The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Gray-Wolf]

I was alive during the 'coal fire' age and remember well yellow/green fogs (kinda like the conditions around the Chinese power plants) for which we had to wear a scarf with a white hanky inside to breathe through. Folk a little older will recall the 'pea soupers' that killed so many in London.

Through the 80's a lot of energy was spent around here sandblasting the 100yrs+ of soot off the buildings .......the 'odd' untreated one remains as a testament to the lungs of our predecessors.

If there was ever a tangible way to see how man impacts upon his environment then it was a valley full of smoking chimneys and an inversion at 2,000ft capping off the land below.

I think that in many ways anyone under 40yrs old is poorly qualified to understand how big an impact we people can have as they have been spared from witnessing our own 'heavy industries' at full belch coupled with the domestic use of coal. They may marvel at the plumes sent up by a burning distillery (and watch them drift into France) but will never experience a whole nation under a self imposed 'plume'.

Ah well, better the poor dears don't know the full yeauch of living through such times..............off to my pipe and slippers.......

Edited September 7, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[johnholmes]

GW you are but a 'kid', born in 1963, after the clean air act came out, 10 or 20 years prior to that was when the conditions you describe were really prevalent.

[Chris Knight]

GW you are but a 'kid', born in 1963, after the clean air act came out, 10 or 20 years prior to that was when the conditions you describe were really prevalent.

Aha! Now we can surmise why GW is so concerned with ice, having been conceived, gestated through or born during the coldest UK winter this past century.

[laserguy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7599810.stm

Wow,here's a government type who's singing from a different hymn book to the rest of them. And reported by the BBC,too! Whatever next?

GW,I too was but a nipper in the coal-fire age and I recall winters back then being proper winters. Bring back those characterful,cosy coal fires,no telephones and mod-cons except for a black and white telly which you had to bash three times to get it to reluctantly screen it's three channels (which featured a weather-forecaster whose sticky cloud symbols had as much success in adhering to the chart as the AGW theory does to me ). Modern technology has killed our winters!

John H,I'm puzzled. You say the Clean Air Act came in prior to '63,but when I was a pup (born 1965) everyone had coal fires. I know we were using a coal fire until 1978. Did it only apply to industry,was a certain type of smokey coal banned,or was it something that took decades to implement after it's introduction?

[johnholmes]

not my favourite source but its accurate date wise

The Clean Air Act 1956 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which responded to London's Great Smog of 1952. It was in effect from 1955-1964 and sponsored by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in England and the Department of Health for Scotland.

The Act aimed to control domestic sources of smoke pollution by introducing smokeless zones. In these areas, only smokeless fuels could be burnt. The Act focused on reducing smoke pollution, but the introduction of cleaner coals and the increased use of electricity and gas helped to reduce sulfur dioxide levels at the same time. In addition, power stations were relocated to more rural areas. The measure correlated with a decrease in pollution; however it merely formed part of a constant trend stretching back a couple of decades before.

[noggin]

B) No, please make it stop, I can't take much more.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ge-says-UN.html

Regarding earlier mentions of ages etc.....may I mention that I popped into the world in Devon in February 1956......that was a very cold and snowy place to be at that time! B)

[The PIT]

GW you are but a 'kid', born in 1963, after the clean air act came out, 10 or 20 years prior to that was when the conditions you describe were really prevalent.

Hold on John so I was. Somehow I haven't collected GW doom and total gloom stuff.

Where I live there used to be a brickworks below and huge chimney. The top of which was about 15 ft above the quarry line. The house was built in 26 so this chimney would have been blowing smoke right at it and probably was until a few years before I was born when the company went bust. The trees opposite were well stunted by the smoke and had many dead branches. The recovery has taken years and now forty years on they look quite healthy. There now under attack from ivy and will now doubt succumb to that attack and the strong winds.

Sheffield was involved in the clean air act and this had the effect of cleaning the air tremendously. People burning coal would be reported as well by the local public. That wouldn't happen nowadays. You could always see Sheffield from many miles due to the smoke hanging over it so I was told by older people. Not any more.

There has been problems with pollution since most recently when Margaret Thatcher destroyed public transport and private companies brought in the oldest buses they could find. End result a blue haze sitting over roads and pond street. Nothing more annoying walking to the Poly choking on fumes left by a bus with the advert go by car you must be choking.

B) No, please make it stop, I can't take much more.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ge-says-UN.html

Regarding earlier mentions of ages etc.....may I mention that I popped into the world in Devon in February 1956......that was a very cold and snowy place to be at that time! B)

One of the silliest comments I ever heard. Perhaps every curry shop should also close down for a week. This would prevent loads of Diarrhoea that wouldn't have been treated and also reduce the amount of methane released. You can't take guys like this seriously. Next they'll be wanting to fit a type of catalyst converter too Cow and Sheep backsides.

[noggin]

May I add to my above post? I will try to be as delicate as possible B) !

