+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 45
Latest: bella2
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 11890
Total Topics: 254
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)  (Read 2015 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21577
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Picking Up Where We Left Off (at DD)
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2015, 03:04:04 pm »
If you think I cherry pick, rather than summarize, then do the work of going to the links I clearly present to the reader to peruse, rather than throwing out deliberate barbs for the purpose of undermining my credibility.

And asking me for more data to support my views when you have just questioned my methodology for obtaining and publishing data that supports my premise is illogical.

You are not convinced by my stream of posts. You make no effort to connect them together. You continuously avoid putting them all together.  Any detective knows that what appears to be an insignificant clue to a crime, when added to several other of the same nature, constitutes circumstantial evidence. You just flat refuse to do that. 

We can argue until the cows come home if that is, or is not, logical methodology or hairsplitting or endowment/confirmation bias. That just keeps the substance of the data from being discussed.

Sorry pal, this isn't about me or you. You are just trying to make it about me. As Surly said, with some graphics, that's a departure from substance and is off topic.

Ashvin, you can choose to keep all the dots I present totally disconnected in regard to the INCREASE in the probability of N.T.H.E. if you so desire.

Since I am pushing 70, I don't expect to be here when the positive feedback loops are jacking each other up (picture one ping pong ball thrown at a field of mouse traps, each with a single ping pong ball ready to jump when disturbed). My rough estimate is between 2040 and 2050.

You will be there, old chum. I'm trying to enlist your aid to WRITE about the threat, rather than pretend it is "absurd". How will you feel if my warnings turnout to be valid? Will you say it was my fault because I didn't lay down the argument properly in order to convince you? You probably will. Humans have a gift for rationalizing, don't they? You claim I am doing exactly that with my defense of my "overreaction". Perhaps.

But, your argument is weakened by the fact that I am not threatened by N.T.H.E., you are.

The only justification for anyone that is old, like me, that you can logically claim, is that "rooftop yelling alarmists" like to "scare people". That's REALLY bullshit, especially if you ascribe it to someone who has been publishing proposed solutions and pushing various renewable energy technologies consistently.

Here's another DOT, Ashvin.

The following estimate of deaths caused by pollution is overly conservative by several orders of magnitude. I reason that it is overly conservative, and certainly not alarmist, by the fact that it leaves out mortality estimates of all other life forms in the biosphere that are affected equally by the deleterious impact of pollution. It also leaves out several other types of pollution caused positive feedback loop effects such as species viability reduction from radionuclide caused degraded DNA, habitat loss from desertification and deforestation, ocean acidification and Carbon Dioxide atmospheric increase, among several other mortality increasing effects now present in our biosphere.

I submit this news as part of the evidence that incremental measures are not enough to reduce the probability of N.T.H.E. and that only massive, government sponsored, drastic measures to stop all sources of pollutants NOW will reduce the probability of N.T.H.E.

Air pollution could kill 6.6 million people a year by 2050

Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday.

POSTED: 17 Sep 2015 01:40

LONDON: Air contaminated with pollutants such as ozone and tiny particles could cause the premature death of about 6.6 million people a year by 2050 if nothing is done to improve air quality, scientists warned on Wednesday (Sep 16).

In a study published in the journal Nature, they found that outdoor air pollution already kills about 3.3 million people a year worldwide. The majority of those deaths are in Asia where residential energy emissions, such as those from heating and cooking, have a major impact.

And that toll could double over the next 35 years, the researchers warned, unless clean-up measures are taken.

"This is an astounding number," said Jos Lelieveld of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany, who led the research. "In some countries air pollution is actually a leading cause of death, and in many countries it is a major issue."
Air pollution deaths are most commonly from heart disease, strokes or a lung disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It is also linked to deaths from lung cancer and acute respiratory infections.

Calculating the health and mortality effects of outdoor air pollution on a global scale is not easy, partly because air quality is not monitored in every region and the toxicity of particles varies depending on their source.

So for this study, Lelieveld's team combined a global atmospheric chemistry model with population data and health statistics to estimate the relative contribution of different kinds of outdoor air pollution, mainly from so-called fine particulate matter, to premature deaths.

Their results show that in India and China, for example, emissions from heating and cooking, have the largest death toll, while in much of the United States and a few other countries, emissions from traffic and power generation are crucial.

In the eastern United States and in Europe, Russia and East Asia, agricultural emissions are the biggest source of the kind of fine particulate matter that gets into people's lungs, causing illness, disability and death.

Oliver Wild, an atmospheric scientist at Britain's Lancaster University, said the study "really brings home the need for air quality controls", particularly in heavily populated parts of Asia.
- Reuters


Agelbert NOTE: For anyone that has the intestinal fortitude to get the big picture, though it is still a somewhat conservative one since it is based on government published stats, just go to poodwaddle.

Here's the clock running on global warming. I don't see the pollution picture improving. I don't see the pollution output slowing down. But Alan thinks I am "misinterpreting" the data  ::). So it goes.

You can adjust the clock for rate per hour, week, and so on. I have it set at "YEAR TO DATE". I find that to be less alarming to view and gives me a better sense of reality.

Global Warming Clock - CO2 Emissions (MT)

« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 04:08:29 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


+-Recent Topics

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
April 24, 2019, 09:27:13 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
April 24, 2019, 09:02:34 pm

911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP? by AGelbert
April 24, 2019, 08:55:39 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
April 24, 2019, 06:45:31 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
April 24, 2019, 01:25:02 pm

Money by AGelbert
April 24, 2019, 11:46:31 am

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
April 23, 2019, 07:58:18 pm

Flight by AGelbert
April 23, 2019, 07:40:39 pm

Sustainable Farming by AGelbert
April 23, 2019, 05:52:06 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
April 23, 2019, 04:54:08 pm