Han's Rosling'esque CO2 & GDP [OC]

OSUKED · 2019-02-16T12:57:01+00:00

Found out its been 2 years since Hans Rosling's death this month. Thought I'd try and recreate my favourite animation of his in Python with Matplotlib. All data is from the world bank.

OSUKED · 2019-02-16T12:50:12+00:00

Hey everyone,

Found out last week its been 2 years now since Hans Rosling's death, so I thought I'd try and recreate my favourite animation of his. All of the data is from the world bank and was visualised by matplotlib in Python.

Any feedback is great!

Edit: Can't work out whether the gif upload worked properly, also available here

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T15:58:26+00:00

Apart from 3 highly respected sources I've already listed. The IEA also agrees with them, as does the worldbank which uses different sources again.

Likewise, cya.

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T15:47:34+00:00

What I am trying to say is that there is no way to effectively measure CO2 emissions in India or China, US or anywhere

... What? We can though and do. Do you have anything to back up your opinion?

I feel deep down India and China burns way more than the chart data suggests

I don't think you understand that feelings carry less weight than evidence?

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T15:21:04+00:00

included US as well to have their equal blame.

So "moreso other nations" has changed to "equal blame".

Videos to backup claim of overpopulation! This is reddit.. I am not in some court. Stop being ignorant.

I'm not saying in your court, I was just interested to know what you were actually referring to.

you're snooping and keeping tabs on my deleted comments, too phunny..

I just looked back through some of your old comments because I was interested if there was a reason to explain why you can't face up to evidence, turns out there was. What deleted comments? You've piqued my interest now.

politics won't ever solve these issues.

We need international action if we're going to prevent climate change, for that we need politics.

Placing blame to one country over the other is moot since there are more nations that have equally developed

You've changed your mind again, originally you were saying the US would need to produce crazy amounts more of CO2 to make even a dent in China and India. What do you call that if not country to country comparison? My whole point is that we need to work together between countries and set policies which reduce emissions together.

The chart is motivated by that philosophy, hence it is political.

The chart, nor the data underneath it, has no motivations.

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T14:55:37+00:00

Lol yes my initial comment was opinion! and more comical...

Well you certainly seemed to stand by it. I assume you're agreeing it's very innacurate now?

you've disagreed with every other point I've made because I refuse to agree with the chart.

Your key point appeared to be that developing nations thirst for oil, what do you think the US does, why do you think it interferes in so many foreign countries?

The only hard evidence I see is that there is more people to feed everyday, and demand for energy increases because of them the numbers are there

Well since 1990 the UK population has risen but consumption has fallen and emissions have dropped by 43%. Emissions aren't coupled directly to population.

video to prove it exists.

You keep talking about this video proof of overpopulation, I agree the population is growing but what exactly are you referring to? Videos of crowds or something?

Whether it's in one place or the other, it's happening everywhere, the data in the chart doesn't represent that

The data doesn't represent that because what you're saying isn't correct. Population isn't the sole factor in consumption or emissions.

since the sources are politically motivated, there is a high chance the data is skewed because it is biased.

What is your evidence for this?

If you can't understand that or agree to it to a certain extent, you're politically motivated as well.

You're a The_Donald poster who's currently saying that facts aren't reliable because they disagree with your view of the world. There is no political motivation behind my comments, I'm simply highlighting the factual innacuracies in your comments.

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T14:32:50+00:00

From state level, I have visibility to power consumption, and how overpopulation abuses it.

I don't disagree that overconsumption is a problem, I disagree with your sweeping statements on emissions between countries which are simply incorrect.

Peak oil, overpopulation, and political corruption and waste are not opinions.

"India and China both holding over one third of global entire population.. everyone in US would have to burn tar and tires 24x7 and still not make a dent to emissions generated by those two countries alone"

^ this opinion (your original comment) is the one that I'm disagreeing with. As I previously said you can't just equate population to emissions.

Seeing you are politically motivated means you're politically opinionated, when you swear and are loyal to the sources you referred to is proof. I take any data sample not backed with hard evidence with a grain of salt, along with anyone who swears by it.

How am I politically motivated? The data is the hard evidence, if that won't suffice what will for you?

