[syhprum]

I am no chemist but the idea of power stations burning coke a form of coal from which some of the calorific value has been removed and is primarily intended for use in steel making is rather ludicrous.
Domestic coke that was a low grade form that was the by product of gas manufacture and was useful for small domestic boilers due to its low residues and its cheapness but for power stations if it was still available a no no 

[alancalverd]

The great thing about centralised electricity generation is that you can turn almost any combustible rubbish into a useful product because the energy density of the fuel for a large static boiler is not critical - unlike vehicle or aviation fuel. Some power stations were designed to run on the sludge that washes out of coalmines, others burn general domestic waste, chicken poo, forest trimmings..... So using "smokeless" coke is hardly a problem. The most efficient coke boilers grind the stuff up to a fluidised powder that is injected into the flame rather like an oil burner: consistency helps, but primary energy density is just a design input.   

[Bored chemist]

The Chinese government ratified the Kyoto protocol because it didn't impose any restrictions on China. Which is probably why the US government didn't ratify it.

And, in spite of not being bound by that agreement
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=0

The great thing about centralised electricity generation is that you can turn almost any combustible rubbish into a useful product because the energy density of the fuel for a large static boiler is not critical - unlike vehicle or aviation fuel. Some power stations were designed to run on the sludge that washes out of coalmines, others burn general domestic waste, chicken poo, forest trimmings..... So using "smokeless" coke is hardly a problem. The most efficient coke boilers grind the stuff up to a fluidised powder that is injected into the flame rather like an oil burner: consistency helps, but primary energy density is just a design input.   

Almost everyone else disagrees with the idea that that " using "smokeless" coke is hardly a problem.".

That problem is CO2 and your decision to disregard it is silly.

You say things like
"Nothing wrong with CO2. It's essential for plant growth and therefore life on the earth's surface. "
Well, the same is true of oxygen but it's poisonous if there's too much.

Just because a small amount of CO2 is necessary, doesn't mean that more of it is good.
Far less doe iit means that too much cannot be harmful.
Trying to dismiss it by saying "plants need it" just makes you look foolish.

[alancalverd]

Almost everyone else disagrees with the idea that that " using "smokeless" coke is hardly a problem."

Time was that "almost everyone" agreed with the geocentric universe, divine creation, aether, phlogiston, malaria.... Eventually, science prevailed, but it was a long haul. Hopefully the CO2 nonsense won't last as long as previous myths.

I must talk to my local hydroponic farmer. He injects CO2 into his greenhouses to improve plant growth. I must tell him that he looks foolish as he reaps those massive tomato crops and carries his money to the bank.

The NY Times piece is fine journalism indeed, conflating "pollution" with CO2 emissions in the mind of the careless reader. If you read it carefully it says that the Chinese are actually adopting the policy required by the UK Clean Air Act nearly 50 years ago - building new coalfired plant running at higher combustion and steam temperatures (hence improved thermal efficiency) and reduced sulfur dioxide emissions, but no change in the fundamental chemistry of C + O₂ -> CO₂  + heat.

[syhprum]

Malaria is still with us killing something like 2 million every year, The aether has not been quite abolished yet there are still many who believe in some form of absolute reference and as for divine creation you try telling anyone in the Midwest there is no such thing and you will soon end up in jail.

[alancalverd]

Malaria is still with us

The parasites certainly flourish but I don't think anyone believes it is due to "mal air" anymore.

It hasn't quite come to a criminal statute yet, but try showing the carbon dioxide infrared spectrum to a Believer and you will be subject to all sorts of vilification. I just heard Gabrielle Walker on TV negotiating a tightrope when talking about ice core data "correlating" CO2 and temperature - the poor lass was trying hard not to lie about the phase lag without offending the Believers at the BBC.

[Bored chemist]

Almost everyone else disagrees with the idea that that " using "smokeless" coke is hardly a problem."

Time was that "almost everyone" agreed ...
I must talk to my local hydroponic farmer. He injects CO2 into his greenhouses to improve plant growth. I must tell him that he looks foolish as he reaps those massive tomato crops and carries his money to the bank.

There was a time when people thought that, but we grew out of it.
But now we have evidence based science (commonly attributed to Francis Bacon).
The evidence shows that CO2 absorbs IR and so on.

You seem to have missed the point about the CO2.
Please fill a large chamber with it and sit in there until you realise that there is such an idea as "too much of a good thing".
Also, please note that the presence of CO2 in fizzy drinks may improve their flavour and appearance, but it's not related to the question of whether CO2 in the atmosphere  increases global temperature.

The same is true of CO2 in agriculture.
You really should know better that to come up with red herrings like those.

[alancalverd]

I strongly recommend anyone with an enquiring mind to consider the actual IR spectrum of CO2 in the context of the rest of the earth's atmosphere, including water in all its phases*. It is also worth considering the ice core record that clearly shows the CO2 concentration curve to lag behind the temperature curve. I won't labour the point here, but on my planet, causes precede effects. 

*it is quite difficult to find a published spectrum with a consistently labelled y (transmission) axis for both water and CO2 at atmospheric concentrations. When you do so, it is instructive to calculate the areas under each curve, and ask yourself which one dominates the greenhouse effect.

And since you admire Francis Bacon

XIX. There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and immoveable, proceeds to judgment and to the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried.

Prescient or what?
 

[Bored chemist]

I strongly recommend anyone with an enquiring mind to consider the actual IR spectrum of CO2 in the context of the rest of the earth's atmosphere, including water in all its phases*. It is also worth considering the ice core record that clearly shows the CO2 concentration curve to lag behind the temperature curve. I won't labour the point here, but on my planet, causes precede effects. 

*it is quite difficult to find a published spectrum with a consistently labelled y (transmission) axis for both water and CO2 at atmospheric concentrations. When you do so, it is instructive to calculate the areas under each curve, and ask yourself which one dominates the greenhouse effect.

And...?
I'm sure that most people who get involved in the discussion here will know that the water aborbs more energy than the CO2.
But that doesn't matter does it?
The water concentration goes up and down with the weather and so it's effect on greenhouse effect warming is highly variable.
But there's an average value for the warming contributed by  water.
OK.
There's also an average warming produced by the CO2.
The two effects add together (along with those from some other gases).
If you make one of those gses more common- as we have done- you increase the effective overall warming.
To a first approximation, the warming produced by the water vapour is independent of that produced by the CO2.

A slightly more sophisticated analysis would show that, a raised CO2 concentration would increase the temperature.
That would evaporate more water from the oceans.
The next part is tricky, because there are two competing effects.
Does more water vapour in the air mean more warming (as you suggest from your post about its IR spectrum) or does it lead to more clouds and greater reflection of radiation from the Sun?
Well, if it's the former then we are screwed.
If it's the latter then it can't have a significant effect until the temperature has risen.
So we are still screwed.

[CliffordK]

Could humans increase the humidity by increasing irrigated land?  Water is also a byproduct of almost everything we burn.  Of course the effects would be transient, unless one could demonstrate an increasing trend.

[wolfekeeper]

I remember 1953 when climatic conditions pushed coal smoke down over London, later checks found that there were 4000 more deaths than was usual for that time of year

It's scary to me that a few thousand people die every year still in London, not from coal pollution, but from traffic and other sources of pollution. With smokeless fuels and diesel, the pollution is now invisible, but hasn't gone away.

Coal is very dirty though, there's mercury pollution as well as CO2. Natural gas is better by most measures.