Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Fortunately, as the cost of energy increases we'll get more efficient. Everything from cars to light bulbs. Also, it's obvious that people are much more aware of the impacts of their actions now than even 5 years ago. We're moving in the right direction, though for many of us it can't happen soon enough.

 

Unfortunately, improved efficiency is a double edged sword. Some scholars have pointed out that the more efficient electrical appliances/gadgets become, the cheaper they are and the more likely we are to acquire them.

So the total effect of improved efficiency over time is to increase energy usage. Of course we don't want to not have washing machines and dishwashers but it is something to consider. Energy demands are going to increase hugely over the next decades as the standard of living in the developing world rises.

 

Globally I think it's United Arab Emirates or a nearby country.

What constitutes a "true reason and proof" for you? Not the consensus of the IPCC apparently, or trends that extend more than 27 years.

Yeah, that's why scientists work their butts off in college while the frat boys are partying and skipping classes. So they can make "big" money on research while while similarly motivated people start businesses and internet ventures. The real money is in biomed/pharmaceuticals and chemistry, not earth science.

So maybe you can discount the studies of global warming affecting squirrel migration, but you still need to pay attention to studies of glaciation, atmospheric trends, affects of climate shifts on past civilizations (like the fall of the Mayan and Aztec cultures, among others).

 

That's Jevons Paradox. Something that frequently gets lost in that discussion however, is that more work gets done when efficiency improves. With the "leftover" petroleum, other things can get done, like fertilize a field, build another solar panel, go on vacation, run a dishwasher.

Secondly, that works best when there's a consistent supply of the raw product. More efficient usage means it costs less to do a unit of work, so more work gets done and total usage stays the same. What happens if that cost doesn't go down (such as due to a constrained supply)? I don't think Jevons Paradox covers that scenario.

 

Top 5 countries in 2003, kg oil equiv per person-year:

Iceland 11,718.00
Luxembourg 9,408.80
Canada 8,300.70
United States 7,794.80
Finland 7,218.10

from

earthtrends.wri.org

I know there is more recent data out there somewhere...

 

Thank you for correcting my error, I was using 2006 or earlier numbers but in the process of correcting me you have driven home my point. China and India have carbon emissions below the global average while the USA has carbon emissions 5 times the average. I think while you are thinking globally you need to act locally. How can you be critical of a nation whose people on average are not doing even one fifth the harm the people of your own country are doing?

I propose a "lead by example" approach. The Chinese and Indians want a lifestyle that is closer to the one they see on TV in the few minutes a day they can spare to watch it. The lifestyle they see on TV is your lifestyle, depicted in true Hollywood style. A priority is to find ways of reducing our consumption of carbon fuels while maintaining lifestyle as much as possible then Asia has an example to follow on its way toward their target of our lifestyle. Driving a Prius is a step toward that balance.

Please excuse my uneducated dribble.

 

Whoops, out of date data. Canada is ranked 9th in terms of total energy consumption per capita

Energy Consumption: Total energy consumption per capita

The US is ranked 10th in energy consumption, behind Canada. Data is kg of oil equiv per person

The top 10

1. Qatar, 21,395
2 Iceland, 11,718
3. UAE, 10,538
4. Bahrain, 10,250
5. Luxembourg, 9,408
6. Netherlands, 9,198
7. Kuwait, 9.076
8. Trinidad and Tobago, 8,555
9. Canada, 8300
10. US, 7,794

It does appear that outside of the business of oil producing countries, a certain comfy lifestyle comes at a high energy usage.

 

I'm surprised Iceland's oil consumption is so high. I thought they had more geothermal energy than they knew what to do with. Does this data account for what is actually consumed within the countries by its citizens, or does it simply measure what is produced there, divided by the population? Are there any measurements for the energy consumed in producing goods that are imported?

 

I agree in general with what you are saying (act locally, look at the per capita usage), but since both China and India have about 4x the population of the U.S. it is something to keep in mind. Also, their pollution controls are not even close to what the U.S. & Canada (and presumably Australia) have, so while the CO2 emissions per capita are 1/5th (or less) of ours, the other pollutants are terrible.

But to further grey the line, they're doing all this so we can buy cheap goods at Walmart (or the big box equivalents in other countries). China is using up tremendous amounts of tropical forests & fossil fuels to make cheap toys & trinkets we buy here in the States, so a lot of their emissions are for our sake. So basically, you need to think about every purchase, what is it really doing for us?

 

I think Jevon did his work with coal and shipping. I don't know that his works holds in the face of scarcity.

 

That's total energy consumed, given in oil equivalent terms. I wonder if that explains some other surprises, like the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

Apparently there's a way at that web site to just get fossil fuel usage, but it doesn't appear to be working for me.

 

Perhaps they use a lot of diesel for remote power generation in areas where the grid doesn't extend. Does seem a little odd. I seriously doubt that they burn oil for electricity. That would truly be insane. Maybe they all drive H2s that are permanently in 4WD and stuck in 1st gear.

 

So it is, and if we were lucky it would be so. But in the conclusions of that very paper Schwartz acknowledges that this may not be the final answer:

"Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen."

And it is good that he does so. His model assumes that a single timescale can be applied to the Earth's climate system, but the very data he cites shows that this assumption is not correct. For a full discussion see
RealClimate

 

Well, that's misleading.

 

Hi F8L,

I just read through a section on the natural Capitalism website. Infact, Here is a direct link.
Chapter 12 Climate: Making Sense and Making Money

I found it to be very interesting to read through and even though I read just that little portion I guess I never really put it into retrospective on how much of an issue Global Warming could be. If one major issue happens like a bunch of C02 realease from the oceans it has a major effect on everything else.

I always looked at Global Warming from a political side but now I know it's actually all about Science.

Now, I'm all new to this study so bare with me as I may sound dumb. LOL

What can actually be done to reduce emissions and reduce burning of fossil fuels? Are we still developing technology to power our homes and businesses? What will we use in the future instead of natural Gas to heat our homes?

 

Interesting that RC argues that global temperature cannot be adequately modeled as a linear trend but the IPCC can use that model when computing confidence intervals for the trend. Hmm.

Regardless, you mention empirical data. So let's look at the last few years worth of data. Interestingly, there is a negative temperature trend since 2001 in all 4 key temperature metrics. Even going back from now to 1997 the temp trend is pretty much flat despite copious increases in atmospheric CO2.

 

Are you saying that the average global temperature has been dropping since 2001?

Then this data and opinions express here are wrong? Eco-Economy Indicators: TEMPERATURE - 2007 SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD

 

Yes. That is what I'm saying. See Link. Or if you don't believe the chart, go to the NOAA website yourself and run the regressions. I did and I see a decline for nearly every measure (S Hem, N Hem, Land, Ocean, Strat, Trop) since 2001.

 

Ok I went to the NOAA website that you provided a link for and the first thing I saw was this...





So there you go... the earth's getting warmer. Stop being so damn stubborn... haha.

 

No. They tried to illustrate - poorly I might add - the energy consumption in kg of oil "equivalent." They could have just as easily - with just as much confusion - stated the per capita energy consumption in kw of electricity "equivalent."

I would have preferred if they had stated the energy consumption per capita in gigajoules. In that case, it wouldn't have been confusing. Unfortunately, it would have been confusing as hardly anybody knows what a joule is, let alone a gigajoule

Still, I found these links interesting

World Energy

http://www.povertymap.net/mapsgraphics/graphics/commercial-energy.jpg

http://scid.stanford.edu/events/PanAsia/Papers/Parikh.pdf