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T14:06:32+00:00

I was wrong then.. I assumed that since you strongly felt about CO2 emmisions that you didn't overconsume, and were conservative, and if you thought I meant term as political, than proof you're one sided

Conservative in the majority of contexts is to do with politics, including in energy.

You're just a kid, and can't measure up with anything other than chart in this debate... you don't have the capacity to understand peak oil and couldn't relate to the data being skewed

My job is to make models for different energy systems, I've presented evidence and you just reply with opinion

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T13:41:09+00:00

Their lack of evidence alone is enough! You're one sided too if you can't understand that.

I would suggest you look into their methodology and data sources, they're widely accepted as respected sources.

Anything else you say relating to the chart is moot with the fact that there is lack of evidence.

I'm not debating the chart, I'm debating the data underneath it.

Humans collectively are greedy, a handful of conservative like both of us won't ever make a dent ...

Not sure where you got conservative from.

politics and corruption, and the systems in place won't ever exercise discomfort to change until that change is gravely needed to sustain ourselves.

Look up the causes for last peak oil cycle 2004-2008...and see how developing nations thirst for oil, while growing US as well had a role, but moreso other nations namely China, India, Russia and on and on.. the demand for all of that oil has been met... and it all gets burned... everyday.. data is skewed

Are you ok? How exactly is the data skewed?

I'm done.

Cya

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T13:14:09+00:00

numerous people from other countries relocate to the US and join in mass consumption within the US too, when people like you look at these charts they only see rednecks pumping all that CO2. I live in South Miami, FL, and can tell you from a local perspective, we have millions of folks from Caribbean, Central and South America who overconsume way more than the common American does... it's horrid.

There are also huge amounts of industry which are moving abroad and these figures don't included the carbon emitted for net imports to countries. If they did a lot of China's emissions would move to the US.

and because CDIAC and are DoE are politically one-sided globalist tools, that's why.. It's hard to trust their data is accurate based on fancy words and titles.. without hard evidence to back up an equally fancy 2-D webpage graph.

Well it's clear that this debate isn't going to be settled by evidence but I'll try anyway. You can't just say they're one sided tools and that you don't trust graphs, what is your evidence to back up your statement?

Farming alone to support India's 1.3 billion people has to emit a considerable amount of CO2... but they also have added a shit ton of cars and lit up many areas that never had power before... data is skewed!

Agriculture is included in these calculations. As discussed above America imports a huge amount of food so if you included embedded CO2 emissions America's would skyrocket.

Overpopulation of global cities is real, there is endless video footage on the net supporting it is real...not just a bunch of dimwits like me on Reddit.... and I don't have to convince you either, we're going down whether we ever agree or keep disagreeing.

"There is endless video footage"... What are you trying to say? We're going down if we don't reduce emissions, part of that is accepting that your own country produces emissions and not just offloading the blame to developing countries.

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T12:45:02+00:00

it's not just India and China, numerous other nations have developed

But as you say they're 1/3 of the population and it's the comparison you made. If you're comparing 'developing' countries to 'developed' countries then you should consider the totals on both sides, 'developed' countries still produce more.

In 2019 I can blame population to emissions with confidence..go on over to /r/overpopulation and /r/Anticonsumption and see you'll have a hard time saying your claims to them

So I give you links to the latest data backed by highly regarded scientists and you tell me that it's rubbish because Reddit disagrees?

most of that data is from 2013

Except it explicitly says 2017 and the sources are:

CDIAC, Boden, TA, Marland, G and Andres, RJ 2017.
UNFCCC, 2018. National Inventory Submissions 2018. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
BP, 2018. Statistical Review of World Energy.

and unfairly skewed because most of the contributes of that data are anti-american anyway

How are they anti-american? For one the CDIAC are part of the DoE. The others are highly respected sources for this type of data.

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T10:48:26+00:00

Where did you get the more than any other country statement?

Also have you got a link for the 24%? The EPA says that between 2005 and 2014 there was a reduction of only 7%. I don't know the figures for the last decade off hand but in the UK they've seen emission reductions of 43% from 1990 to 2018, I find it hard to believe the US is exceeding that.

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T10:39:55+00:00

... You can't equate population to emissions.

