was tired. I meant to write that mass is phono-insulant (stops the passage of noise), not phono-absorbent (would not reflect noise).
8bitsrule 5y ago
I was noticing the same thing. Equally easy to pick out the major US cities. In the West, anyway ... where the lack of major oceanside cities above San Fran is especially notable. (Why is that?)
- kortilla 5y ago
  Being next to the ocean up in the PNW sucks ass. Windy, misty cold for 10 months and then 7 weeks of windy and misty. You get 1 week of pleasant weather spread through the 7.
  - KirillPanov 5y ago
    I tell people the exact same thing to keep them from moving here. It works! ;)
    - hattmall 5y ago
      That's what I found strange honestly. I don't know why but I always thought the west coast was great weather. But it sucks. Only southern California had ok weather, but even then the beaches weren't great and the water was cold in summer. The farther North it was like borderline miserable weather. I guess the weather comparison trope is based on New York and places that it snows a lot, but so much of the US has a far better climate than the west coast.
      - KirillPanov 5y ago
        Depends on what kind of weather you like. Where I am it never ever gets hot and it gets below freezing maybe two or three nights a year. When it's warm it's never humid (dry summers) and the only time it's humid is when it rains, which happens pretty much all winter. I kinda like that. Nights are cool (55F or below) every night, even in the middle of summer, which makes for comfortable sleeping. The main downside IMO is the short days in the winter, but that's really latitude rather than weather.
        5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mnw21cam 5y ago
Not completely. Light pollution travels further than noise pollution.

jimmaswell 5y ago

Relevant XKCD as always: https://xkcd.com/1138/ https://xkcd.com/1138/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

joe-collins 5y ago

It might be more interesting to subtract one data set from the other, showing how much of the noise is human-induced? Perhaps there are some outliers.

quesera 5y ago
Absent humans, this still applies: > The trend is higher sound levels in wetter areas with more vegetation. This is due to the sounds of wind blowing through vegetation, flowing water, and more animals (especially birds and frogs) vocalizing in more fertile locations.
- shmageggy 5y ago
  I find those sorts of natural sounds to be way less annoying and offensive than machine-originated sounds, even at equal decibel levels. Perhaps it’s because of a learned/cultural associations, but I’d bet there’s something inherently annoying to most manmade sounds, probably due to the periodic nature of motors, fans, etc. I’d be interested in the above suggested diff map showing (approximately) machine-originated sound levels.
mdp2021 5y ago
One can already tell you some factors deductively (and verifiedly): it's not the density, it's the presence. Mass is phonoabsorbent; there where you have buildings, you have both noise from the inhabitants and shielding from the constructions. In the open spaces, one single source can pollute for even ten kilometers or five miles of distance, and more. The added effects of natural acoustics can be worsening - barkings bouncing in the echo from valley to valley, starting in front and returning behind etc.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > Mass is phonoabsorbent Sorry, I was tired. I meant to write that mass is phono-insulant (stops the passage of noise), not phono-absorbent (would not reflect noise).

8bitsrule 5y ago

I was noticing the same thing. Equally easy to pick out the major US cities. In the West, anyway ... where the lack of major oceanside cities above San Fran is especially notable. (Why is that?)

kortilla 5y ago
Being next to the ocean up in the PNW sucks ass. Windy, misty cold for 10 months and then 7 weeks of windy and misty. You get 1 week of pleasant weather spread through the 7.
- KirillPanov 5y ago
  I tell people the exact same thing to keep them from moving here. It works! ;)
  - hattmall 5y ago
    That's what I found strange honestly. I don't know why but I always thought the west coast was great weather. But it sucks. Only southern California had ok weather, but even then the beaches weren't great and the water was cold in summer. The farther North it was like borderline miserable weather. I guess the weather comparison trope is based on New York and places that it snows a lot, but so much of the US has a far better climate than the west coast.
    - KirillPanov 5y ago
      Depends on what kind of weather you like. Where I am it never ever gets hot and it gets below freezing maybe two or three nights a year. When it's warm it's never humid (dry summers) and the only time it's humid is when it rains, which happens pretty much all winter. I kinda like that. Nights are cool (55F or below) every night, even in the middle of summer, which makes for comfortable sleeping. The main downside IMO is the short days in the winter, but that's really latitude rather than weather.
      - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mnw21cam 5y ago

Not completely. Light pollution travels further than noise pollution.