Climategate thread

[Berkut]

We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.

Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?

I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...

Since quantum mechanics has been begun to be understand we've realised there's a problem with Einstein's theory of relativity which is that it just doesn't work at the level of atoms and so on. 

Since then the holy grail (stay away Tim ) of physics has been a theory that reconciles both the observations and expectations of quantum mechanics (which is, so far as we are able to observe, correct) and the theory of relativity (which is, so far as we're able to observe, correct).  They're both right in their own way but on a fundamental point they both can't work.  It's really quite interesting

I am not sure that they really "both can't work" so much as there is a gap between them that still needs to be filled - that final piece of the puzzle that will unite them.

But in general, to grumblers point, I do think it is fair to say that there is a generally accepted "theory of gravity" it is in fact, Einsteins THeory of General Relativity..

But I ahve to admit my knowledge is pretty amateur, of course....I think I understand the 50,000ft. overview of it, but will get quickly lost once anyone with physics training beyond undergrad 200 level courses starts talking.

[Sheilbh]

But I ahve to admit my knowledge is pretty amateur, of course....I think I understand the 50,000ft. overview of it, but will get quickly lost once anyone with physics training beyond undergrad 200 level courses starts talking.

Exactly the same.  All I know is from what I read in Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe' and talked about with my old uni-housemate who did physics (and is currently doing theoretical physics the Masters - last week she had a a 2.5 hour lecture on one equation ) but my understanding is hazy and from memory.

Edit:  Though from a distance I find it fascinating.

[Fate]

We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.

Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?

I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...

We know the elementary particle of light is a photon. We think the elementary particle of gravity is a graviton. We can detect the former, but thus far it's proven impossible to detect the latter.

[The Brain]

We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.

Doesn't Einsteins theory of gravity explain what gravity is - the curvature of space around massive bodies?

I don't pretend to understand it, but I thought there was a theory that explains it at least for people who can understand it...

We know the elementary particle of light is a photon. We think the elementary particle of gravity is a graviton. We can detect the former, but thus far it's proven impossible to detect the latter.

Obsess much? You sure like your gravitons.

[Neil]

Irrelevant.  We have a much deeper understanding of gravity than we do climatology.

Actually, no.  We don't have a single practical (i.e. applies in the universe that exists) gravity theory of which I am aware.  Laws, yes.  Theories, no.

Ditto for climate.  Lots of observations and "laws" but no real theories.

We don't even know what gravity is; just that it exists.

Well, there are several theories, such as loop quantum gravity or string theory, and general relativity works quite well at anything but the smallest levels.  However, the key difference between gravity and climate is that we have an excellent understanding of the effects of gravity, to the point that it's effects can be accurately predicted  in virtually any likely situation.  That just isn't true of the climate.

[Fate]

Obsess much? You sure like your gravitons.

No, not much.

[frunk]

Getting into whether a theory completely describes a phenomenon is a rabbit hole I don't plan to go down.  I think the major difference between the current theory of gravity and climate theory is the predictive ability of each.  gravitational theory can predict the effects of gravity to many decimal places, it is one of the more accurately tested scientific theories in existence.  Climate theory is still in its infancy, trying to handle the extreme difficulty of a moving, complicated system with a huge number of inputs, feedback loops and outputs.  It can't create models that have much predictive power except in the vaguest of terms.

This doesn't make me think that the climate scientists are trying to pull one over on us.  Rather, there's a few pieces that point to this being a potentially dangerous situation.  One is that glaciers, permafrost and polar ice have been melting at rates and in areas unseen for hundreds and thousands of years.  Clearly something is currently going on that is changing the environment in these regions.  Second, looking at the records it is clear that radical environmental change can occur over a relatively short period (tens of years) and this change is often associated with sudden glacial creation/destruction.  The big question is to what extent the ice changes are symptom or cause of those reversals.

Until we have a better idea of what is going on it makes sense to at least try to limit our impact on the environment.  Unfortunately the politicization that comes with that effort has only made it more difficult to figure out what is going on with more garbage science being thrown into the mix from all sides. 

