Coal is Bad

Coal-fired electricity production is bad on so many levels.

You’d think humans could learn from history, but sadly, no, and no.  The childhood asthma statistics alone should be enough.  Coal burning power plants are a leading producer of asthma causing pollution.  And then there’s the mercury…and the mountain-top removal, and the waste products..and, well, when do we say “enough”?

200 thoughts on “Coal is Bad

  1. “freddy” wants to deny that CO2 is

    a. measured

    and

    b. well-mixed

    To do this, “freddy” has to deny the work of scientists, such as Keeling (eg, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ068i013p03899/full ) in 1963, the numerous subsequent research, and the recent work that confirms Keeling’s using satellites, for example, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024165/full.

    Of course, for people like “freddy” who are clearly too dim to read science texts, we can find pictures on the internet that are suitable for his trailer-park level of intellect:

    http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/visualization/googleearth/

    Unfortunately, the result of all this research, all these plain facts that fly in the face of “freddy’s” denial really leave “freddy'”‘s nonsense looking like…er…well, the nonsense that it plainly is.

    Like

  2. craigtroll, your interpretation of what i want is ridicolously wrong. the data i mentioned are missing, and you ignorant and climate church faithful don’t even know in our ubiquitous stupidity. you are unable to proof what you maintain, therefore you act here only as lobbyist of the green-left side of your political bias and are far away from any scientific behavior. in addition you all to evidently and in an extemely primitive manner try to avoid to admit why the climate is unable to define its most holy value, the “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in a clear, unanimous way and stop the incredibly unscientific situation that everybody who wants it defines his own version of a “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”. this is no science, but junk methodology. and you are a fanatic fellow of this failing pseudo-science.

    Like

  3. craigtroll, your “text” on global temperature

    €€€€€£$£¥$

    There is no single thermometer measuring the global temperature. Instead, individual thermometer measurements taken every day at several thousand stations over the land areas of the world are combined with thousands more measurements of sea surface temperature taken from ships moving over the oceans to produce an estimate of global average temperature every month

    €£$£¥£££¥£$££

    immediately shows that you are really handicapped to understand my criticism of a lack of a unanimous and generally accepted definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” which allows to reproduce its value from the observation data.

    in order to enlighten you in your darkness, although this seems to be impossible, some pieces of information which you maybe are able to digest: the three publicly well known institutes from the climate church (noaa, giss, metoffice/cru) which produce a “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” have completely different procedures to calculate a land surface temperature and a sea surface temperature. in addition their resp. methods to combine land and sea surface temperature to a hemispheric and global mean differ from each other. as a consequence also the values of the three “GLOBAL TEMPERATURES” differ from each other. this is extremely strange as all three are based on existing observatonal data.

    by the way, i calculate my own global temperature from the ghcn database of noaa. i assume that you or any other climate church fellow here is completely unable to do the same because of severe lacks of required scientific and computer skills. the only thing you are able to do is copy/paste and to believe what others have predigested for you.

    Like

  4. Yes, different procedures that allow us to compare the results obtained by those different methods. If they were all the same, they might all be defeated by using the same faulty assumption(s). Using different methods enables us to see the effects of those differing assumptions. It’s called science.

    Your trailer-park opinions, on the other hand, are not science, they are simply the vapid mindless meanderings of the mental midget that you are.

    Like

  5. Freddy@149

    a definition of “Global Average Heights of 4-years olds”

    or similar trivia is not comparable to a definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” since the measurement of height is trivial and does not need further mentioning, whereas the method of determination of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” by the three who try it (noaa, giss, metoffice/cru) is completely different and mentioning of a reliably and unanimously adopted methodology is a mandatory part of such a definition of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”

    Actually Freddy, if you had thought about it, the measurement of height, whilst being trivial, needs a methodology – so that researchers can be sure they are comparing like-with-like. Were the kids measured standing up or lying down? Were kids from representative areas of their countries measured, or just those from convenient areas for the researchers to reach? However, as long as the methodology used in a study is the same for all measurements then the results are a useful measure of global average heights of 4-year-olds. Other researchers might use different methodologies, and so get different results, but that does not mean their research conflicts with that of others. It’s all useful, as what is of interest is the average height, and the other information that can be extracted from the dataset – like regional differences.

    The same holds for global temperature sets. As long as their internal methodologies are consistent, they are useful, and the dataset can certainly be used to extract an average global temperature.

