In the late 1980s, I went on an expedition along Kazakhstan's eastern shore of the Caspian Sea. One of our stops was supposed to be a fishing village, but when we got there, it was completely empty. Hundreds of mud huts sat abandoned as everyone had just disappeared. In one of the yards, a camel was still there. It felt haunting, like walking through a ghost town. The strangest part? There was no sea anywhere nearby! The Caspian had dried up so quickly that people had to leave their homes behind because they couldn’t live there anymore.
The Volga Hydroelectric Station, located on the Volga River, directly impacts the Caspian Sea. The Volga River, Europe’s longest, flows into the Caspian Sea and contributes about 80% of its freshwater inflow. The construction of the Volga Hydroelectric Station and other dams along the river has altered its natural flow, reducing the volume of water reaching the Caspian Sea. This reduction has contributed to the sea’s declining water levels.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150452/the-caspian-...
I wonder how Caspian Sea levels looks on a graph over a longer time span (haven't found one quickly).
In 1970s there was a project to connect rivers Pechora and Kama [1] to redirect water flow and increase levels of the Caspian Sea which were declining at that time. The project was abandoned but the Caspian sea levels started to increase in late 70s and 80s even without geoengineering.
Would make sense considering a previous level is called «The Volga», and the level with the dam[0] supposedly was to be called that. The oil rigs in the later level is decidedly the Caspian[1] though!
The issue of how the satellite data feed ends up censored is pretty interesting. Here's the probable central issue:
> "While countries still reserve the right to withhold map data, the number of state and private companies that sell satellite images makes hiding the globe incredibly difficult. At the same time, this also means that state or non-state actors can beat private companies to the exclusive rights of a satellite image, meaning they can partially censor the image before others can license it."
Oceans, plus I guess the Caspian Sea, don’t get much satellite coverage because no one (except militaries) wants it enough. For the ocean, Google Maps uses bathymetry data to synthesise shaded blue imagery. The Caspian in particular I guess is such a uniform colour either because it’s so shallow that Google’s shading algorithm doesn’t shade it at all? (Compare to the northwesternmost parts of the Adriatic Sea, for example)
A big issue here too is the image stitching; aerial images are registered for big tile maps based in part on feature analysis of the edges and that just never works right for images of the ocean (mostly you have waves, and they're in different places in each image). Even if you register it perfectly the waves ensure that the edges will still have stitching artifacts. As a result the "false color" oceans that Google Maps shows just look better than actual imagery.
The "imagery" source for the oceans in Google Maps is (or at least was) GEBCO, it's a global bathymetric dataset made by registering depth sounding tracks from mostly commercial vessels. I thought maybe GEBCO didn't cover the caspian sea but it looks like it does for the last decade or so, but admittedly it seems to be data from just one survey and it's tagged as limited quality (at least in older versions of the dataset), so maybe Google ignores it.
Products like Google Maps stitch satellite and aerial photos together to make a cohesive image.
There's no reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting precise images in the middle of a sea or ocean from Maxar so a low-res image is more than enough.
Also, most of the high-res images you see of regions on Google Earth or Maps tends to come from aerial photography, not satellites.
These products will also update the images every couple months to years. For example, you could see the aftermath of the Donetsk airport battle and Homs Siege in Google Maps in 2014-15, but not anymore.
It’s not a low-res image… because the oil rig city would still be blurry but somewhat visible, it’s a no-res image, entirely generated with no connection to reality.
Google Maps' satellite photography only extends a bit into seas, where it transitions to bathymetric data. It looks like the Caspian Sea doesn't have any bathymetric data though, which is strange. Even the great lakes have it.
You can get walking directions, it’s about 9.5km end-to-end along the furthest connected points. Looks like the roads going further out have collapsed.
It says he learned about it in the 90s, information about distant parts of the world was much harder to come by back then, particular regarding Soviet countries (at least for Westerners)
it was the reason for Barbarossa, the first Germany defeat, and it was the only way Germany could replenish the oil used on the Russian offensive, which forced them to squeeze the polish camps dry. they lost it one baku.
it was also where most modern billionaires made their fortune.
Assuming you're talking about stategic defeats, I'm pretty sure the Battle of Britain was earlier. Possibbly North Africa too, but that's more debatable.
The Baku oil fields were capitalized by the Rothschild banking dynasty, which was already immensely wealthy before the oil age. Perhaps others will weigh in, but as I recall this was in response to the fabulous wealth Rockefeller was realizing in the United States. Petroleum had always been present around Baku and elsewhere, but it hadn't been exploited on the same industrial scale. It was sometimes regarded as an inconvenience which devalued land.
Sure - I don't doubt that Baku made some people fabulously rich, I'm more curious about "most modern billionaires", specifically "most". I'm not even convinced that most modern billionaires made their billions through petroleum, much less Baku.
In this case, the Rothschilds were already a powerful European banking dynasty. There are many shadowy speculations about the different branches of this family. Perhaps this is where the confusion originates.