[grumbler]

However, the key difference between gravity and climate is that we have an excellent understanding of the effects of gravity, to the point that it's effects can be accurately predicted  in virtually any likely situation.  That just isn't true of the climate.

Agree with this.  My point is just that: the fact that theory is weak does not preclude acting on what we know about practical effects, but the fact that the theory is weak also means that we don't have good predictions for the consequences of specific actions.  Skepticism about a given course of action is therefor much more intellectually justified than skepticism about evolution, which we have seen happen and about which our theories are much more complete.

People who complain about the skeptics (and even want to deny them the acknowledgment of that title) seem to forget that scientific progress is propelled by the honest skeptics.  The honesty of skeptics should be dealt with on an individual basis, because disagreement /= dishonesty.

[Sheilbh]

People who complain about the skeptics (and even want to deny them the acknowledgment of that title) seem to forget that scientific progress is propelled by the honest skeptics.  The honesty of skeptics should be dealt with on an individual basis, because disagreement /= dishonesty.

I've no problem with the honest sceptics and the debate within the scientific community.  There's no doubt that there's space for that or that that is scepticism.  What I object to is the title of sceptic being conferred upon people - especially political figures - who are doubting the basic science itself the stuff that almost everyone agrees with.  For example the author of DS's op-ed agrees with the basic science, I believe Bjorn Lomkqvist (sp?) does too.  They're a world away from people who deny the existence of a greenhouse effect despite the fact that such an effect has, I believe, been proven - it is a theory that works and I think objection to it does not come from a scientific basis but a political one.

You're right, of course, that we don't have a unified theory of climate because we don't know how much different influences matter and so on and we're still discovering that.  But the basic science is known.  We know that the sun has an effect on climate and on cloud formation; we don't know how much.  We know that the greenhouse effect exists; we don't know how much of an effect it has overall.  And so on.

If anything it's the uncertainty of it that makes me think we should sometimes be dangerously radical.  I mean it makes sense that there is a certain point at which the density of cold fresh water causes the gulf stream to stop; we don't know that point but logically it must exist and while the Arctic is melting we have no idea how close we are to that point.  That's a scary thought.

[Ed Anger]

Hijacking this thread. Coal field troubles.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_coalfields_flash_point

Fear of violence grows in mountaintop mining fight
AP

By VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer – Sat Dec 19, 9:30 pm ET

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. – It was the slap heard 'round the coalfields: Cordelia Ruth Tucker, wearing the fluorescent-striped shirt of a miner, strode past West Virginia state troopers and into a stream of marchers protesting mountaintop removal mining to deliver an audible smack.

The 54-year-old Rock Creek woman isn't talking as she awaits trial on a battery charge. Her neighbor, environmental activist Judy Bonds, says she was on the receiving end of the slap.

And Bonds — like many in a place where labor disputes have a violent history — fears more blows will follow as the fight escalates over mountaintop removal, the uniquely Appalachian form of strip mining that involves blowing tops off mountains and dumping the rubble in valleys.

For nearly a decade, environmentalists and the mining industry battled in courtrooms and the Capitol. Arrests were unheard of.

This year, as mountaintop removal has drawn more scrutiny from regulators, policy makers and the public, the activists' strategy changed.

There have been nearly 100 arrests in 20 protests, most involving trespassing. Led by a new group called Climate Ground Zero, the activists have chained themselves to giant dump trucks, scaled 80-foot trees to stop blasting and paddled into a 9 million-gallon sludge pond. They've blocked roads, hung banners and staged sit-ins.

Virginia-based Massey Energy claims a single 3 1/2-hour occupation at Progress Coal Co. in Twilight cost the company $300,000. Two environmentalists pleaded no contest to battery after that incident for trying to push past a miner and climb a 20-story, earth-moving crane.

Mountaintop removal foes say the industry and its allies are stoking fear and anger among miners and their friends by accusing environmentalists, Congress and the Obama administration of trying to kill coal through regulation and permitting.