If we cut down on meat, to reduce the amount of "emissions" from livestock, then would humans not produce more "emissions" due to having a more vegetarian diet?

Seems an ill-thought out idea from Dr Pachendra.......I'm not too sure about him to be honest......... B)

Next they'll be wanting to fit a type of catalyst converter too Cow and Sheep backsides.

Thank you for that, Pit. B)

[acbrixton]

One of the drawbacks of the CAA 1956 was that it merely encouraged local authorities to pass bye-laws creating 'smokeless zones' under s.11 of CAA subject to approval by the Ministry of Housing. There were considerable delays before even all urban areas were designated as smokeless zones: the City of Westminster, astonishingly, was not entirely 'smokeless' until 1969. Even now there are rural parts of NI, Wales and Scotland (less so England) that are not smokeless zones. Under the CAA curbs on industrial emissions were not brought into effect until 7 years after the CAA was enacted.

The slow adoption of these zones explains why London suffered one further dangerous smog after the CAA was introduced; early December 1962 (albeit a rather less deadly smog than December 1952). I imagine that the extension of smokeless zones was increased speedily after the 1962 smog.

Three reasons for the delay in the adoption of smokeless zones occur to me: first the shortage of smokeless fuel (a memo from Crawley BC of 1955 records that new smokeless grates were used for coal as council tenants were unable to buy smokeless fuel); secondly smokeless fuel was considerably more expensive: the BBC states that in 1956 good quality coal was 174s 6d/ton but that smokeless fuel was 214s 7d/ton [i.e. £8.38/ton and £10.38/ton respectively]; thirdly the first half of the 1950s was marked by the rapid construction of council housing to address both the need to continue slum clearance programs first started in the 1920s and war damage, thus conversion of such pre-CAA gousing to smokeless fuels would have taken time and money.

regards

ACB

[osmposm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7599810.stm

John H,I'm puzzled. You say the Clean Air Act came in prior to '63,but when I was a pup (born 1965) everyone had coal fires. I know we were using a coal fire until 1978. Did it only apply to industry,was a certain type of smokey coal banned,or was it something that took decades to implement after it's introduction?

I think if you remember your family 'coal' burning in the late 60s/70s, LG, it is likely by then to have been smokeless fuel rather than coal proper - though as ACB says, it depends slightly on where you lived. Their flames are very different - do you remember what it looked like? Coal flame is much taller and brighter, and yellow-orange - friendlier, really - and of course smokey, more like wood, especially before it is burning properly. Manufactured smokeless fuel and naturally-occurring anthracite have a shorter, much less incandescent flame that is of a primarily blue colour. It's rather like the difference between a bunsen burner with the air hole closed and with it open. Coal is much dirtier to handle, too.

[johnholmes]

interesting posts there from AC and OSM. I remember the fuss caused by the new rules living in a coal mining area. Two pits in the village and the largest coking plant in Europe built in that period about 5 miles away. Its now disappeared as did the two pits(they went in the early 60's).

I have a weather diary for mid 1950's and its quite a common remark I made, 'fog so thick unable to see across road when lights on'

I also remember the fog just prior to Xmas 1962, the lead in to the the 62-63 winter. Driving from Nottingham to a village close to my parents was only possible at times with my passenger walking in front when we got to sections where there were no cats eyes.

Edited September 7, 2008 by johnholmes

[osmposm]

Again, you only mention negatives (which you appear to enjoy doing) and you fail to mention the southern hemisphere was nearly .2C below normal for August. Other parts of Antarctica were 5.5 to 6.5C below normal. LINK

Instead of looking at areas which you know are melting or are naturally losing ice, and have no worry whatsoever to 90% on here, perhaps you should focus some of your attention on the above and let me or others know anything constructive and positive about the ongoing Antarctic cooling from your point of view. I'm continually irked by your negativity, clearly omitting anything which clashes with your "findings". I suspect I'm not alone. Indeed, I know I'm not alone.

The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind, DXR. When was the last time you posted anything that included something that clashed with your point-of-view?!

As it happens, that makes for a good balance with G-W - though it's a pity that your posts don't generally have as much detail, background info and logical argument as his, it would make for a better "opposition", and I would welcome it.

[laserguy]

I think if you remember your family 'coal' burning in the late 60s/70s, LG, it is likely by then to have been smokeless fuel rather than coal proper - though as ACB says, it depends slightly on where you lived. Their flames are very different - do you remember what it looked like? Coal flame is much taller and brighter, and yellow-orange - friendlier, really - and of course smokey, more like wood, especially before it is burning properly. Manufactured smokeless fuel and naturally-occurring anthracite have a shorter, much less incandescent flame that is of a primarily blue colour. It's rather like the difference between a bunsen burner with the air hole closed and with it open. Coal is much dirtier to handle, too.

