If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Smithsonian Magazine)   It seems scientists need to be better about backing up their data; according to new reports, nearly 90% of data in most studies and research are lost within twenty years   (blogs.smithsonianmag.com) divider line 140
    More: Fail, Current Biology, molecular ecology, data store, reproducibility, light-years  
•       •       •

656 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Dec 2013 at 9:33 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-30 09:01:05 AM

SomeoneDumb: Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s I first heard the saying that digital lasts forever or five years, whichever comes first. This is old news to anyone who's ever done a backup.


Sometimes back in the '90s I got a new job and they had the guy I was replacing spend some time doing some knowledge transfer.

He decided to delete a particular user (who was still active) from the system and said I could restore it from backup as an exercise.  So I tried.  Every single backup tape they had was bad.  He had been dutifully making backups on tapes that had been there longer than he had been and had never checked to see if the data was retrievable.

Their backup strategy wasn't too robust.  The tape rotation was more or less Monday thru Friday with an occasional monthly backup seeming only made when he felt like it and of course no offsite storage.
 
2013-12-30 09:10:18 AM

way south: /It ends up getting shredded, burned, or  flooded out anyway... unless you've got a proper storage facility.


Or you can always fake the data and *CLAIM* it was flooded out.

On a serious note, though, if the data is important enough that you think it should be preserved for future generations, then the physical storage is really a minor consideration.  Like I pointed out above, a terabyte only takes up a volume of 2.6 cubic feet when printed out on quality heavy weight paper.

And there is no reason you can't use both electronic storage for normal "use" and a hard copy for archival purposes.
 
2013-12-30 09:26:51 AM

doglover: All science is not created equal. How many documents about the statistical details of which side of the bifurcated penis of the ring-tailed lizard (ronicus jermimicus) uses during mating does humanity really need? Meanwhile, I betcha a dollar anything to do with advancing aircraft technology is rigorously updated and preserved.


Yeah, who cares about the inherited characteristics of pea plants?
 
2013-12-30 09:34:49 AM

SevenizGud: if I worked in an imaginary "science", like climatology


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-30 09:41:01 AM

Fano: doglover: All science is not created equal. How many documents about the statistical details of which side of the bifurcated penis of the ring-tailed lizard (ronicus jermimicus) uses during mating does humanity really need? Meanwhile, I betcha a dollar anything to do with advancing aircraft technology is rigorously updated and preserved.

Yeah, who cares about the inherited characteristics of pea plants?


I've never had a burning desire to look over Mendeleev's complete notes. His students' notes even less so.

Science is a process. Once the hypothesis is verified by repeatable experiments, you don' t need the data. g=9.8 and any experiment at sea level will show you this. We don't need the charcoal marked ticker tape I used in high school to prove it anymore.
 
2013-12-30 09:44:06 AM

Jon Snow: SevenizGud: if I worked in an imaginary "science", like climatology

[i.imgur.com image 686x572]


He's not trolling: climatology really is an imaginary "science".
 
2013-12-30 09:44:42 AM
That's why you detail your methodology when you report on a study and included detailed summaries of your data... So that if you or someone else want to repeat the study, you know how to it and what results to expect.

No one needs all the raw data to do that for most studies. The only time those raw data are really valuable is if you are trying to conduct some form of data mining.
 
2013-12-30 09:49:08 AM

secularsage: That's why you detail your methodology when you report on a study and included detailed summaries of your data... So that if you or someone else want to repeat the study, you know how to it and what results to expect.

No one needs all the raw data to do that for most studies. The only time those raw data are really valuable is if you are trying to conduct some form of data mining.


Well, for something like space exploration, you want to preserve all data.
 
2013-12-30 09:49:29 AM
All the old fart professors don't understand how technology works. They think their computers will work forever.
 
2013-12-30 09:58:30 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Jon Snow: SevenizGud: if I worked in an imaginary "science", like climatology

[i.imgur.com image 686x572]

He's not trolling: climatology really is an imaginary "science".


The strawman version in your mind no doubt is.

But then again, you don't understand relatively basic concepts like the respective roles of the sun, the ocean, and GHGs have in planetary energy balance and surface heating.

Of course that doesn't stop you from spouting nonsense in climate thread after climate thread however.
 
2013-12-30 10:00:19 AM

THE GREAT NAME: He's not trolling: climatology really is an imaginary "science".


Climatology is a science regardless of whether you agree with its conclusions or not. It's people studying the climate.
 
2013-12-30 10:04:34 AM

Clash City Farker: All the old fart professors don't understand how technology works. They think their computers will work forever.


yes, that's the bill of goods they were sold when they were dragged kicking and screaming into converting from paper.
 
