Topic: The Warming Climate

[ValentineWeather]

I would laugh not get offended if you thought Nebraska was Nepal.

when I was visiting Nebraska, I was asked if I was from Colorado (as I had an accent, i.e I must have been a foreigner)
 

I personal have some dislikes about Nebraska, mainly high taxes and the amount they spend per student yearly where I live is insane. Around $17,000 a year.

[waiukuweather]

but spending money on students is looking after your future economy I would have thought?
(as long as those students then contribute to the local economy once finished their education, hey , they could even become climate research scientists (I jest)  )

[Farmtalk]

West Virginia, where I am from and currently live, has been under a lot of heat via clean coal technology, and has put a fair few miners out of work.

Where I lived, in Clay County, West Virginia until last June, there is a population of just under 10,000. There is plenty of coal in the county, but a few years ago, the main coal mine in that county shut down due to some of the regulations (as well as general expenses) that the company could not simply follow.

The county lost over 500 jobs and now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Again, I live in West Virginia. I worked in a sustainability department for four years, and I realize how important it is to try and recycle when possible, to appreciate and respect our surroundings, and to do our part to try and sustain it for future generations.

The problem that I have with clean coal technology right now is that we do not have the infrastructure for it. Many of these coal companies in West Virginia simply do not have the money to work on new technology on how they mine, extract, and transport coal. I hope that they do soon, or that it becomes easier to transition.

For a place like West Virginia, coal is very important. It would be nice to see a diversification occur in our economy (another discussion), but for now, coal has remained king in the state, though that is changing quickly. Literally tens of thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs in this state alone in the last ten years - Clay County's population dropped over 9% in only 10 years from 2000-2010.

I personally do think that there is a certain amount of impact from humankind that is causing global temperatures to increase. I don't think there is any doubt that the globe is exactly increase - just exactly why is still yet to be determined. What amount of cause is natural? Caused by mankind?

[Jstx]

West Virginia, where I am from and currently live, has been under a lot of heat via clean coal technology, and has put a fair few miners out of work.

Where I lived, in Clay County, West Virginia until last June, there is a population of just under 10,000. There is plenty of coal in the county, but a few years ago, the main coal mine in that county shut down due to some of the regulations (as well as general expenses) that the company could not simply follow.

The county lost over 500 jobs and now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Again, I live in West Virginia. I worked in a sustainability department for four years, and I realize how important it is to try and recycle when possible, to appreciate and respect our surroundings, and to do our part to try and sustain it for future generations.

The problem that I have with clean coal technology right now is that we do not have the infrastructure for it. Many of these coal companies in West Virginia simply do not have the money to work on new technology on how they mine, extract, and transport coal. I hope that they do soon, or that it becomes easier to transition.

For a place like West Virginia, coal is very important. It would be nice to see a diversification occur in our economy (another discussion), but for now, coal has remained king in the state, though that is changing quickly. Literally tens of thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs in this state alone in the last ten years - Clay County's population dropped over 9% in only 10 years from 2000-2010.

I personally do think that there is a certain amount of impact from humankind that is causing global temperatures to increase. I don't think there is any doubt that the globe is exactly increase - just exactly why is still yet to be determined. What amount of cause is natural? Caused by mankind?

Howdy Farmtalk,
They need to face up to it, coal is dead as a hammer, or will be soon.
Eastern coal has been killed by Western coal to  some extent; as Western coal is also getting killed.
Both regions are getting killed primarily by very cheap natural gas at this time. NatGas isn't going away for a long while.
Alternative energy will be taking more and more of the power market, probably to a dominant position in ~40 years. And nuclear, if it ever gets unstuck, upgraded, and affordable, will put the nails in coal's coffin.

They need to just do something else. They had better hope our society's "safety nets" aren't completely gutted by then.
It's sad, but "change" just IS. You roll with it or perish. I've seen the effects, domestic 'migrants' just damn near begging for jobs years ago.
I've transferred myself before, to keep a damned good job, that was affected by technological change (although I and some others were 'riding the wave', so to speak; way ahead of the 'break').