I'm sure it was 'real' coal,Ossie. Jet black,greasy to handle and seemed to be composed of layers,like slate. A right pig to get going - we had to cover the fireguard with newspaper and leave the bottom vent open to create a draw of air up the flue. Really,really smokey when you put more coal on,until it got going. The speed of soot build-up was ridiculous! Mind you,we did live in the absolute heart of colliery land,and my dad was indeed a miner!

[Mondy]

The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' come to mind, DXR. When was the last time you posted anything that included something that clashed with your point-of-view?!

As it happens, that makes for a good balance with G-W - though it's a pity that your posts don't generally have as much detail, background info and logical argument as his, it would make for a better "opposition", and I would welcome it.

My profuse apologies if my posts disappoint you.

Perhaps these two links may make up for my lack of good posting or at least enlighten you to works in motion.

Link 1 and Link 2

[SnowBear]

I think if you remember your family 'coal' burning in the late 60s/70s...

I indeed do remember my Grandparents burning coal for heating. On my mum's side they used to get mainly coal which burnt "dirty" to start with, and the smoke from the chimney after a good stoke up was quite a bit! My dad;s grandparents used to by a mixture of coals as they had a range and two fires in the front of the house. The range had coke nuts, the tv room had normal coal and anthracite was used in the best room on Sundays!

[osmposm]

I'm sure it was 'real' coal,Ossie. Jet black,greasy to handle and seemed to be composed of layers,like slate. A right pig to get going - we had to cover the fireguard with newspaper and leave the bottom vent open to create a draw of air up the flue. Really,really smokey when you put more coal on,until it got going. The speed of soot build-up was ridiculous! Mind you,we did live in the absolute heart of colliery land,and my dad was indeed a miner!

Yup, that sounds like proper coal all right, Barrie. Historically, I know that miners had an allowance of free coal, which may, I suppose, have delayed the smokeless introduction in mining communities. Either that or - shock horror - they were breaking the law.....as I quite often do when I burn on the sitting-room fire the fruits of my tree-lopping (though I try and do it when the fire's already hot, and there's a decent wind up).

[Chris Knight]

Aye, there were nowt wrong wi' a reet good smog. Many a time I remember mi mam sending me and the other nips out to get a good slice of the best brown stuff to put on toast, when we ran out o' drippin'. Tasted of Liquorice and everything else and washed away the taste o' the ministry's concentrated orange juice and cod liver oil. A good cough was the best thing about using the lavvy out in the back yard, saved your toes from freezing, apart from the exercise of pulling the chain several times to break up the ice in the cistern before it reluctantly washed your squares of the Daily Sketch away with your excrement, or Radio Times if you were rich.

[Gray-Wolf]

Aye, there were nowt wrong wi' a reet good smog. Many a time I remember mi mam sending me and the other nips out to get a good slice of the best brown stuff to put on toast, when we ran out o' drippin'. Tasted of Liquorice and everything else and washed away the taste o' the ministry's concentrated orange juice and cod liver oil. A good cough was the best thing about using the lavvy out in the back yard, saved your toes from freezing, apart from the exercise of pulling the chain several times to break up the ice in the cistern before it reluctantly washed your squares of the Daily Sketch away with your excrement, or Radio Times if you were rich.

You were lucky!!!..........

[laserguy]

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/OPINION-M...p?articlepage=1

A little bedtime reading for y'all. I'm off to work .

[johnholmes]

Nigel Calder

oh that is all we need the prophet of doom!

[laserguy]

Nigel Calder

oh that is all we need the prophet of doom!

No no John. Nigel Calder,not Gray Wolf! Still,Nigel Calder has an awful lot of ground to make up before he reaches the dizzy disaster heights of Hansen and Gore!

[Gray-Wolf]

No no John. Nigel Calder,not Gray Wolf! Still,Nigel Calder has an awful lot of ground to make up before he reaches the dizzy disaster heights of Hansen and Gore!

Oi!!

[noggin]

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/3425/OPINION-M...p?articlepage=1

Ah, that's a very interesting article.

I have long thought that our climate is controlled by the Sun, but what I find really exciting ( ) is his mention of storms tracking across Britain rather than going to the North of us. It has seemed to me, for some time, that our weather has moved South........the storms that have battered England and Wales and Ireland used to be the sort of weather that lashed Scotland. Meanwhile the northerly outposts of Orkney and Shetland have been having splendid weather....maybe clear Arctic type stuff? I seem to recall Coastie mentioning the particular cold up there last Winter.

Climate shift rather than climate change?

Am I making any sense?

[jethro]

Just seen this, got to say, the man has a valid point:

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads...g-delusions.pdf

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't buy the argument that a 3% increase in CO2 is insignificant, and I've seen it many times before.

Interesting points about CO2 recycling though- if it works, a possibility for slowing the rate of both anthropogenic climate change and oil depletion? (the latter, btw, being an even more definite issue than human-induced climate change) It's an idea that I've often wondered about myself, most environmentalists generally retort "but you can only get out what you put in", but it would be interesting to see what the refutation, if one exists, of those suggestions are.