Rather than breaking down stats on carbon emissions and emptying the digits into something bland, interactive media designer Robbie Tilton made this striking globe, which looks like a view from a satellite after the apocalypse.
Turn the planet with your cursor to see black smog hovering over countries. The worse the emissions in a country, the more smog shown above it on the globe. It's sad, but even more disheartening is the year-by-year breakdown: click on the option to view pollution in 2006, then the option for 2010, and the difference will hit you in the gut. (The U.S. barely topped China in emissions back in 2006, but China has taken a wide lead since.) Afterward, if you're numerically inclined, you can look at the data in a pie chart or bar graph, knowing what those metric tons of carbon add up to for the planet.
Check it out here.
That's almost enough to make you stop wanting to breathe in!
Whats sickening is that although the metric tons of pollution in the U.S. go down annually, the author of this "info graphic " tries to scare us and makes the smog cloud grow. I'm sorry popular science for thinking you were actually science based, and looked at the numbers.
Only works in Chrome, not IE.
The fact that they have to continuously make new info-graphs to support this pseudoscience is evidence to me that they’re having trouble getting people to buy into this Gaia religion. Of course it’s ominous looking; people who can’t find peace in their own life, get excited to think that the world is going to end.
Wow, that's pretty pitiful. Only an acolyte of the carbon cult could consider this silly, clunky animation a "striking globe" worthy of an article in a former science magazine. Tell is Dan, why does PopSci only publish articles that promote your carbon cult beliefs?
We have a multitude of peer reviewed papers now that disprove your catastrophe hypothesis in detail. Why don't we see any of the papers that are showing that climate sensitivity is in fact low?
Hey for all you doubters, do a little internet legwork yourselves. You can get the number of cars registered in most countries, as well as the average CO2 released from cars. Do the math. For the US, it's roughly 1 billion lbs per week from just cars. That doesn't include the thousands of other sources of CO2 like chemical reactions in manufacturing, fires, etc. The number of cars in the US has continued to increase steadily and so has the human population. It's no surprise that CO2 emissions continue to rise. To say otherwise is to ignore the reality of the world around you.
I am only making the comment that if one looks at the numbers on this info graph. The metric tons on carbon in 2010 is less than in 2006, yet the black cloud grows. That makes sense...(not)
phoenix, I am just saying the values in the info graphic make no sense compared to the smog cloud
Nothing but disgusting propaganda.
As many have mentioned before, the intensity of the black cloud grows from 2007-2010 despite the emitted amount going from 7 million down to 6.4 million.
It should be noted that in the same time span, the EU went from 4.7 million to 4.3 million. And that trend has only accelerated in 2011 and 2012. We have reduced our emissions more, not only in absolute values, but equally, or even slightly more, in percentage values.
And the Circle chart shows the EU and America and China in proportion, but it's hard to visually compare the size of arcs of a circle. Then we move to the histogram, and the EU has been divided up into its constituent countries, so America and China look massive by comparison.
Germany does not compare to America. Germany compares to Texas. You want to compare them? Do CO2 emissions per-capita. It won't be a perfect comparison, because everybody lives so close in EU that public transportation is more viable, but it will at least be an honest attempt at representing the different amounts of CO2.
The lack of academic integrity is saddening, but not surprising.
Scary imagery, but completely fictional. If you look at 2006, the cloud over the U.S. is a dark grey and each year it gets thicker and darker so that by 2010, it's an ominous, dirty black.
The reality: CO2 emissions in the U.S. DECREASED by 3% in 2008 and 7% in 2009. They went up 5% in 2011 and another 0.4% in 2012, but the net since 2008 is a decline in emissions.
See the graph and data on page 11 of the report:
Yet, the Vikings where farming GREENLAND over 1200 years ago when temperatures where much higher and there were no cars nor factories. Go figure. To call one human lifetime's worth of climate a 'trend' is to ignore a billion years of climate history.
A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.
"Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate. It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming."
- Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville -
Bet ya poopsci wont do an article on this development.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
As said before, pure propaganda. Why report real science when we can fear monger?
Remember when PopSci reported real science instead of sensationalist articles about murdering wolves and evil carbon emissions?
When did the Popular part become more important than Science?
til I saw the draft for $4820, I didn't believe that...my... sister had been actualey taking home money parttime from their laptop.. there brothers friend has been doing this for only 21 months and just now repayed the depts on there home and bourt a great McLaren F1. I went here.....
You understand why they would have gone down in 2008 and 2009 don't you? Recession. Yep, less people driving and less people producing. I remember traffic becoming much lighter in late 2008 after all the layoffs. No job, no reason to be on the road.
Since when did CO2 become a pollutant? If you consider CO2 emissions on a per-capita basis for the past 2 decades, wouldn't Iceland or Montserrat be far worse "polluters" due to their volcanic activities? And wouldn't Brazil's CO2 emissions far exceed those of the US when one considers the huge amounts of CO2 produced by decay of organic materials in the rain forest?
Riff_raff, it's a pollutant when we make more than the natural processes of earth can break back down. CO2 has some very distinct properties like the ability to block radiation which we rely on. If there is more CO2, then it follows weather patterns will change due to changes in how the earth heats up and cools in different places. Also, CO2 is only one greenhouse gas produced. The combined affect of all greenhouse gases having elevated amounts can cause drastic weather implications.