World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

[Jim Nickerson]

I got this link off Barry Ritholtz's The Big Picture.

There is no way of knowing how accurate are these constantly updating meters concerning World Population, Governments and Economics, Society and Media, Environment, Food, Water, Energy, Health.

Perhaps some of you have insights that would suggest it is all hooey. If the data are even in the realm of correctness, then if you wonder how much the world is changing as you look out your windows every day and see essentially no change, then the site in enlightening. For my internet connection its constant updating seems to slow down some things

I think it is a most interesting collection of data.

http://www.worldometers.info/

[Rajiv]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

A cursory glance showed most to be in the ballpark -- one error did stand out for me, and that was TV sales -- that has to be multiplied by a thousand. Easy enough error to make when one is aggregating data from various and sundry files -- the data was probably in 1000s of units shipped, instead of units shipped.

[Blackhawk]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

Only 42 years left on oil and 166 years on gas? It is definitely fun to watch the numbers spin... They all appear to be going the wrong direction. Merry Christmas!

[stetts]

You're almost right, Jim.

No way to know if anything's accurate. Even something as simple as UN members is 192, but that's from 2006! Yep, that's the UN's own website. http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

I can tell you the number of tons of toxec chemicals introduced into our land, air and water by industry (a little under 10 million alleged) is a completely meaningless number.

As a kid, we used Atrazine on field corn. The stuff was generally a wettable powder form in those days, about half active ingredient. Later, it became available in a more concentrated form, then liquid and pelleted forms. Powder used several pounds per acre, depending upon weed pressure but liquid was measured in quarts per acre.
Today, we commonly use pesticides that are applied at only an ounce or two per acre.

My point? Did the collectors of this data just use the total tonnage of chemical produced or is inert filler included? Also, now that the EPA has declared CO2 to be toxic, they need to re-jigger those two entries. Of course, nobody else had made this dumb declaration but us, so that also brings in the question of who decides what's toxic.

In all, pretty much a worthless piece of artsy fluff, I think. If I wasn't in such a cheery Christmas mood, I'd really tear into it.

Merry Christmas. Stetts

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

I do not know if the algorithms in the meters take into consideration the aggressive cancer-like growth of the human organism.

Here is an interesting piece that suggests immigration into the US will keep it strong for "longer than most people expect." (found at Infectious Greed http://paul.kedrosky.com/

Quote from original article http://www.economist.com/world/unite...=hptextfeature

Immigration keeps America young, strong and growing. "The populations of Europe, Russia and Japan are declining, and those of China and India are leveling off. The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time," predicts Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, a think-tank. By 2050, there could be 500m Americans; by 2100, a billion. That means America could remain the pre-eminent nation for longer than many people expect. "Relying on the import of money, workers, and brains," writes Mr Lind, America is "a Ponzi scheme that works."

According to US PopClock Projection http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html , if the above estimates by Michael Lind were to be close to correct, then all of you expecting to still be here in 40 years can expect to have 66% more neighbors, people on the highways, unrelenting continued widening of interstate highways, etc.

If you have children maybe less than 10 years old now, then perhaps some of your grandchildren might see the day when there will be just over 300% more people with whom to compete for housing, food, whatever fuel exists, a seat on a bus, or maybe even a train seat if it ever occurs to anyone in government to get serious about public transportation.

I was born in 1941, so in the 68 years I've been here, the US population has gone from 113.4M to 308.2M now. I don't recollect the first five years, but the next six I recall well. When not in school, I was out playing ball, cowboys and Indians, killing the Japs or Natzis though those wars were over, crawling around in sewers, walking all over many blocks to see other kids with whom to play. Nowadays on my street where there are some youngsters, only rarely does one see them biking, skating, scootering, playing ball or just messing around outdoors, and if you see one outdoors (besides getting into or out of a car) almost invariably it is in the company of a parent. Life in a lot of respects regarding electronic progress has progressed to me to unimagined levels, but life regarding the ability of a kid to be out and about exploring his/her immediate world is long, long past.

I don't know how many people these days eat sardines, but if I had a young child I would introduce them to sardines and the concept of how they are packaged--sort of preparing him/her for their and their children's futures, or maybe better show them some caviar.

[metalman]

Re: You're almost right, Jim.

No way to know if anything's accurate. Even something as simple as UN members is 192, but that's from 2006! Yep, that's the UN's own website. http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml

I can tell you the number of tons of toxec chemicals introduced into our land, air and water by industry (a little under 10 million alleged) is a completely meaningless number.

As a kid, we used Atrazine on field corn. The stuff was generally a wettable powder form in those days, about half active ingredient. Later, it became available in a more concentrated form, then liquid and pelleted forms. Powder used several pounds per acre, depending upon weed pressure but liquid was measured in quarts per acre.
Today, we commonly use pesticides that are applied at only an ounce or two per acre.