[saratogaWX]

So Ken its okay to call me names bitch, idiot, ignorant  but I say the awful word crybaby or God forbid FAKE its going overboard.
Its not just this thread but many are like this.
Just because you don't agree with my opinions I'm no more out of line than others you agree with. But its your call your forum do what you want.   
I'm not sitting by and saying nothing, when what I consider bad science being regurgitated for profit. All the data can be disputed including the links you posted. It goes both ways For and Against, nothing is in stone especially when it comes from those profiting.   BTW I locked the other thread because it was getting out of hand just like this one. Sorry if you didn't like it.

It's the way you argue and behavior that is objectionable.  It is perfectly ok to disagree, and debate -- as long as it's a civil debate that does not resort to name calling or denigrating the intellect of those with which you disagree.  Facts matter, and source of facts matter -- there are many 'alt-facts' rummaging around the internet that feel like facts, but may not have actual science behind them.  Discuss, yes.. strident, disparaging discussion no.

[Farmtalk]

West Virginia, where I am from and currently live, has been under a lot of heat via clean coal technology, and has put a fair few miners out of work.

Where I lived, in Clay County, West Virginia until last June, there is a population of just under 10,000. There is plenty of coal in the county, but a few years ago, the main coal mine in that county shut down due to some of the regulations (as well as general expenses) that the company could not simply follow.

The county lost over 500 jobs and now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Again, I live in West Virginia. I worked in a sustainability department for four years, and I realize how important it is to try and recycle when possible, to appreciate and respect our surroundings, and to do our part to try and sustain it for future generations.

The problem that I have with clean coal technology right now is that we do not have the infrastructure for it. Many of these coal companies in West Virginia simply do not have the money to work on new technology on how they mine, extract, and transport coal. I hope that they do soon, or that it becomes easier to transition.

For a place like West Virginia, coal is very important. It would be nice to see a diversification occur in our economy (another discussion), but for now, coal has remained king in the state, though that is changing quickly. Literally tens of thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs in this state alone in the last ten years - Clay County's population dropped over 9% in only 10 years from 2000-2010.

I personally do think that there is a certain amount of impact from humankind that is causing global temperatures to increase. I don't think there is any doubt that the globe is exactly increase - just exactly why is still yet to be determined. What amount of cause is natural? Caused by mankind?

Howdy Farmtalk,
They need to face up to it, coal is dead as a hammer, or will be soon.
Eastern coal has been killed by Western coal to  some extent; as Western coal is also getting killed.
Both regions are getting killed primarily by very cheap natural gas at this time. NatGas isn't going away for a long while.
Alternative energy will be taking more and more of the power market, probably to a dominant position in ~40 years. And nuclear, if it ever gets unstuck, upgraded, and affordable, will put the nails in coal's coffin.

They need to just do something else. They had better hope our society's "safety nets" aren't completely gutted by then.
It's sad, but "change" just IS. You roll with it or perish. I've seen the effects, domestic 'migrants' just damn near begging for jobs years ago.
I've transferred myself before, to keep a damned good job, that was affected by technological change (although I and some others were 'riding the wave', so to speak; way ahead of the 'break').

I agree with you. I think there has got to be another way than to just kill jobs. There needs to be a process for these coal mine workers. These folks are losing their jobs and it is devastating their families. I work in news now and see it weekly.

But I do agree with you, good change will not come to my state unless we diversify our economy. It's like investing in the stock market - investing all of your eggs into one basket is not recommended.

I feel very bad for miner families though.

[BigOkie]

West Virginia, where I am from and currently live, has been under a lot of heat via clean coal technology, and has put a fair few miners out of work.

Where I lived, in Clay County, West Virginia until last June, there is a population of just under 10,000. There is plenty of coal in the county, but a few years ago, the main coal mine in that county shut down due to some of the regulations (as well as general expenses) that the company could not simply follow.