2013-12-30 10:06:42 AM

doglover: I've never had a burning desire to look over Mendeleev's complete notes. His students' notes even less so.


FTFY

Mendeleev was a chemist.  Mendel was a geneticist (sort of).
 
2013-12-30 10:09:33 AM

Chameleon: doglover: I've never had a burning desire to look over Mendeleev's complete notes. His students' notes even less so.

FTFY

Mendeleev was a chemist.  Mendel was a geneticist (sort of).


To be fair, Mendeleev looks more like the guy who watches peas fark.

www.nndb.com


www.biography.com
 
2013-12-30 10:11:57 AM

Jon Snow: Of course that doesn't stop you from spouting nonsense in climate thread after climate thread however.


He's been doing this for awhile. He's like the winterwhile of climate change, always insisting that climatology is not a science. As if we just made up the whole concept of studying the atmosphere, oceans, continents, ice caps and ecosystems, and there's nothing we can learn from them even if we did.
 
2013-12-30 10:22:29 AM

gfid: SomeoneDumb: Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s I first heard the saying that digital lasts forever or five years, whichever comes first. This is old news to anyone who's ever done a backup.

Sometimes back in the '90s I got a new job and they had the guy I was replacing spend some time doing some knowledge transfer.

He decided to delete a particular user (who was still active) from the system and said I could restore it from backup as an exercise.  So I tried.  Every single backup tape they had was bad.  He had been dutifully making backups on tapes that had been there longer than he had been and had never checked to see if the data was retrievable.

Their backup strategy wasn't too robust.  The tape rotation was more or less Monday thru Friday with an occasional monthly backup seeming only made when he felt like it and of course no offsite storage.


I wouldn't be at all surprised if the procedure you mentioned wasn't SOP at tons of places. We used to do daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annual backups at the credit unions I worked at and sent all that stuff offsite, often with ridiculous retention times. It was pretty funny looking at a lot of the old stuff, only because we would have had to buy an entire new machine room to house the legacy systems that could read, much less run, the old data. "Sure, we have the backups. Now, who's got a reel tape drive or something that can read a RM05 disk?"
 
2013-12-30 10:22:57 AM

doglover: Chameleon: doglover: I've never had a burning desire to look over Mendeleev's complete notes. His students' notes even less so.

FTFY

Mendeleev was a chemist.  Mendel was a geneticist (sort of).

To be fair, Mendeleev looks more like the guy who watches peas fark.

[www.nndb.com image 240x319]


[www.biography.com image 402x402]


I don't know.  I can see both those guys breathing heavy while muttering quietly about pistils and stamens.
 
2013-12-30 10:52:26 AM

Chameleon: doglover: Chameleon: doglover: I've never had a burning desire to look over Mendeleev's complete notes. His students' notes even less so.

FTFY

Mendeleev was a chemist.  Mendel was a geneticist (sort of).

To be fair, Mendeleev looks more like the guy who watches peas fark.

[www.nndb.com image 240x319]


[www.biography.com image 402x402]

I don't know.  I can see both those guys breathing heavy while muttering quietly about pistils and stamens.


Yeah, but Mendeleev would only WATCH.
 
2013-12-30 11:23:12 AM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: He's not trolling: climatology really is an imaginary "science".

Climatology is a science regardless of whether you agree with its conclusions or not. It's people studying the climate.


By that criterion, you would call astrology, homeopathy and ghost hunting sciences. And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.
 
2013-12-30 11:26:49 AM

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Jon Snow: SevenizGud: if I worked in an imaginary "science", like climatology

[i.imgur.com image 686x572]

He's not trolling: climatology really is an imaginary "science".

The strawman version in your mind no doubt is.


It is you who fantasises about climatology. You keep rationalising that it is a coherent science. In a recent thread, you were trying to move the goalposts in response to climatology's failed predictions of atmospheric temperature rise. The reality is, climatology has mode no correct predictions.
 
2013-12-30 11:28:38 AM
By all means, John Q. Public, if you think this is a problem that science needs to fix, please continue to cut funding. Gutting the revenue streams will ensure that everyone has the means necessary to permanently archive their data.
 
2013-12-30 11:39:35 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: He's not trolling: climatology really is an imaginary "science".

Climatology is a science regardless of whether you agree with its conclusions or not. It's people studying the climate.

By that criterion, you would call astrology, homeopathy and ghost hunting sciences. And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.


[crude expression of contempt for your opinion] [assertion that your claim is obviously fallacious] [vehement expletive regarding your lack intellectual honesty]

/word fail
 
2013-12-30 11:40:32 AM

THE GREAT NAME: By that criterion, you would call astrology, homeopathy and ghost hunting sciences


No, those are currently pseudo-sciences. They are alternative explanations of studying natural phenomena (in this case: astronomy, medicine and thanatology, respectively) that do not fit the current models that we have for understanding them. This doesn't rule out whether they may be true in the future, just that they aren't true now for there is insufficient evidence to consider their assertions.