My point? Did the collectors of this data just use the total tonnage of chemical produced or is inert filler included? Also, now that the EPA has declared CO2 to be toxic, they need to re-jigger those two entries. Of course, nobody else had made this dumb declaration but us, so that also brings in the question of who decides what's toxic.

In all, pretty much a worthless piece of artsy fluff, I think. If I wasn't in such a cheery Christmas mood, I'd really tear into it.

Merry Christmas. Stetts

bingo! the devil's in the details.

whose data are they using?

what's their political agenda?

[Blackhawk]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

It is hard to know what to introduce your kids to these days. I remember being gone all day and coming home for dinner, just exploring. Who would have guessed the 60's and 70's were the glory years... the height of the prosperity and a simpler time.

I could introduce my kids to caviar and sardines, but I know they'd prefer a "happy" meal at McDonalds. The concept of being cramped is already being seen in his elementary class that is overcrowded and under funded.

In the meantime, the numbers will always move exponentially faster... Maybe that is the message to teach. For now it is Santa and the reindeer.

[Rajiv]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

Jim - by 2050 or even 2100, I expect the US population and the world population to be nowhere near Mr. Lind's forecasts.

If things continue the way they are continuing (and I hope that it does not happen), by 2050, I see a major collapse of the world population -- and it won't be pretty as it happens. "Peak Everything" and the resulting "competition" for resources will see to that!

Peak Everything

57 minutes

[Rajiv]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

I don't know how many people these days eat sardines, but if I had a young child I would introduce them to sardines and the concept of how they are packaged--sort of preparing him/her for their and their children's futures, or maybe better show them some caviar.

Brings to mind the following images







Japanese Capsule Hotels

The guest space is reduced in size to a modular plastic or fiberglass block roughly 2 m by 1 m by 1.25 m, providing room to sleep. Facilities range in entertainment offerings (most include a television, an electronic console, and wireless internet connection). These capsules are stacked side by side and two units top to bottom, with steps providing access to the second level rooms. Luggage is stored in a locker, usually somewhere outside of the hotel. Privacy is ensured by a curtain or a fibreglass door at the open end of the capsule. Washrooms are communal and most hotels include restaurants (or at least vending machines), pools, and other entertainment facilities.
.
.
.
.

[touchring]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

Jim - by 2050 or even 2100, I expect the US population and the world population to be nowhere near Mr. Lind's forecasts.

It maybe possible, if US standard of living drops drastically. If every American lives the subSahara African standard of living, the US can support more than 2 billion people.

[Rajiv]

Re: World Statistics Updated in Real Time: Worldometers.

I do not believe that it is possible. Even sub Saharan life styles are not feasible at a 2 billion population for the US. We have overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth. Our current population levels are based on what William Catton terms "Phantom Carrying Capacity"

From - A deeper understanding of carrying capacity

Have we exceeded the earth's carrying capacity for humans? Many observers conclude there is no way to answer the question with any confidence. I believe their view stems from an assumption which fails to hold up to analysis. It is the common notion that, through human ingenuity, we've been able, through the course of history, to increase carrying capacity.

This idea is based on the correct observation that the advent of agriculture and our later use of fossil fuels were central among those developments which allowed us to grow the human population as enormously as we have. It does not follow, however, that these developments increased carrying capacity.

The error here is in failing to account properly for overshoot. Animal populations regularly overshoot or grow beyond carrying capacity. It is simple enough to demonstrate this has happened with the human population. Agriculture and fossil fuels have not increased carrying capacity; they have merely led to our overshooting it, supported by what William Catton calls "phantom carrying capacity." It is not carrying capacity at all, and is only temporary. [1]

This is especially easy to see with regard to oil depletion. Oil is a finite resource. Relying on it, therefore, to support global food production can only be temporary.

But here are two less widely recognized observations which also support my point: First, agriculture as we know it has always been unsustainable. It has brought with it soil erosion and an inevitable depletion of soil nutrients at rates far faster than their natural rates of renewal. This is comparable to our depletion of finite resources such as oil. It may have taken ten thousand years for us to see this, but that is barely an eye blink in human history. [2]

Second, consider that none of the processes which have allowed our numbers to explode has come without cost to the web of life. We know well enough about the environmental impacts of extracting and burning fossil fuels. Less discussed is the cost of agriculture to other species. Cultivation agriculture means the elimination of all life from a piece of land, turning it then exclusively to human use. [3] [4] Multiply this by well over a billion hectares and we see clearly how agriculture has been the primary driver of the Sixth Mass Extinction of species in Earth's history, the direct destruction of Earth's life support systems.

Not only have we not increased carrying capacity, we have decreased it. It's simple ecology. We depend on the web of life for our own survival. When a species consumes resources faster than they are renewed, degrading the habitat on which it depends, it erodes carrying capacity.

The damage we have done to the biosphere and the web of life has temporarily allowed us to grow our numbers but has reduced carrying capacity.
.
.
.
.
.

See also - Population and Carrying Capacity Forum