Massey equates anti-coal with anti-American. Pittsburgh-based Consol Energy blames the planned layoffs of 482 miners on a lawsuit by the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.

Both sides are fighting for a way of life. The miners see the mountains as their livelihood. The environmentalists see them as divine and irreplaceable creations.

Since that slap in June, conflict has manifested itself mainly in harsh words and shows of force: Shout-downs by hundreds of miners at an Army Corps of Engineers hearing; a bare-bellied miner's profane, throat-slitting gesture at a picnic for environmentalists on Kayford Mountain; a curse-laden online tirade in which someone using the screen name "Superhippieslayer" warns, "Look out violence is coming your way. There is a group ready as we speak to eliminate the threat."

The bitter feelings bubble up in comments posted on YouTube video links to incidents like the June 23 protest march where Bonds was slapped. Hundreds of comments were posted after she spoke at a Dec. 7 rally in Charleston, many laced with profanities.

It's to the point where Bonds, a diminutive 57-year-old, has installed home-security cameras, carries a handgun and checks her car for dangling bomb wires.

"I feel a sense of dread," she said. "You're taking your life in your hands if they know who you are."

Lorelei Scarbro, an activist with Coal River Mountain Watch, said the industry provokes the miners as it demonizes the environmentalists.

"It's not the working man that's the problem here," Scarbro said. "It's the industry and the way they continue to use and exploit people on both sides of the issue, whether it's the working man trying to take care of his family or the environmentalist trying to take care of us all."

Environmentalists use words like "corrupt," "greedy" and "thugs" to describe the pro-coal establishment. Industry counters with words like "hippies," "extremists" and "terrorists."

The West Virginia Coal Association dismisses much of the inflammatory language as harmless rhetoric, to be expected when jobs are on the line.

"We absolutely don't condone people who use threats, intimidation and general thuggism," said senior vice president Chris Hamilton. However, "from our standpoint, it's more difficult to engage in constructive discussion with someone who has as their primary objective to shut the industry down."

Neither side is backing down.

"People are not going to just roll over and let their livelihood be regulated out of business," said Beckley coal truck supplier Carl Hubbard, who bemoaned "limp-wristed greeniacs" in a recent newspaper column. "God put that coal here for us to mine, in my view."

There have been pleas to tone things down.

In July, after the South Charleston Museum board of directors canceled the premiere of the film "Coal Country" over unspecified security concerns, the West Virginia Council of Churches begged both sides to respect the rights of lawful assembly and free speech.

Months later, executive director Dennis Sparks is still waiting: "There's not a day goes by that we don't lift it up in prayer."

Politicians and power brokers have generally responded by inciting or standing indifferent. Take state Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin: "The Lord didn't create many things without a purpose. But mosquitoes and the EPA come close, I think."

U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd recently became an important exception, rebuking the industry.

"The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal," he said. "Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counterproductive."

Elsewhere, rhetoric might be dismissed as just that, but the coalfields have a bloody history.

In 1920, a shootout between unionizing miners and coal company security guards left 12 men dead on the streets of Matewan, W.Va. The 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, an armed union uprising, eventually required the intervention of federal troops. During a union strike in the 1980s, car windows were smashed and shots were fired.

"But this is different," said William Kovarik, an associate professor at Radford University in Virginia who studies and teaches the history of environmental movements worldwide.

Now the conflict is between miners and people within their own communities.

"Union and nonunion workers are being told by management that their livelihoods are at great risk from out-of-state environmentalists," Kovarik said. "Management is going out of its way to equate them with terrorists, when in reality, they are their own neighbors, grandparents, retired coal miners and college students."

And dehumanizing your opponent, Kovarik said, can open the door to real violence.

Activist Chuck Nelson, a former underground miner from Glen Daniel, said the longer surface miners face uncertainty, the more the danger grows: The federal government must act soon, one way or the other.

And if the EPA comes down on the environmentalists' side?