The county lost over 500 jobs and now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Again, I live in West Virginia. I worked in a sustainability department for four years, and I realize how important it is to try and recycle when possible, to appreciate and respect our surroundings, and to do our part to try and sustain it for future generations.

The problem that I have with clean coal technology right now is that we do not have the infrastructure for it. Many of these coal companies in West Virginia simply do not have the money to work on new technology on how they mine, extract, and transport coal. I hope that they do soon, or that it becomes easier to transition.

For a place like West Virginia, coal is very important. It would be nice to see a diversification occur in our economy (another discussion), but for now, coal has remained king in the state, though that is changing quickly. Literally tens of thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs in this state alone in the last ten years - Clay County's population dropped over 9% in only 10 years from 2000-2010.

I personally do think that there is a certain amount of impact from humankind that is causing global temperatures to increase. I don't think there is any doubt that the globe is exactly increase - just exactly why is still yet to be determined. What amount of cause is natural? Caused by mankind?

Howdy Farmtalk,
They need to face up to it, coal is dead as a hammer, or will be soon.
Eastern coal has been killed by Western coal to  some extent; as Western coal is also getting killed.
Both regions are getting killed primarily by very cheap natural gas at this time. NatGas isn't going away for a long while.
Alternative energy will be taking more and more of the power market, probably to a dominant position in ~40 years. And nuclear, if it ever gets unstuck, upgraded, and affordable, will put the nails in coal's coffin.

They need to just do something else. They had better hope our society's "safety nets" aren't completely gutted by then.
It's sad, but "change" just IS. You roll with it or perish. I've seen the effects, domestic 'migrants' just damn near begging for jobs years ago.
I've transferred myself before, to keep a damned good job, that was affected by technological change (although I and some others were 'riding the wave', so to speak; way ahead of the 'break').

I agree with you. I think there has got to be another way than to just kill jobs. There needs to be a process for these coal mine workers. These folks are losing their jobs and it is devastating their families. I work in news now and see it weekly.

But I do agree with you, good change will not come to my state unless we diversify our economy. It's like investing in the stock market - investing all of your eggs into one basket is not recommended.

I feel very bad for miner families though.

Problem I am having with the way that states mainly are handling the transition to 'alternative energy' like wind, solar, hydro..well, not so much hydro as that's been around since we've been creating dams is that states that are beholden to fossil fuels, especially those states where lawmakers take 'donations' for campaigns by the fossil fuel lobbyists have decided that trying to suppress their implementation of things like solar and wind are a hindrance to their cash cows, so that, in states like mine, they have decided to place a 'fee' on using the power grid for those using solar, and to try and tax wind power.  Regressive.

What will our grandchildren think when they look back on this time in history?  It baffles the mind.

And this train of though of 'well China does worse so there' is idiotic at best.  Should we continue to do what we're doing simply because another country is doing worse?  That's like saying my brother killed someone, so why can't I?

It's shameful, really.  This is OUR Earth, not one country's.

[DoctorKnow]

And this train of though of 'well China does worse so there' is idiotic at best.

Nobody said that.

[BigOkie]

And this train of though of 'well China does worse so there' is idiotic at best.

Nobody said that.

It was implied.

[waiukuweather]

China is slowly increasing energy efficiency /reducing emissions and have targets and plans/policies set in place through to the year 2030
i.e they are not increasing emissions output at the rate they were now and have decreased the reliance on coal (that has contributed to that the drop in coal price (less demand))

[Farmtalk]

Problem I am having with the way that states mainly are handling the transition to 'alternative energy' like wind, solar, hydro..well, not so much hydro as that's been around since we've been creating dams is that states that are beholden to fossil fuels, especially those states where lawmakers take 'donations' for campaigns by the fossil fuel lobbyists have decided that trying to suppress their implementation of things like solar and wind are a hindrance to their cash cows, so that, in states like mine, they have decided to place a 'fee' on using the power grid for those using solar, and to try and tax wind power.  Regressive.
It's shameful, really.  This is OUR Earth, not one country's.