The Nobel family did better relative to their previous station. In the end the Baku concerns were sold to Rockefeller before being nationalized after the Russian Revolution.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at: where's the irony in "Germany started a war to get some oil. Now someone else starts a war and Germany doesn't want to do business with them because they had enough of warmongering people"? What am I missing?
That is kind of a Pierce Morgan question: "Do you condemn $X"?
Yes, I condemn $X. Does it make a difference? Buying oil and gas from Russia, which is happening anyway by laundering it through India, does not make a difference. Ukraine knew this, so it kept the Russian pipelines open and collected transit fees while brutally criticizing Germany for Nordstream!
No one in the West any longer claims that Russia blew up Nordstream. The latest WSJ article blames it on Zalushny. That is currently the mainstream version, others still believe Seymour Hersh.
Strange that the pipeline (whose existence has been a major problem to both the US and a number of EE nations) happens to blow up, after Biden delivers a little speech on it:
> If Russia invades (Ukraine) ... again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it
And when pressed for more information on this rather ominous statement, refused to elaborate.
Its always odd when the 'it would be a shame if anything happened to it' establishment actually burns down. Even odder when the person the German investigation claims to be responsible did the sabotage out of Poland, and then fled to Ukraine.
With no support from the authorities of either nation, of course, despite both of them having Cheshiric grins over the sabotage.
I suppose it's very fortunate that Russia bent over backwards to do Biden, Zelensky, and Poland such a favor.
I mean, it's a pretty straightforward stance to understand, if not sympathize. If you pay taxes in Russia, your efforts directly support the war in Ukraine. You can have all sorts of arguments about choice and will, but this underlying truth remains the same.
Infill is pretty common in cities where real estate is expensive. I’m not sure what the “tipping point” is but large chunks of the city of Boston are built on what was water. The neighborhood “Back Bay” is named quite literally. NYC likewise has large chunks of prime real estate built on artificial land. Manhattan’s Battery Park was once water. The motivation here does seem to have been economic.
Singapore also is similarly growing out into the sea, though the motivation there is the lack of land in other directions, not merely price.
The Aztec city of Tenochtitlan was similarly built in the middle of a lake on a foundation of floating grass islands called “chinampas.” Here the motivation was martial - the lake served as a moat for their imperial capital.
Venice was built similarly to the Tenochtitlan on mostly a series of man-made islands, though the motivation seems to have been population growth.
The Chinese today are building artificial islands in the South China Sea, the motivation here is martial/legalistic - expand the land territory and power projection to expand their claim to the sea.
Manhattan Cruise Terminal in Hell’s Kitchen was constructed by cutting out parts of midtown Manhattan’s bedrock, in order to make the piers long enough to accommodate modern cruise ships. You can see on the map that those piers cut in noticeably further than any others.
Globally no, but locally yes; the Netherlands famously turned a sea inlet into a lake, then reclaimed a province from that lake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flevoland.
The tradeoff is between urbanization (think Singapore) vs nature vs agriculture. The Netherands doesn't want or isn't ready for building tall yet, for some reason.
In a world where transportation is effectively instant you're correct. Here in reality, though, is another story. Living 2 hours away from a commercial center is practically useless unless you have one of the increasingly difficult to find fully remote jobs or enough money that you never have to work again.
People may disagree with this but IMO Tulare Lake illustrates that it's not just "real estate" because plenty of real estate is basically worthless. In this case it's land with water which can grow things (same in Netherlands), and they made more of it by continuing to suck more water out of the lake than rainfall replenished.
Maintenance for infrastructure and buildings on solid ground is already expensive and difficult. I can't imagine how bad it would be for a sea-based town or city.
Caspian sea is rather stable.
In 1970s there was a project to connect rivers Pechora and Kama [1] to redirect water flow and increase levels of the Caspian Sea which were declining at that time. The project was abandoned but the Caspian sea levels started to increase in late 70s and 80s even without geoengineering.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechora%E2%80%93Kama_Canal
[0] https://metrovideogame.fandom.com/wiki/The_Taiga_(Metro_Exod...
[1] https://metrovideogame.fandom.com/wiki/The_Caspian_(Metro_Ex...
https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/the-caspian-s...
https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/01/99/42/41/1000_F_199424123_E5...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotlor_Field?useskin=vector
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nq28Ct4FLyBGx5eP8
It was deemed too strategically important and was not put on maps.
What's up with that?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dr71WrLZ7G97E5br9?g_st=ic
> "While countries still reserve the right to withhold map data, the number of state and private companies that sell satellite images makes hiding the globe incredibly difficult. At the same time, this also means that state or non-state actors can beat private companies to the exclusive rights of a satellite image, meaning they can partially censor the image before others can license it."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-21/why-large-parts-of-ea...
The "imagery" source for the oceans in Google Maps is (or at least was) GEBCO, it's a global bathymetric dataset made by registering depth sounding tracks from mostly commercial vessels. I thought maybe GEBCO didn't cover the caspian sea but it looks like it does for the last decade or so, but admittedly it seems to be data from just one survey and it's tagged as limited quality (at least in older versions of the dataset), so maybe Google ignores it.
