Breathing Earth

The site simulates CO2 emissions and birth/death rates from countries around the world in real time.

It’s a bit depressing looking at these statistics, but interesting nonetheless.

Hovering over a country will display its info. The UK population is in equilibrium at the moment, with deaths being almost as fast as births.

What’s the state of the country you live in?

New Zealand’s looking a bit healthier than the UK, but then our population is significantly lower.

As a species I think we’ll ultimately get through this current ecological crisis, but how many non human causalities will there be on the way? It’s a shame that there isn’t more commercial incentive at this point for companies to go green. This needs to happen if things are going to change.

I see Japan’s population is still going down. Does anyone know if their suicide rate is still higher than their birth rate?
That has to be the scariest statistic a country could have and I’m curious if it still holds true.

On a totally unrelated note (well, unrelated in subject but perhaps so in name) -

I read an interesting idea recently that perhaps the earth itself gets bigger very slowly, and that at one point Pangea was the size of earth, rather than every continent being on one side of the planet.

Of course my actual knowledge behind the science of this shite is 0, so don’t quote me!

If you do some personal digging into the numbers and the science between the whole CO2-discussion, you might be shocked ( I was at least) about how much holes the theories have and how much of it is more a political discussion than a scientific one.
Thousands of tonnes of CO2 looks like much, but picture how CO2 only represents 0,05% in the atmosphere and you might start to get an idea that something can’t be right. Oh look, the color is red as blood, that must mean something BAD!
Btw, it only shows deaths vs. births considering population and does in no way account for immigration, which plays a large role in western european countries.

psychology is fun

Actually, it’s closer to 0.0387%, and you clearly have no grasp of basic chemistry, never mind the demonstrable science behind the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric CFC concentrations in the 70s were much lower and yet high enough to deplete stratospheric ozone. It wouldn’t take much cyanide to despatch of most humans. I could go on, but until a denialist publishes a peer-reviewed study in favour of their position . . . You know the rest.

(I can’t remember the last time I logged in here; I still play the PD games from time to time, but more often just listen to the PDS soundtrack. :anjou_love:)

[quote=“Ancient Weapon”]Actually, it’s closer to 0.0387%, and you clearly have no grasp of basic chemistry.


This makes my day, just as I was about to leave home for my chemistry-course at the university, i should stay at home.
Let’s try a counterargument, you tried being a real smartass and bring an example of a low concentration of a certain substance being able to kill off living organisms? We are facing effects here which we can describe as chemical and biological.
And what about cfc? Are you seriously trying to compare a radical chemical reaction to the absorption of electromagnetic waves?
Could you try to bring up a more fitting example, perhaps from the realm of physics? Let me return the favor and claim that you have no grasp of the basics of physics and therefore lack any basic understanding of chemistry yourself.
Thank god we have legions of people like you out there, regurgitating informations found in brochures, “saving” the planet, blinded from the true factors destroying our environment.
I suppose it feels good being on the “winning” side and just thinking whatever the majority is thinking at the moment, but go on calling me a “denialist”, funnily you seem to only demand proof from the faction opposing your own personal opinion while clearly both sides of the argument don’t seem to manage to put together a coherent theory.

I will not let myself get dragged into a debate with you, since it will only end up in a battle of rhetorics fought witht he desperation of near-religious zealotism. I just wanted to let you know that I dare to make such unenlightened claims from an scientific academic position (and i am not the only one, believe me), you can go on and try to somehow dismantle every claim i make by pointing out that this-or-that is not exactly in the field of my specialization (after all , i can’t be an “expert” in chemistry,physics and meteorology at the same time, can I?) , which is why i will not give you any such information, even if this means that you will dismiss all of my opinions as rubbish right away, I’m not trying to convince you. Ah well, got carried away a bit there.
(edit:) One more thing perhaps: Do i think that our climate is changing ? Yes, but it is not even clear in which way the climate will change over the next decades. For all we know, there are even signs of a possible iceage. That, and i am sure that CO2 is not the dominating factor behind these changes. However as soon as i am faced with convincing data, i am ready to change my opinion on the subject.

Just a tad.

Do I detect an undertone of assumption about my character? What are these “true factors”?

I am also at university, I should add, where no doubt I am being brainwashed by politicised lecturers on the fraudulent arguments behind the Great Global Warming Swindle. OK, that’s my “getting carried away a bit”; now to try to be serious.

  1. What is your opinion on the premise of the greenhouse effect?
  2. Do you accept that CO2 is a potent GHG, particularly at recent levels?
  3. Do you accept that human activities (i.e. burning fossil fuels and forest) result in emission of CO2?
  4. If yes to 1-3, do you see why CO2 is understood as a major driver of climate?
  5. What of the fact that models omitting anthropogenic forcing do not produce results consistent with the observed warming since circa 1976?

I thought ever since Fourier, Tyndall et al. did the earliest experiments on the IR absorption of CO2 and other GHGs, the science behind the greenhouse effect was sound. And the existence of human emissions is undeniable. The rest seems to follow–but I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor, perhaps for reasons of laziness.

Yes: I’ve heard that, in the North Atlantic, altered atmospheric circulation / precipitation patterns and increased influx of fresh water from melting Greenland ice could affect the thermohaline circulation system–such that the NA Drift may be weakened or deactivated, leading to much lower temperatures across northern Europe.

Whatever. I have no desire to have this debate for the umpteenth time, any more than you seem to. Perhaps we should just leave it to the experts.