Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Eccy Beach]

Morning all, hope everyone had a good weekend, judging by the number of posts on here some of you are missing out on our beloved trees and spending too much time on here!

 

The problem with statistics is you can just about find any to fit your argument and secondly people either don't believe them or don't care as recent political events have proven.

[Robin-H]

Does canopy size correlate to air pollution?

 

In the Grauniad article Robin - H linked to;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/07/who-names-uk-cities-breaching-safe-air-pollution-levels

 

Stoke is nearly as bad as Sheffield.

 

According to "Trees in Towns II" (Britt and Johnson 2008 ) page 82 - hopefully you can download from here (if not happy to e-mail a copy to anybody)

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_new_survey_of_urban_trees_in_England_and_their_condition_and_management

 

Sheffield canopy cover 14.6%

Stoke canopy cover 3.1%

 

The document may well clear up the "over mature" trees debate - a DCLG (as was) classification - page 28

 

Over mature - full size, die-back, small leaf size, poor growth extension.

 

The fact that Sheffield and Stoke (according to the 2011 data) have similar pollution levels but differing tree canopy levels in itself does not prove anything, as the levels of pollution depend of a huge number of different factors (such as topography, density, land use, location.. etc) and so it is impossible to draw out any one variable in order to draw a correlation.

 

We also do not know what the figures would be if the tree canopy figures were different, again making any attempt of drawing a correlation impossible.

[Guest makapaka]

I have never said we are the 3rd worst polluting city.

 

And I'm sorry but where have I ignored the 2016 data? I've not only mentioned it in two posts, but have given examples of other cities (Nottingham and Birmingham) that have improved significantly since 2011 in order to suggest it was possible for Sheffield to have improved also.

 

I also mentioned however that I have been unable to find a full WHO list for 2016, and I have been unable to find the PM10 figures for Sheffield for 2016, so it has not been possible to say where Sheffield is ranked as without more information it is not possible to say whether Sheffield is included in the 2016 data.

 

No you're right - you said second.

 

Eccy beach makes a good point in regard to statistics though to be fair.

[Robin-H]

No you're right - you said second.

 

Eccy beach makes a good point in regard to statistics though to be fair.

 

Indeed. I said 'according to the WHO Sheffield was joint second in terms of annual mean PM10 pollution in 2011 (although the data did not include the major city of Manchester). ' Was that incorrect?

[Guest makapaka]

Indeed. I said 'according to the WHO Sheffield was joint second in terms of annual mean PM10 pollution in 2011 (although the data did not include the major city of Manchester). ' Was that incorrect?

 

I don't know and i don't see why it's relevant given there is data from WHO from last year which says we are not second or third.

 

I don't understand why that's being ignored and the 2011 is somehow relevant.

[Robin-H]

I don't know and i don't see why it's relevant given there is data from WHO from last year which says we are not second or third.

 

I don't understand why that's being ignored and the 2011 is somehow relevant.

 

Where did I say it was relevant and the 2016 data wasn't? The only reason we are still talking about the 2011 data is because people keep complaining it was mentioned at all even though it was presented before the 2016 data. Since the 2016 data was referenced on here nobody has suggested that the 2011 is more relevant. I'm confused why you are asserting otherwise.

 

I will repeat what I said in earlier posts. The full 2016 data has not been published and I have been unable to find it. Without this data, it is impossible to say whether or not Sheffield was included in the data, and so is impossible to say where it ranks.

 

It may well rank below the top 12, but equally, it might not have been included and so could still rank in the top three (like it did in 2011). Without the complete data, it is impossible to tell.

[Guest makapaka]

Where did I say it was relevant and the 2016 data wasn't? The only reason we are still talking about the 2011 data is because people keep complaining it was mentioned at all even though it was presented before the 2016 data. Since the 2016 data was referenced on here nobody has suggested that the 2011 is more relevant. I'm confused why you are asserting otherwise.

 

I will repeat what I said in earlier posts. The full 2016 data has not been published and I have been unable to find it. Without this data, it is impossible to say whether or not Sheffield was included in the data, and so is impossible to say where it ranks.

 

It may well rank below the top 12, but equally, it might not have been included and so could still rank in the top three (like it did in 2011). Without the complete data, it is impossible to tell.

 

So the previous poster is wrong to say we are the 3rd most polluted city and that it is "shameful" because it is impossible to tell if this is the case?

 

WHO 2016 data would also appear to support the argument that we are not - but you aren't sure if this report is complete.

 

Yes?

[Flexo]

30 police officers... 5:30am pre-dawn raid.... to fell healthy trees.

 

The trees looked really nice.

https://goo.gl/maps/KBioNtGNYoT2

 

Pity they have replaced them with twigs that, according to Cllr Bryan Lodge, will never grow so big.

[Robin-H]

So the previous poster is wrong to say we are the 3rd most polluted city and that it is "shameful" because it is impossible to tell if this is the case?

 

WHO 2016 data would also appear to support the argument that we are not - but you aren't sure if this report is complete.

 

Yes?

 

What? You are putting things in quotation marks that neither myself nor anybody else has said. Where has the notion that anything being discussed regarding this has been 'shameful' come from? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

 

The WHO 2016 data does not support any argument. I have managed to find the full data list for 2016 and Sheffield is not included. It can be downloaded here http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/

 

This means that the most up to date data that I have seen where Sheffield is included in the 2011 WHO data.

[Guest makapaka]

What? You are putting things in quotation marks that neither myself nor anybody else has said. Where has the notion that anything being discussed regarding this has been 'shameful' come from? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

 

The WHO 2016 data does not support any argument. I have managed to find the full data list for 2016 and Sheffield is not included. It can be downloaded here http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/cities/en/

 

This means that the most up to date data that I have seen where Sheffield is included in the 2011 WHO data.

 

Post 1219 - poster having said we are 3rd most polluted city refers to it as "shameful". I'm not particularly outraged by that, but I don't expect to be accused of making it up either.

 

It seems that we can't agree on the validity of any report - however we seeming do agree that it's impossible to tell whether we're 3rd or not - so people shouldn't say we are.

 

Yes?

 

Also, the link you have posted looks like a global report taking ambient readings, it doesn't include the ranking of individual cities as per the the other link posted last night for some reason. Where is the report that shoes port talbot top etc? That's not a dig I just wondered why it wasn't there.

Edited March 20, 2017 by makapaka