The World's 10 Biggest Energy Gluttons

[longknife]

We all know that the USofA is Number One. Right?


Well, read the article and be surprised @ The world s 10 biggest energy gluttons mdash MercoPress

 

[Mr. H.]

According to the EIA, one explanation is that the U.S. has simply shifted the energy required to satisfy greater consumption to manufacturing centers offshore.

That is ONE explanation, but a poorly-chosen one for that article.

 

[Abishai100]

A Flip of the Coin: Collective Bargaining


Canada and the USA are both on the list. This adds fuel to the argument that continental management is important. Europe has already picked up on this and their European Union has made real progress.

Did you know that Algeria, a member of OPEC, is arguably ahead of the USA in eco-friendly wind energy development? If America is not careful, it may fall behind in the airline industry (as Korean Air, Qantas, British Airways, Air Canada, and Kuwait Air are moving nicely, steadily, and quietly along).

Energy consumption is now connected to all kinds of consumerism activity.

I want to see more handsome marketing of British Petroleum (BP) on American soil; this could help America make practical races with OPEC.






European Union - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

We all know that the USofA is Number One. Right?


Well, read the article and be surprised @ The world s 10 biggest energy gluttons mdash MercoPress

Interesting that you would put it that way. Iceland would also lead the way if you listed the most clean energy per capita. However, what is affecting the environment the most is the energy used that produces GHGs. And the amount of GHGs emitted per nation. In that, China leads the way now, and US comes in second. But the rest of the world is rapidly catching up on emissions. So, we are going to make the experiment, and see what a rapid temperature increase will do to our civilization.
Which Country Emits the Most Greenhouse Gases Top 10 countries Emiting most Gases WhichCountry.co

 

[RGR]

So, we are going to make the experiment, and see what a rapid temperature increase will do to our civilization.

Even though the temperature trend over the past global warmings has been ever cooler? Not sure I jump right to all hot, all the time based on the historical evidence. And certainly not, if the past 15+ years of stable temperatures are any indication.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, we are warming at a rate unmatched in the past global warmings, such as the Permian-Triassic, and the Triassic-Jurrasic events. As for the last 15+ years being stable, the atmosphere has not warmed at the rate that is was warmng for a while, but the oceans have been rapidly warming. Not only that, even though the atmosphere has not been warming that fast, in the last 17 years we have had 13 of the warmest years on record.

 

[Mr. H.]

We seem to be doing it right in this country.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We all know that the USofA is Number One. Right?


Well, read the article and be surprised @ The world s 10 biggest energy gluttons mdash MercoPress

With stats of we have about 4% of the planet's population but consume about 25% of its' resources, do we really need to hear about places 2-9?

 

[Roguewave]

I suggest #8 quit burning ergs on his computer and find a cave to help emilierate this dreadful over-consumption.

 

[RGR]

Actually, we are warming at a rate unmatched in the past global warmings, such as the Permian-Triassic, and the Triassic-Jurrasic events.

Check the resolution on those estimates if you would. You see, when we are talking about global averages of estimates that far back, it isn't just a global averaging problem, but one in time as well. For example, surface temperatures haven't gone up in the past 15+ years, and so if your resolution was 15 years, you might not even see such stable temps along the way. If you resolution is 5 years, you would see no gain in temperature. Back as far as you are quoting from, you can't have that level of resolution therefore you can't even really compare anything except big effects. I am willing to accept proof that I am wrong of course, but I am pretty comfortable with the ability of paleogeologists to NOT have that level of resolution that far back.

As for the last 15+ years being stable, the atmosphere has not warmed at the rate that is was warmng for a while, but the oceans have been rapidly warming. Not only that, even though the atmosphere has not been warming that fast, in the last 17 years we have had 13 of the warmest years on record.

The only decent temperature record we have in the oceans only goes back less than a decade with the Argos probes, anything before that has the same data issues that the air temperature folks have...when they do stuff like this and pretend it doesn't matter.

 

[Saigon]

RGR -

Are you aware that both September and October of this year recorded the hottest temperatures in recorded history?

So why do you use the word 'cooling'?

 

[Saigon]

As for the OP, it is interesting stuff, but I do think one has to take population into account.

Countries like Iceland tend to throw up rather vague statistics in a lot of areas, because 300,000 people will always consume more energy than 3,000,000 people living in a similar area of land.

What is interesting are the larger countries - Australia, Canada, the US and so forth - all of whom perform far worse than they could do if they made any effort at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, we are warming at a rate unmatched in the past global warmings, such as the Permian-Triassic, and the Triassic-Jurrasic events.

Check the resolution on those estimates if you would. You see, when we are talking about global averages of estimates that far back, it isn't just a global averaging problem, but one in time as well. For example, surface temperatures haven't gone up in the past 15+ years, and so if your resolution was 15 years, you might not even see such stable temps along the way. If you resolution is 5 years, you would see no gain in temperature. Back as far as you are quoting from, you can't have that level of resolution therefore you can't even really compare anything except big effects. I am willing to accept proof that I am wrong of course, but I am pretty comfortable with the ability of paleogeologists to NOT have that level of resolution that far back.

