Portland, Burlington and Boston were not down wind. The plume of smoke was west of those areas.
Posted on 06/08/2023 1:17:16 PM PDT by ifinnegan
The 1966 New York City smog was a major air-pollution episode and environmental disaster, coinciding with that year's Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Smog covered the city and its surrounding area from November 23 to 26, filling the city's air with damaging levels of several toxic pollutants. It was the third major smog in New York City, following events of similar scale in 1953 and 1963.
-
The inversion prevented air pollutants from rising, thereby trapping them within the city.[42] The smog event itself started on Wednesday November 23, coinciding with the beginning of the long Thanksgiving weekend.[2] The material sources of the smog were particulates and chemicals from factories, chimneys, and vehicles.[3] Sulfur dioxide levels rose and smoke shade—a measure of visibility interference in the atmosphere—was two to three times higher than usual.[42]
It makes smog. The fires in Canada provide a source but they are not the cause, nor is climate change, or global warming etc…
We see the hysteria and political exploitation and manipulation that constitutes or media and political establishment today.
I see no air quality alerts for Boston, Burlington VT or Portland ME which are all closer to the fires.
New York City is the epicenter of media hysteria and general irrationality and ignorance. I’m sure many of them do see this as some sort of unique event and apocalyptic.
I’ve seen days here in Southern California that resemble the
photos over the last day or so, from New York.
Today we never see those types of days any longer.
Now they belch about ozone pollution, but you don’t see it.
Look, yes if you’re look out miles away you can still see
air pollution, but let me explain where I am coming from.
In the 1970s and 80s, there were days when I could look
across the street and see smog between myself and the
buildings there. There simply isn’t that same concentration
of smog these days.
They still try to emphasize how bad it is, but it falls on
deaf ears with me. I’ve seen it bad, and we have nothing
like what we used to have.
It’s non-stop propaganda all the time these days. If it’s
not one issue, it’s ten others.
We have total idiots in and out of government.
As I happened to post a few days ago, NYC temperatures hit 100° on July 2, 1966, and 103° the next day, July 3.
Temperature right now in NYC is given as 69°. This morning it was 59°.
That, my friend, is a fact. I could stand with my nose to the exhaust of a running car today and it wouldn't be as bad as the inner city air quality I saw as a kid in the late 60s/early 70s.
Every one of them not the fault of the Democrats.
Meanwhile, the break down of order in the cities, the border disaster, the highest inflation in 40 years... not worth even a mention.
Yes.
And what I’ve seen in NYC today is not bad like a typical day in 1970.
Every once in a while it will be smoggy here but it’s invariably tied to fog or inversion.
Bakersfield seems worse.
My point here is this is a weather event in NYC that has occurred before, nothing to do with climate change, global warming or the fires per se.
If it were due to the fires other cities would be experiencing similar haze.
I live in Eastern Massachusetts. We had some very thick smoke a few weeks ago caused by the Albert wildfires. The plume from this one is affecting Central and western Massachusetts, but Eastern Massachusetts and New Hampshire have been benefiting from and northeasterly sea breeze right now. That same system is carrying the Labrador wildfire smoke down to New York. The plume levels in Philadelphia are worse than New York, and New York is much worse than Boston.
And that was before global warming.
Yep.
Another “inconvenient truth”.
Agreed...
Thanks.
I hear ya...
>I’m sure many of them do see this as some sort of unique event and apocalyptic.
Pre-internet so yes, likely.
There are some good images of the plume here:
https://zoom.earth/maps/satellite/#view=39.4,-74.3,5z/date=2023-06-08,08:50,-7
Agreed.
Here in SoCal we have the San Gabriel mountain range.
It can effectively block bad smog from being disbursed.
If we get an on shore flow breeze, it blows the smog inland
and it can get trapped by the mountains, making it terrible.
Still, it doesn’t compare to the 70s. And the inversion
layer is a big deal. It can really trap ‘the stuff’ in.
Portland, Burlington and Boston were not down wind. The plume of smoke was west of those areas.
In Southern California during the last century, “eye irritation” levels were included in weather reports. For example, “partly cloudy with highs in the mid-eighties, and moderate to heavy eye irritation.”
So where do you claim the smoke is coming from? Not Nova Scotia or Quebec?
Yep. It used to be we couldn’t see the mountains from a few miles away.
Paging Dr George Fischbeck. Dr George to the house courtesy phone......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.