There's no reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting precise images in the middle of a sea or ocean from Maxar so a low-res image is more than enough.
Also, most of the high-res images you see of regions on Google Earth or Maps tends to come from aerial photography, not satellites.
These products will also update the images every couple months to years. For example, you could see the aftermath of the Donetsk airport battle and Homs Siege in Google Maps in 2014-15, but not anymore.
https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=13&lat=40.2387...
Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neft_Da%C5%9Flar%C4%B1
(Only Yandex seems to have imagery, the other services cut it out as it's too far offshore.)
https://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/53_folder/53_...
Because it was in glorius SovColor and because the hero had greasy ElvisPresley-pompadour, I would say it was shot in between 1960-1970.
There's a painting in colour, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26_Baku_Commissars#/media/File...
Lagniappe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_Democratic_Republic...
EDIT: wrong geography, but apparently the "technical" long predates the Toyota Hilux: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9fbO9NX1no#t=3553s
Bing Maps shows the bridges and some platforms with good resolution: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=40.061519%7E49.607735&lvl=12.0&...
Yandex Maps shows the constellation of isolated platforms to the south-east: https://yandex.com/maps/?l=sat%2Cskl&ll=49.630795%2C40.03939...
In what way it was secretive or a myth?? There were multiple books and movies about it, it was a major job source and a ton of people worked there.
it was the reason for Barbarossa, the first Germany defeat, and it was the only way Germany could replenish the oil used on the Russian offensive, which forced them to squeeze the polish camps dry. they lost it one baku.
it was also where most modern billionaires made their fortune.
Assuming you're talking about stategic defeats, I'm pretty sure the Battle of Britain was earlier. Possibbly North Africa too, but that's more debatable.
Could you explain this claim?
In this case, the Rothschilds were already a powerful European banking dynasty. There are many shadowy speculations about the different branches of this family. Perhaps this is where the confusion originates.
The Nobel family did better relative to their previous station. In the end the Baku concerns were sold to Rockefeller before being nationalized after the Russian Revolution.
also stalin journalism career took off there.
What is your preferred outcome to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Yes, I condemn $X. Does it make a difference? Buying oil and gas from Russia, which is happening anyway by laundering it through India, does not make a difference. Ukraine knew this, so it kept the Russian pipelines open and collected transit fees while brutally criticizing Germany for Nordstream!
No one in the West any longer claims that Russia blew up Nordstream. The latest WSJ article blames it on Zalushny. That is currently the mainstream version, others still believe Seymour Hersh.
> If Russia invades (Ukraine) ... again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it
And when pressed for more information on this rather ominous statement, refused to elaborate.
Its always odd when the 'it would be a shame if anything happened to it' establishment actually burns down. Even odder when the person the German investigation claims to be responsible did the sabotage out of Poland, and then fled to Ukraine.
With no support from the authorities of either nation, of course, despite both of them having Cheshiric grins over the sabotage.
I suppose it's very fortunate that Russia bent over backwards to do Biden, Zelensky, and Poland such a favor.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...
Also, it's been receiving arms and 'advice' from half the world.
Infill is pretty common in cities where real estate is expensive. I’m not sure what the “tipping point” is but large chunks of the city of Boston are built on what was water. The neighborhood “Back Bay” is named quite literally. NYC likewise has large chunks of prime real estate built on artificial land. Manhattan’s Battery Park was once water. The motivation here does seem to have been economic.
Singapore also is similarly growing out into the sea, though the motivation there is the lack of land in other directions, not merely price.
The Aztec city of Tenochtitlan was similarly built in the middle of a lake on a foundation of floating grass islands called “chinampas.” Here the motivation was martial - the lake served as a moat for their imperial capital.
Venice was built similarly to the Tenochtitlan on mostly a series of man-made islands, though the motivation seems to have been population growth.
The Chinese today are building artificial islands in the South China Sea, the motivation here is martial/legalistic - expand the land territory and power projection to expand their claim to the sea.
Manhattan Cruise Terminal in Hell’s Kitchen was constructed by cutting out parts of midtown Manhattan’s bedrock, in order to make the piers long enough to accommodate modern cruise ships. You can see on the map that those piers cut in noticeably further than any others.
The tradeoff is between urbanization (think Singapore) vs nature vs agriculture. The Netherands doesn't want or isn't ready for building tall yet, for some reason.
>> Population • 9 November 2024 estimate Neutral increase 18,212,400[7] (69th) • 2011 census 16,655,799[8] • Density 520/km2 (1,346.8/sq mi) (33rd)
Compare with Singapore:
>> Density 7,804/km2 (20,212.3/sq mi) (2nd)
Singapore is ~56x smaller than the Netherlands which makes it hardly comparable..
People may disagree with this but IMO Tulare Lake illustrates that it's not just "real estate" because plenty of real estate is basically worthless. In this case it's land with water which can grow things (same in Netherlands), and they made more of it by continuing to suck more water out of the lake than rainfall replenished.
Complaining about real estate prices is like going touristing and complaining that the place has too many tourists.