As for the last 15+ years being stable, the atmosphere has not warmed at the rate that is was warmng for a while, but the oceans have been rapidly warming. Not only that, even though the atmosphere has not been warming that fast, in the last 17 years we have had 13 of the warmest years on record.

The only decent temperature record we have in the oceans only goes back less than a decade with the Argos probes, anything before that has the same data issues that the air temperature folks have...when they do stuff like this and pretend it doesn't matter.

RGR, when you compare the satellite data to the ground stations, they come out the same.

 

[RGR]

RGR -

Are you aware that both September and October of this year recorded the hottest temperatures in recorded history?

So why do you use the word 'cooling'?

Are you aware that recorded history means nothing in the context of CLIMATE change time scales? It is like becoming hysterical over how the past second was the hottest in 36 consecutive seconds…without mentioning that we have the rest of the day to get warmer….or cooler.

Kobashi in 2011 established that it might be 2100 before we are outside the bounds of natural variability within the climate system.

I mean really, if folks want to get all excited about current temperatures, just imagine how hysterical the Romans must have gotten, without coal fired power plants to blame their higher temperatures on.

 

[Saigon]

RGR -

Are you aware that recorded history means nothing in the context of CLIMATE change time scales?

Firstly - the past century or so of recorded data provide very compelling evidence to anyone willing to look at them.

Secondly, using ice core samples, we can go back centuries to get a reasonable idea of what took place in previous millenia. Again, it's compelling evidence to anyone willing to look at them.

This doesn't explain why you use the word 'cooling' to describe a year in which the world experienced two consecutive record hottest months.

 

[RGR]

So why do you use the word 'cooling'?

Long term temperatures trends of course.

 

[RGR]

RGR, when you compare the satellite data to the ground stations, they come out the same.

And you realize that there were no ground stations or satellite data during the Permian-Triassic, right?

 

[RGR]

RGR -
Firstly - the past century or so of recorded data provide very compelling evidence to anyone willing to look at them.

Compelling evidence of warming..sure…just like the word has warmed before. You do realize that climate change has been going on since before you, and the temperature record was born, right?

Secondly, using ice core samples, we can go back centuries to get a reasonable idea of what took place in previous millenia. Again, it's compelling evidence to anyone willing to look at them.

It is. Here is Greenland. Again. Looks like we are still within a pretty cold period to me, but it is only ice core data, and I agree with you that it is convincing that the cycles of climate are getting consistently cooler.

This doesn't explain why you use the word 'cooling' to describe a year in which the world experienced two consecutive record hottest months.

Because resolution and context matter. We are currently still in a cool period of climate, and the trend has been towards cooler temperatures. Sure, within any given period of time things go up and down, but people confuse some instantaneous data with what the planet is trying to do all by itself, and has been doing all by itself before humans inventing thermometers. All the thermometers did was provide much higher resolution data, and the people who want to fit curves to temperature data seem to forget that there is the history here of what the planet does all by itself. Using spurious relationships doesn't help the situation….such as A) the little ice age ends…B)the industrial revolution begins at about the same time…C) the industrial revolution has higher CO2 emissions which show up in the atmosphere. Just because these things are all true does NOT mean that C is causal to A. But it makes a great graph, gets Al Gore some prize or another, and folks who don't know dick about statistics fall for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Old Rocks]

The data that states that GHGs are the driver of the present warming is not the correlation, but is the absorption spectra of the GHGs. While correlation certainly does not equal causation, if there is causation, there will certainly be correlation. We know the cause, the absorption spectra of those gases, and we see the correlation in the last 135 years as we have added vast amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere.

 

[RGR]

The data that states that GHGs are the driver of the present warming is not the correlation, but is the absorption spectra of the GHGs. While correlation certainly does not equal causation, if there is causation, there will certainly be correlation.

That would depend on all the OTHER correlations and causations going on at the same time, requiring the type of multi-variate analysis that you certainly don't see in a hockey stick graph, or the Mauna Loa CO2 levels. You see, the first idiots on the scene pulled a boner, and simply ran with the spurious data relationship of Mauna Loa and temperatures.

They then produced graphs showing that if all mankind immediately ceased emitting CO2…temperatures would continue to rise with the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. Instead, people POURED out the CO2 in ever increasing amounts and….temperatures stayed UNDER the scenario for complete cessation of emissions.

Oops.

This is what happens when you don't understand system dynamics, regularly submit to 3rd party independent review of your statistical assumptions, correlations and aggregations. But it is easier to just draw lines through increasing trends, collect the grant money, and if you are lucky you can make a career of it, and get out before the empirical data discredits your position.

We know the cause, the absorption spectra of those gases, and we see the correlation in the last 135 years as we have added vast amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere.

We know how CO2 behaves as a gas, absolutely yes. But we don't appear to understand how that doesn't increase temperature over the past 15 years with ever higher numbers and no additional air temperature warming.