That is sadly an issue. There are several fossil fuel lobbylists that intertwine themselves into state politics here. It's almost like propaganda sometimes. Advertisements like "Coal is the only way to get West Virginia back" really bother me, and are played on the radio around here alot.

Again, I don't think coal shouldn't be extracted here - I welcome it. But I'm more interested in diversifying our economy, helping miners laid off find new jobs (perhaps in natural gas or a cleaner fuel), while we work on building the infrastructure for clean coal technology.

[Jáchym]

I have to say I dont like this idea:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/weather/refreezing-arctic-ice-study-trnd/

It is sort of the same thing as burying CO2 under the ground. This is not solving the problem. We have to solve the primary cause of the problem, not try to solve the consequences.

[ClaireAnderson]

When it comes to global warming there is a huge disagreement among people. Some say that global warming has no impact on weather changes while other says that global warming is constantly changing the weather. But the weather changes are constantly noticed across the word for years.

[MahFL]

10 million machines ? That's a lot of machines.

[waiukuweather]

weather is what happens day to day, or for the next week or 2, for your location
climate is an average of those day to day variations over a long period and over a large area

you need to keep in mind those distinctions

climate does change -> there are long term natural cycles (some have been identified as long as 25 years)

think of global warming as a temperature offset..that is slowly increasing
its gets complication though when that increase in temperature (ocean and over land) changes the long term climate averages -> climate change
(i.e an area could get more droughts or more floods or more extremes or shift its climate to an area that is closer to the equator)

[WXman]

Before automobiles roamed highways and sat in traffic jams, before the population was growing out of control, before city landscapes dominated and farming was the major occupation of Americans... before all of this we set most of the high temperature records that are on the books in the Ohio Valley region of the U.S. 

This is one of the most heavily populated areas of the entire nation, and yet our "wild" weather of today doesn't rival the things of a century or more ago.

All of this makes sense when you understand that the climate is a cycle, with ebbs and flows and ups and downs and human activity doesn't have nearly the impact on it that liberals will tell you that it does.  Furthermore, scientific fact tells us that matter cannot be destroyed or created, and human beings cannot therefore destroy something (the Earth) which we had no power to create in the first place.

We as a society should be good stewards of the planet we live on.  That is true.  But it's also true that we worry WAY too much and we need to relax.  Afterall, we DO have to live here.  And if burning coal is what it takes to keep my family warm, by all means let's burn that coal.

[Jáchym]

Oh not again....

human beings cannot therefore destroy something (the Earth) which we had no power to create in the first place

like seriously? Now, I am not going to argue about global warming, we both have our own views about that, but what you wrote about not being able to destroy something we did not create is IMHO nonsense.

And we definitely don´t destroy the planet just by releasing GHGs or burning coal. It is true that we might not destroy the actual planet as such, but we can very easily make it totally inhabitable Im sure you will agree with me on that. So saying we need to relax and not worry about burning fossil fuels, destroying rainforests, making organisms extinct etc etc. is maybe ok in short-term, but if you care at least a little bit about future generations then you would never say such thing.

[Jáchym]

This is a nice concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

And this is a great book:
https://www.amazon.com/Gaia-New-Look-Life-Earth/dp/0192862189

[waiukuweather]

All of this makes sense when you understand that the climate is a cycle, with ebbs and flows and ups

but no one said it does not do that
all climate scientists know that

think of global warming as an offset
so that then the those ups and downs get shifted up a bit on the Y axis
(which then means the previous ups are now getting beaten)

[WXman]

Oh not again....

human beings cannot therefore destroy something (the Earth) which we had no power to create in the first place

like seriously? Now, I am not going to argue about global warming, we both have our own views about that, but what you wrote about not being able to destroy something we did not create is IMHO nonsense.