    Like

  6. eamon, no. your comparison with children height misses the decisive point, that the methodology is simple with a meter. you know this and behave like you would not know. shame on you. go and try to recap how giss, noaa, and phil jones calculate global temps and you will invest months to get close to the details of how they do it, and you will never which stations they have for a specific year of land or sea data, how they have corrected the data scarcely or not documented, extrapolate for a world of missing values in early years and vast regions of the planet. and you hypocrite behave as if this would be same as measuring heights of children with a meter. hahaha, you have really no clue how ridiculous your argument is????

    you are fooling yourself, eamon, another defender of hysteric climate alarmism to deceive decent citizens

    Like

  7. craigtroll, your text is abominably ridiculous and has nothing to with science:

    €€€€€€€€€

    Yes, different procedures that allow us to compare the results obtained by those different methods. If they were all the same, they might all be defeated by using the same faulty assumption(s). Using different methods enables us to see the effects of those differing assumptions. It’s called science

    €€€€€€€€€€

    what an incredible junk you again deliver. you have no clue what science is, what a definition is. you are an extemely primitive mainstream guy who misundersgands his inferior position as important, correct, wise. nothing of all of this. you are just a narcistic loser without qualification and knowledge

    Like

  8. mandas, that’s all you are able to ouburst? very poor, but typical for envying want-be something

    i AM a scientist, and you NOT, what a frustration for you. i have published a lot of original articles in peer-reviewed journals, given lectures on several universities, guided many students through their theses to doctorates. YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC NOBODY, and i am scientist. so just shut up you bleatherskite and idiot.

    Like

  9. Freddykaitroll, if you actually are a scientist, you sure are doing a good job at pretending to be an ideological hack.

    I remember, not so long ago, when you again accused other scientists of something they didn’t do. As you stated:

    “In other words the guys from CRU admit, that one cannot reproduce their calculation of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE”, version MetOffice/CRU.”

    All because you could not understand some rather basic English:

    “Why can I not produce the hemispheric and global averages for HadCRUT4 and HadSST3 that are given here?

    Both these are ensemble datasets. This means that there are 100 realizations of each in order to calculate the possible assumptions involved in the structure of the various components of the error (see discussion in Morice et al., 2012). All 100 realizations are available at the above Met Office site, but we have selected here the ensemble median. For the gridded data this is the ensemble median calculated separately for each grid box for each time step from the 100 members. For the hemispheric and global averages this is again the median of the 100 realizations. The median of the gridded series will not produce the median of the hemispheric and global averages, but the differences will be small.”

    Which explained how you COULD reproduce their results. But yes, it requires one to understand what scientists actually say, rather than assuming they say something that fits your ideology.

    Like

  10. “…i AM a scientist, and you NOT, what a frustration for you….”

    Let me fix that for you:

    “…i AM a moron, and you NOT, what a frustration for you….”

    Like

  11. mandastroll and marcotroll

    i am in contact with metoffice and will inform here in the results of my criticisms. you can stop your angry and zero-sense bullshitting in the meantime, as you have no clue about what i am talking regarding the reproducibility of global temp calculations.

    Like

  12. ******** BREAKING NEWS ********* BREAKING NEWS

    GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NEWS FROM NOAA (May 2023)

    “The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–May period (year-to-date) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.1°C (55.5°F), the eighth warmest such period on record”

    THE NOAA GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DOES NOT INCREASE. THERE IS NO CORRELATION WITH 400 ppm CO2

    WHATVA DISAPPOINTMENT FOR CLIMATE ALARMISTS

    hahaha hahaha haha, HA!

    Like

  13. Freddykaitroll, you made a false claim, you know you made a false claim, and now you move the goalposts. You claimed CRU admitted their calculation could not be reproduced. That was a false claim, based on an inability to understand basic scientific language. Moving the goalposts is a classical denier tactic, which you then followed-up with the next denier tactic: attempting to change the subject (May 2013 was 3rd highest on record, and we’re not even in an el Nino year!).