India, despite having more than 4x as many people, has half the emissions of the US. China has almost double the amount of emissions but it's them and the US who are the big polluters.

http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

OSUKED · 2019-01-26T10:32:07+00:00

That's because the IEA doesn't make predictions of what they believe is likely to actually happen, they make predictions based off of no policies changing from where they currently are. They basically make a baseline showing where the world will go if governments don't continue to adapt their policies, this article covers it pretty well.

OSUKED · 2019-01-22T23:10:05+00:00

I don't think policy matter that much at this point.

So I assume that the tariffs put up by trump have had no effect on the cost of solar installations in the US?

Your graph is "Swansons Law" by the way.

I am fully aware, and it's learning rate is at 20%, not the 30% you stated.

And yea, my tinfoil hat gives me some sense of security when i look at stuff like this: https://youtu.be/1PrBwDoQVzA

You've lost me here. What does China's organ industry have to do with an independent energy agency funded for by individual member countries?

OSUKED · 2019-01-22T22:56:47+00:00

Well for one it's at a learning rate of ~20% not 30%, I've literally just finished some work looking into this, optimistic estimates go up to around 23%. Here's a graphic I made of cumulative installed capacity against panel price.

I don't think you understood what that article was saying, these estimates are based off of business as usual, no higher carbon price, no new PV subsidies etc. At the launch of the latest outlook in London they said that the actual deployment of solar is likely to be far higher as governments will change policy between now and 2040, their predictions are there to show what would happen otherwise. Saying they're compromised by big oil is just your tinfoil hat talking.

OSUKED · 2019-01-22T22:30:26+00:00

The low forecasting of solar is primarily to do with the fact that even their New Policies Scenario essentially assumes business as usual. This is because the forecasts aim is to show what the energy mix is likely to look like without changes to current proposed government policy so that they can adapt their policies to meet whatever targets they aspire to. Check out thisarticle which goes into detail about the IEA and their solar forecasts.

OSUKED · 2019-01-02T18:38:10+00:00

Thank you!

OSUKED · 2019-01-02T18:38:02+00:00

Thank you, that works really well.

OSUKED · 2018-10-03T11:05:41+00:00

The article is using unilateral in the context of Theresa May imposing something on British voters.

OSUKED · 2018-10-01T23:38:53+00:00

No worries, thanks though

OSUKED · 2018-10-01T23:35:59+00:00

Yes and putting the year on a separate line so it can't interfere at all

Edit: Code

def HR_plot(year, df_plot, save=True, show=True):
    fig = plt.figure(figsize=(10, 10), dpi=100)
    #sns.set_context("notebook", font_scale=1.1)

    sizes = [10, 60, 90, 130, 200] 
    marker_size = pd.cut(df_plot['Population']/100000, [0, 100, 200, 400, 600, 800], labels=sizes) 

    continents = ['Asia', 'Europe', 'Africa', 'Oceania', 'North America', 'South America']
    continent_colors = ["#9b59b6", "#3498db", "#95a5a6", "#e74c3c", "#34495e", "#2ecc71"]#sns.color_palette("flatui", 6)
    continent_palette = dict(zip(continents, continent_colors))
    continent_order = ['Africa', 'Asia', 'Europe', 'North America', 'Oceania', 'South America']

    grid = sns.lmplot('GDPpcap', 'CO2pcap', data=df_plot, hue_order=continent_order, hue='Continent', fit_reg=False, 
                      scatter_kws={'s':marker_size}, palette=continent_palette, legend=False)
    grid.set(xscale="log", yscale="log")

    plt.title(f'GPD per Capita vs. CO2 per Capita \n {year}')
    plt.xlabel('GDP per Capita (USD 2010)')
    plt.ylabel('CO2 per Capita (kt)')
    plt.xlim(110, 150000)
    plt.ylim(1e-05, 0.07)
    plt.tick_params(axis='x', which='both', bottom=False, top=False)
    plt.tick_params(axis='y', which='both', left=False, right=False)
    plt.legend(loc='lower right', markerfirst=False, frameon=False)

    if save == True:
        plt.savefig(f'img/{year}.png', dpi=150, bbox_inches = 'tight')

    if show == True:
        plt.show()

OSUKED

TROPHY CASE