"Well," Nelson said, "there's a possibility it might not be safe to live in the Coal River Valley."

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

If anything it's the uncertainty of it that makes me think we should sometimes be dangerously radical.

That's the worst attitude one can take when the functioning of a system is so uncertain.  Radical actions will likely lead to radical changes, but with such a chaotic system seemingly beneficial changes may end up being worse than allowing the current path of the system to continue.

Part of my issue with how the climate change debate has transformed in the popular sense is that it has become this argument over a single, binary condition: is the average temperature of the Earth increasing, and if so, how are humans causing or accelerating it.  This is a dangerously simplistic focus for a system we know so little about.  There are many smaller-scale, and better understood, changes going on regionally or locally.  These changes may or may not matter outside of the area they directly impact.  Regardless of their global impact, though, they are a serious problem and should be rectified.  While fixing these problems may not affect the global problem, whatever that problem actually is, those actions will have known benefits to the local environments.  We should be focusing on those problems before taking "dangerously radical" actions like forcing a significant drop in the carbon outputs of major economies.

I mean it makes sense that there is a certain point at which the density of cold fresh water causes the gulf stream to stop; we don't know that point but logically it must exist and while the Arctic is melting we have no idea how close we are to that point.

Why?  Do we really understand the Gulf Stream well enough to say what will happen?  I'm familiar with the theory that declining salinity in the Arctic could slow or even shut down the Gulf Stream, and from what I've read it appears to be a solid theory,  In no way does this mean such a point must logically exist.

I highlight this point because it illustrates a concern I expressed earlier, that we are making decisions based on details of a system we don't understand very well.  There are other macro cycles in the system that, like the Gulf Stream, are very well observed and understood as they exist, but not in how they may change and what might affect them.  Taking our theories on how these cycles may be perturbed and assuming only the details may be off (decreasing salinity in the Arctic will stop the Gulf Stream; its just a question of how much) is potentially dangerous.

[Sheilbh]

I highlight this point because it illustrates a concern I expressed earlier, that we are making decisions based on details of a system we don't understand very well.  There are other macro cycles in the system that, like the Gulf Stream, are very well observed and understood as they exist, but not in how they may change and what might affect them.  Taking our theories on how these cycles may be perturbed and assuming only the details may be off (decreasing salinity in the Arctic will stop the Gulf Stream; its just a question of how much) is potentially dangerous.

What's the danger?  And what decisions have we made off of this? 

Let's be clear the danger of radical environmental policies is a few years of slow economic growth and the concordant social costs - which isn't to be sniffed at but isn't an abyss.  The EU's reduced emissions a small amount and now the world's promised to consider trying terribly hard to cut emissions generally.  I can't think of many actual decisions that have been taken on this subject - certainly at an international level - as opposed to, tragically, lots more hot air.

While fixing these problems may not affect the global problem, whatever that problem actually is, those actions will have known benefits to the local environments.  We should be focusing on those problems before taking "dangerously radical" actions like forcing a significant drop in the carbon outputs of major economies.

What do you mean by the local environments?

[The Brain]

By VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer

Who wrote the article?

[AnchorClanker]

Palin is not merely noise. She's the face of America's right wing. If you want to look for fellow science denialists allies across the sea, there is no better standard bearer. 

Uh - she's the face of the moronic right wing.  Which isn't the majority of the right - perhaps 1/4 of the sum total.
The rest are resigned to her and her ilk, or are casting about for somebody less obnoxious and silly.

A new intern showed up - a quasi-observant Catholic Georgetown grad - and we have political discussions on
occasion.  Her take is interesting, that Palin has qualities the some admire, and that she is an empty vessel that
many pour their hopes and dreams into... much like Obama for the left.  There's no real critical thought as to the
real qualities, just that the individual serves as a cipher for a kaleidescope of viewpoints.  I find this to ring true, although it disturbs me none the less.

[Ed Anger]

By VICKI SMITH, Associated Press Writer Vicki Smith, Associated Press Writer

Who wrote the article?

Joe Dirt.