And we definitely don´t destroy the planet just by releasing GHGs or burning coal. It is true that we might not destroy the actual planet as such, but we can very easily make it totally inhabitable Im sure you will agree with me on that. So saying we need to relax and not worry about burning fossil fuels, destroying rainforests, making organisms extinct etc etc. is maybe ok in short-term, but if you care at least a little bit about future generations then you would never say such thing.

Yes, very much again.

Generations before us said the same things you're saying.  Hundreds of years ago, they were saying the same thing you're saying now.  Where is this carnage?

In the 1970s the headlines read "ICE AGE!".  In the 1990s it was "GLOBAL WARMING!".  By the 2000s neither was panning out so now it's "CLIMATE CHANGE!" because that term covers all bases and technically they cannot be wrong when they scream that.

Like I said, should we be good stewards of the planet?  Yes.  I stated that.  But the fact is, the earth is not going to cease to exist because human beings are trying to live on it.  In fact, it was created FOR human beings to live upon, and we were granted the spot at the top of the chain.

We need to relax and stop worrying ourselves sick everytime somebody lights up a coal burning stove.  My pickup truck achieved 8.8 miles per gallon on it's last tank.  But, that's the vehicle I need to get my work done after hours, so I don't worry about it.  Life will go on...  like it has for centuries.

[WXman]

All of this makes sense when you understand that the climate is a cycle, with ebbs and flows and ups

but no one said it does not do that
all climate scientists know that

think of global warming as an offset
so that then the those ups and downs get shifted up a bit on the Y axis
(which then means the previous ups are now getting beaten)

But they have.  They are teaching our school children that we are destroying the planet, and the heat is building and it'll never go back to "normal" again.

It's 100% false.  Or, in my field, we call it "crap science".

Explain to me how a person can take 125 years of reliable weather records, and use that to show evidence of roughly 10,000 years of timeline?  Nobody in their right mind would use a 1-2% sample size to explain the whole.

It's crap science, and that's what they are feeding our children today.  I've studied under some of the finest professors of climatology around, and I'm thankful that I can avoid the trap that the media is trying to set.

[Jáchym]

I didnt say Earth was going to be destroyed by us (though Im 100% if we wanted to, we would manage even that these days...), but there is a fundamental difference between Earth being destroyed as such (the actual planet) and Earth being destroyed in the sense of becoming inhabitable.

This could be done in many ways, obviously the fastest would be some nuclear bomb, in fact not that many would be required... this is of course unlikely, but the fact we are slowly destroying the environment (and Im not talking climate change now), is a fact. Look at the rate of extenction, look at the rate of rainforests disappearing, (ok Im not going to say look at climate change, but I normally would).

My opinion is that it is not a question of if, but rather when. The only thing now is whether we will be so smart that we manage to colonize other planets or habitats before this happens.

[Jáchym]

I've studied under some of the finest professors of climatology around, and I'm thankful that I can avoid the trap that the media is trying to set.

Me too and I was taught something totally different so there is obviously no consensus about this...

[waiukuweather]

Ice cores give us a much longer time line than 125 years

[ValentineWeather]

But they have.  They are teaching our school children that we are destroying the planet, and the heat is building and it'll never go back to "normal" again.

It's 100% false.  Or, in my field, we call it "crap science".

Explain to me how a person can take 125 years of reliable weather records, and use that to show evidence of roughly 10,000 years of timeline?  Nobody in their right mind would use a 1-2% sample size to explain the whole.

It's crap science, and that's what they are feeding our children today.  I've studied under some of the finest professors of climatology around, and I'm thankful that I can avoid the trap that the media is trying to set.

I'm with you on this. Let’s say even if we are wrong and somehow the small sample size of data is correct and the climate is warming, is it really all that bad?

I say no. Cold, not heat, is the biggest killer. There are many good aspects for the warming globe with some side effects that can't be ignored like low lying flooding but IMO it’s outweighed by the good of a warming planet. Enjoy the warmth now.  Eventually we will go into another ice age according to climate paleontologist, then we really will have something to worry about with potentially millions perishing from famine and cold.