    Like

  14. marco and other warmist trolls

    you are no authority to prescribe what anybody here has to write! understood!

    second: you make false claims regarding noaa global temp announcements: go and learn before you write your misleading and cheating bullshit.

    moving goal posts is nothing I have in common with you and the climate church: you and your warming ideology brothers contantly move goal posts by constantly changing the calculation rules of global temps (all 3 alarmist institutions: noaa, metoffice/cru, giss):

    YOU ARE A TERRIBLY BLEATHERSKITE WITH THE SYNDROME OF STUBBORN WILLINGNESS TO BE WRONG

    Like

  15. The only hysteric here is you, “freddy”.

    You have no education and no understanding of the science, and yet you come on here making wild assertions that are either meaningless or wrong, and you pepper your posts with masses of ALL-CAPS DENIALIST HYSTERIA.

    Like

  16. Freddykaitroll, I certainly don’t want to deny you the opportunity to show, time after time, how dumb you really are.

    And regarding my supposed “false claim”, straight from the horse’s mouth:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-may-2013-global-climate-report

    “According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature for May 2013 tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest May since record keeping began in 1880”

    So, not only did you make a false claim about CRU at the Stoat’s, you now falsely accuse me of making false claims. I guess no excuses are forthcoming, since you will most likely not even understand what NOAA is saying, since it does not fit your ideology.

    There was a time, long ago, where I thought that being ideologically blinded could be nice: cope with unpleasant reality by denying that unpleasant reality as reality when it didn’t fit one’s ideology. Seeing your comment reinforces my later transition to realising it isn’t very nice, since you constantly are in a struggle to decide which reality to deny, and get all confused. In your case you just get angry when the reality you just denied gets mentioned again by others. How dare we contradict your self-imagined alternative universe?

    Like

  17. “freddy”, who are you quoting?

    My name is Craig, not “craig”.

    The facts of global warming are very clear:

    – There is something very real, called the Greenhouse Effect;

    – CO2 is a greenhouse gas;

    – Humans are causing CO2 to increase in the atmosphere;

    – CO2 has now increased to a level unprecedented in 1 million years

    – The additional CO2 has caused an imbalance between the amount of energy arriving on Earth, and the amount leaving it

    – This imbalance results in a warming world;

    – This warming is observed to be happening.

    The only HYSTERIC here you and your ignorant ilk.

    Like

  18. craigtroll, marcotroll

    temps don’t go up, co2 goes up

    you are unable to digest the truth and face reality, you poor pigs

    Like

  19. “craig”-troll

    your utmost nasty assertion “This warming is observed to be happening”

    instead of insane assertion statements you must give references to observation data which support your delusions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    PROVIDE REFERENCE OF FACTS FROM THE REAL WORLD instead of nasty assertions which nobody can verify. YOUR WISHFUL THINKING PROVIDES GREATEST HARMS TO ALL ECONOMIES AROUND THE GOBE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT.

    MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!

    GLOBAL TEMP is faked, it’s cold in antarctica and greenland, therefore no sea level increase

    MORON!!!!!!!!!!!

    ABOMINABLE BULLSHIT FROM YOU WITHOUT ANY PROOF IN REALITY, JUST COMPUTER VIRTUAL ADDICTS WHO YOU ARE

    MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    INSANE BOLLOCKS FROM BLATHERSKITES OF YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    improve yous life style instead of wasting your life time

    MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  20. Gosh, all I do is point out a few basic, inarguable realities of the physical world around us, and you go completely hysterical with CAPS everywhere and !!! everywhere.

    I think you ignorant denialist hysterics need to calm down a little bit.

    Like

  21. “craig”-troll

    your bollocks “Gosh, all I do is point out a few basic, inarguable realities of the physical… bls bla bla bla bla…. bla bla .,.”

    is typical for absolutistic religious church brothers who want to indoctrinate others with their insane undisputable “truths”

    YOU BETTER SHUT UP WITH YOUR INSANE BULLSHIT

    learn to live with that human-induced warming does not take place

    MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  22. One thing people with mental problems almost always exhibit in addition to Denial, is Projection.

    “freddy”, it is *you* who are the “insane shit”. If you want to disprove the Greenhouse Effect, the atmospheric CO2 observations, or the energy imbalance that is causing warming, you might need to get started right away with remediating your trailer-park level of education: you will need 6 years of primary education (it can be assumed you have 2 or maybe 3 of those under your belt already, although you might want to start again from scratch, judging by the state of your nonsense). You wil then need 6 years of secondary education. Following on from that, and assuming you don’t need a couple of additional years due to learning difficulties, you will need to spend 4 years completing an undergraduate degree. At that stage, about 4 years of research experience should be undertaken, possibly another 3 years to complete a second degree, and following on from that, you could spend another 4 years to get a PhD completed.

