Global Warming

[JP226]

This isn't our run of the mill global warming topic. Lately i'v been running a few stat models based on pollution. I ran a fairly simplistic one where I compared parts per million of pollution and things like pop density, gdp per capita and varying levels of pop density. For the stat guys: all from 2000 data and not filitered given dealing with limited Macro data, and I ran the model based in SAS, Stata and of course excel for kicks. I found something interesting, pollution is a function of pop densities primarily. Meaning the more people you have crammed per square mile the higher levels of pollution you experience. When I looked at the effect of industry, I actually for every percent increase in industry, meaning for every extra 1/100th of your labor force working in the industrial sector, you increase the parts per million of pollution by .22. With every increase in person per mile you increase pollution by 5 units per million. And the wealthier you are, for every dollar you go up in per capita GDP you actually reduce pollution.

So now comes the mud pit part. For those of you complaining about the US and pollution, statistically, the US has fairly low pop densities, high GDP per capita and while we are industrialized, my findings also found that for every 1% increzse in the service industry (US maintianing 70% plus service industry) we actually reduce our pollution by .19%.

So the point? We aint all that bad. The real culpriots are the countries with dense populations that have massive industrial sectors and low GDP's. Virtually the exact opposite of the US.

If anyone wants to see my Data lemme know.

[Dunecat]

You do realize the British pretty much kicked our arses in 1812-1814?

Oh and American air is pretty gross, I suggest you visit LA or Cleveland/Akron... An overall population density is misleading because our country is so large. You must apply a different metric, one that accounts for the main culprits and does not dilute them.

[JP226]

Oh and American air is pretty gross, I suggest you visit LA or Cleveland/Akron... An overall population density is misleading because our country is so large. You must apply a different metric, one that accounts for the main culprits and does not dilute them.

ummm, parts per million is based on the average of urban regions. meaning i've not taken into account the little towns here and there that may bias the stats. I've only includd your LA's and your NY's or Atl etc.

[Dunecat]

Oh, nvm then, carry on.

[Red_Praetoria]

Nice, instead of sitting around complaining about pollution you ran your own experiments. Your conclusions are interesting. Good work in my opinion.

[Kamos]

Impressive work wonder how that slipped by everyone else?

[MathiasOfAthens]

It prob didn't slip by Federal Scientist. They were prob just prohibited from sharing their date Too controversial.
________
THE CIGAR BOSS

[CDMan477]

You do realize the British pretty much kicked our arses in 1812-1814?

Ha, where did this come from? And, in what way. There were great victories and defeats on both sides, and practically nothing changing hands during peace negotiations whether from a territorial or policy standpoint.

Anyway, on topic. Jp, very interesting. Considering this conclusion doesn’t "tow the line" with most peoples opinions here, do you expect it to be given any credence, or simply blown off as propaganda.

[JP226]

Anyway, on topic. Jp, very interesting. Considering this conclusion doesn’t "tow the line" with most peoples opinions here, do you expect it to be given any credence, or simply blown off as propaganda.

It's significant and the R squared is high "enough," meaning it explains, in my case, 21% of air pollution. That may not sound like much but staticians and empirical economists actually shoot for roughly a 20 to 30% explanatory range. One of the real interesting things I found was the insignificance, ie below a 90% certainity of having explanatory power, of the make up of industry. Meaning it doesn't matter what you economy looks like. Given the model air pollution is primarily determined by population growth levels and density. And all the while GDP percapita actually reduces damage to the environment.

To take away from this in the intuitive sense is that the world may better be served if we tackled both growth rates in less developed countries and their densities of population.

all data came from the world bank and this place (first option)