Coal jobs on the comeback since 2016

The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Sunspot activity doesn't correspond directly to temperature.
Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...

solactm.gif
,The illustrations at left show the raw data for temperature and solar activity at the top, then that data with a 11 year running average to filter out the normal solar activity period. The middle graph suggests a correlation between solar activity and temperature, even though the peaks are offset. But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity. These illustrations were prepared by Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh from the original data.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

Notice that it correlated pretty well before CO2 levels began to accelerate upward, although there does seem to be several years between the sunspot activity and an effect on climate. However, after about 1980, it didn't do much of anything to stop the rise in temperature. Adding all that carbon dioxide overrode natural cycles.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
None of this really has anything to do with the fact that coal jobs aren't coming back or with the fact that Trump, by encouraging fracking, has made coal even less economically feasible to use.

And as you see, by gutting EPA regulations, he makes labor-intensive coal mining methods less economically-feasible.
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
The Barbarian said:
Well, let's take a look...

solactm.gif
,The illustrations at left show the raw data for temperature and solar activity at the top, then that data with a 11 year running average to filter out the normal solar activity period. The middle graph suggests a correlation between solar activity and temperature, even though the peaks are offset. But when the last few years of data are included, the curves diverge and severely weaken the case for the driving of temperature by this measure of solar activity. These illustrations were prepared by Chris Merchant, School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh from the original data.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

Notice that it correlated pretty well before CO2 levels began to accelerate upward, although there does seem to be several years between the sunspot activity and an effect on climate. However, after about 1980, it didn't do much of anything to stop the rise in temperature. Adding all that carbon dioxide overrode natural cycles.
Click to expand...
Running average is the exact meaning of not immediate. There is no direct year to year correlation of temps with spot activity. As you learned, it takes several cycles averaged for a running mean before a correlation can be established.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
The Barbarian said:
None of this really has anything to do with the fact that coal jobs aren't coming back or with the fact that Trump, by encouraging fracking, has made coal even less economically feasible to use.

And as you see, by gutting EPA regulations, he makes labor-intensive coal mining methods less economically-feasible.
Click to expand...
And you still havent showed that man has anything to do with warming.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
ClimateSanity said:
Running average is the exact meaning of not immediate.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm showing you. Climate is affected by sunspot activity, not weather, which is immediate. Over a decade, the sunspot activity used to determine climate. Now, as CO2 rises, climate is no longer being driven by solar output.

You've confused climate and weather.

But as you now see, this really doesn't matter to the problems coal miners have. Trump's encouragement of fracking means that natural gas will continue to become cheaper, and that will reduce the demand for coal.
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
Here is more on the sunspot effect.


nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com

Sunspots don't cause warmer temperatures by themselves. They are correlated with stronger solar activity like the solar wind. This wind repels cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are strongly correlated with low level clouds. We are just now seeing a drop in solar activity since 2015.

There is no drop in temperature because since an increase in cloud cover will take a few years to show up. The drop in solar radiation warming the ocean doesn't show up in world wide temperature change immediately.

The huge elnino of 2016/2017 also would cover any temperature drop due to increased cloud cover.


Here is my paper I was telling you about. My PM function appears to be disabled.

www.researchgate.net/publication/27...an_Valley_and_Ridge_province_southeastern_USA
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Here is the real story on the sunspot connection.
Click to expand...
nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com


I've seen something like that suggested by D. Singh, but he admits that the idea is far from established as a theory.

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

krivova_2003.gif


Figure 3: Reconstructed cosmic radiation (solid line before 1952) and directly observed cosmic radiation (solid line after 1952) compared to global temperature (dotted line). All curves have been smoothed by an 11 year running mean (Krivova 2003).
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

Fascinating as all this is, I don't see how that has much to do with Trump making things worse for coal miners. The fact is, making natural gas exploration and recovery cheaper, makes for more unemployed coal miners.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
ClimateSanity said:
https://m.townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2017/04/18/coals-colossal-comeback-n2314519

Kmoney was telling me coal was never coming back. I guess his MSM sources forgot a few pertinent details.
Click to expand...

Pardon me while I inject some facts. Because that is a very, very dishonest article, and I can prove it.

See, here's the thing. They're conflating coal mining with all mining. Coal mining is a subset of all mining, it's true. But then, so is oil and gas extraction, which are two things that are replacing coal mining. So looking at mining in all as an indication of coal mining jobs is a crude tool at best. But, since the jobs report lists coal mining specifically as a line item, the omission of that consideration is odd. And without that detailed information, using those decontextualized numbers to claim a massive comeback of coal jobs is plain old lying. So what do the numbers actually say? Well, here's the jobs report cited in the article:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

You will notice that there was significant job growth in mining. As your article claims, there were 11,000 jobs added in mining from February to March 2017. So...how many of those were coal jobs? 100. Actually, we don't know, because 100 is the lowest precision shown in the table. It could be 50. It could also be 149. But it's literally the smallest increase possible to register that's still an increase.

So, how does that compare to the supposed low-point in October? Well, to find that information, you have to go back in time a bit:

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161119231602/https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

So, here we have the Way-back Machine's crawl of the jobs report from November, where the October numbers were reported. So, for all mining, we see 628,700 total jobs in October. Compared to the March 2017 numbers (644,000), that's the delta of 15,300. So, how much of those gains are coal mining? In October 2016, the number was 53,300 coal jobs. And last month, it was...50,300. That's no gain. That's a loss. That's a 5.6% loss. Maybe they're using some sort of Trump-enthusiasm adjustment, but in absolute terms, there is no comeback, it's not happening so far.

Do you feel like a winner yet? Or are you starting to feel like a chump? Are you going to accuse me of just listening to my liberal sources, when I'm getting my data from the primary sources supposedly used by your article?
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
ClimateSanity said:
Even if more gas-fired electricity capacity is in the works, if global LNG demand and U.S. manufacturing growth happen to converge, they could result in an increase in U.S. coal-fired generation, according to FBR Capital Markets’ coal analyst Lucas Pipes.

https://www.oilandgas360.com/coal-come-back-3-things-must-happen/
Click to expand...

From your source:
eia-coal-production-Energy-Outlook-2017.jpg


Notice the projection for Appalachian coal to decrease. So even the most optimistic projections don't see an increase in coal production in Appalachia. Those miners are being sold a fantasy.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
ClimateSanity said:
Coal gasification can help revive the industry. People just want coal to die on here in my estimation.
Click to expand...

That's the one wild card out there. If clean coal energy becomes a reality, look for lots of mining going on. But making it feasible is not the same thing as making it economical. We should all hope that it comes true, but it could be a long time in coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top