    At this stage, (it will be the year 2038), you will now be a very junior participant in the process to elucidate the physical realities of the world around us, and 20 years of successful research (so, by the Year 2058), you will be able to offer opinions that carry the same sort of weight as Michael Mann’s.

    Until then, you remain an uneducated ignoramus whose opinion is entirely without value or merit except as an illustration of the kind of intellectual level that climate-denial relies on.

    Like

  23. Still Projecting, “freddy”, I see.

    Anybody who witnesses your witless scribblings can see perfectly well that you are an idiot.

    Like

  24. What we want to know is – what disease made you illiterate and incapable of capitalisation?

    I suspect it was poverty, coupled with being flung out of the family trailer on schoolnights while your mother entertained your many “uncles” in private.

    Like

  25. Freddy@161

    AM a scientist, and you NOT, what a frustration for you. i have published a lot of original articles in peer-reviewed journals, given lectures on several universities, guided many students through their theses to doctorates.

    Care to give us all a summary of your doctoral thesis, the names of some of the journals you have published in, some paper titles?

    Like

  26. i do not want to be beaten in the public by green wacko fascists like bbd, wow, mandas, craig, you, and the mob aroused by you and your fuckwit brothers from the immoral climate church

    Like

  27. So, you’re keeping all your data secret, are you? And all your code?

    You make assertions, but you provide nothing to enable others to check your assertions against reality?

    You know what that means, don’t you Freddy?

    It means we *know* you’re a liar and fraud.

    Like

  28. I suspect his “research” was undertaken at the University of Cair Paravel, with subsequent post-graduate work at the University of Minas Tirith.

    Like

  29. Coby,

    Ahead of our time?

    revisit here http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/action-on-global-warming-is-suicide/

    _____________________________________

    PaulinMI

    March 17, 2010

    Skip,

    I agree the one way out is a progressive tax or CAP and Trade with the caveat that the proceeds go to the population.

    Then the solutions will be real and effective. Throwing the proceeds to the government guarantees boondoggle solutions and therefore reliance on fossil fuels until they’re exhausted.

    _______________________________________

    compare to –

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578396401965799658.html

    Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax

    Coupled with the elimination of costly energy subsidies, it would encourage competition.

    . . . In the case of administration by the IRS, an annual distribution could be made to every taxpayer and recipient of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In the case of the SSA, the distribution could be made, in terms proportionate to the dollars involved, to everyone either paying into the system or receiving benefits from it. In any case, checks to recipients should be identified as “Your carbon dividend.”

    Like

  30. @ craigtroll

    i being a vegetarian totally despise mass murder of animals for human food production. i therefore reject your brutal story regarding co2 reduction in australian slaughter companies

    Like

  31. Interesting how total coal power emissions have declined to less 1/1000 of of what they were 100 years ago but asthma just keeps going up? If you have historic data to prove any correlation between coal use and asthma then let’s see it. Plenty of scientific studies conclude that children exposed to more allergens at an early age reduce their likelihood of developing asthma, (search “amish + asthma + farm effect” for example).

    One correlation you cannot deny, the richest countries of the world are the ones that most exploited their fossil energy reserves and are also now the same ones that ~happen~ to have the CLEANEST air quality.

    The greatest threat to air and water quality is .. POVERTY.

    The greatest threat to poverty is … free market capitalism fueled by cheap energy.

    Like

  32. Chris, your claim that “total coal power emissions have declined to less 1/1000 of [sic] of what they were 100 years ago” is missing a reference (which you likely do not have).

    Also, it is not true that the richest countries have the cleanest air quality. See for example this picture:

    Note that the high levels of particle matter in Africa is due to sand.

    This picture:

    shows NO2 pollution. Again, it looks like the richest countries aren’t doing that well.

    Like

  33. “….One correlation you cannot deny, the richest countries of the world are the ones that most exploited their fossil energy reserves and are also now the same ones that ~happen~ to have the CLEANEST air quality….”

    The insanity of deniers just keeps getting worse and worse doesn’t it? Perhaps Mike M might like to move to the largest city in the second richest country on Earth and tell us all about the air quality.

    Last time I checked, Shanghai had pretty bad air quality – caused by the burning of coal I believe.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s