(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The anticyclone settled over a windless London, causing a temperature inversion, this collected the airborne pollutants already present in the air over the city to form a *thicker layer of smog* over the city.
Had there not been a collection of airborne pollutants generated by humans in the location, would that anticyclone have been as bad?
(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: The airborne pollutants did NOT induce the anticyclone. The air pollution did NOT influence the weather. The weather influenced the airborne pollutants to form the thicker than usual layer of smog. As soon as the weather changed the smog dispersed quickly. To imply otherwise is to make a horribly invalid causal connection.
Yet the air pollution did contribute to making thicker fog through their concentration, as you pointed out. So air pollution did influence the local micro-climate after all.
(July 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: And WTF Moros? Why kudos Rhythm's response if you're asking me for clarification because you supposedly didn't understand my previous post? Are you being serious with me? 0_o
Let's look at Rhythm's post:
(July 10, 2011 at 1:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, the fog that became synonymous with London had nothing to do with the amount of soot in the air...nothing at all? It's not an example of ACC, even on a small scale?
It appears to me to be a good question, if not well within similar bounds to what I asked -- so I kudos'ed it as an I agree with that question. I do not see why you are upset.