THE GREAT NAME: And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.


So tell me: What natural model for understanding and explaining the composition and changes in the Earth's climate do you accept, since you consider Climatology to be an alternative pseudo-science?
 
2013-12-30 11:46:19 AM
Ishkur:. He's like the winterwhile of climate change, always insisting that climatology is not a science. As if we just made up the whole concept of studying the atmosphere,

Meteorology, physics, chemistry and cosmology (a little)

oceans,

Oceanography, physics, chemistry, biology

continents,

Geology, physics, chemistry, biology

ice caps

Oceanography, p, c, b

and ecosystems,

Biology, p, c, zoology

and there's nothing we can learn from them even if we did.

I say all these are legitimate sciences - we have learned much from them and will learn more in the future. You think you have NAME's number but you are so full of your own opinions you haven't actually stopped to listen to what NAME has been saying in climate threads.

NAME's view is that climatology is not like these real sciences, but instead more like astrology or tarot-card reading, and is rapidly turning into a new religion.

Climatologists cite legitimate papers in other areas as supporting the climate apocolypse myth, when they do nothing of the sort. They then claim that the real scientists who produced those papers are supporters of tthe myth when they are not. This is where the "hundreds of scientists and thousands of papers" lie comes from. Any real scientist who dares to protest gets their funding cut because the institutions that control funding are politicised and controlled by left-wing activists.

But if you want to keep calling NAME anti-science, please continue - you are doing nothing more than displaying your blinkered approach to the debate for all the world to see. The take-home message for readers is that Ishkur (and some other alarmists) cannot cope with a climatology sceptic who supports science - and can only debate by trying to portray sceptics as science haters. But the reality is that scepticism per se is very much a part of science, and climatology's utter rejection of it (likening it to holocaust denial) is one of the reasons climatology is not science.
 
2013-12-30 11:51:12 AM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: By that criterion, you would call astrology, homeopathy and ghost hunting sciences

No, those are currently pseudo-sciences. They are alternative explanations of studying natural phenomena (in this case: astronomy, medicine and thanatology, respectively) that do not fit the current models that we have for understanding them.


This sound cute but the claims made by astrologers do not conflict in any way with the claims made by astronomers. It is possible for both to be true. However, astrology fails to make accurate predictions. Just like climatology.
 
2013-12-30 11:53:10 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur:. He's like the winterwhile of climate change, always insisting that climatology is not a science. As if we just made up the whole concept of studying the atmosphere,

Meteorology, physics, chemistry and cosmology (a little)

oceans,

Oceanography, physics, chemistry, biology

continents,

Geology, physics, chemistry, biology

ice caps

Oceanography, p, c, b

and ecosystems,

Biology, p, c, zoology

and there's nothing we can learn from them even if we did.

I say all these are legitimate sciences - we have learned much from them and will learn more in the future. You think you have NAME's number but you are so full of your own opinions you haven't actually stopped to listen to what NAME has been saying in climate threads.

NAME's view is that climatology is not like these real sciences, but instead more like astrology or tarot-card reading, and is rapidly turning into a new religion.

Climatologists cite legitimate papers in other areas as supporting the climate apocolypse myth, when they do nothing of the sort. They then claim that the real scientists who produced those papers are supporters of tthe myth when they are not. This is where the "hundreds of scientists and thousands of papers" lie comes from. Any real scientist who dares to protest gets their funding cut because the institutions that control funding are politicised and controlled by left-wing activists.

But if you want to keep calling NAME anti-science, please continue - you are doing nothing more than displaying your blinkered approach to the debate for all the world to see. The take-home message for readers is that Ishkur (and some other alarmists) cannot cope with a climatology sceptic who supports science - and can only debate by trying to portray sceptics as science haters. But the reality is that scepticism per se is very much a part of science, and climatology's utter rejection of it (likening it to holocaust denial) is one of the reasons climatology is not science.


Thats a lot of words that just boil down to "Deeeeerrrrrrrrpppppp".

/would say more but on mah phone
 
2013-12-30 11:53:26 AM

THE GREAT NAME: The reality is, climatology has mode no correct predictions.


Like:

Increased absorption of radiation at the wavelengths corresponding to GHGs?

Increased energy imbalance as outgoing longwave radiation fails to increase inline with rising SSTs?

Cooling of the stratosphere?

Raising of the tropopause?

Contraction of the upper atmosphere?

Poleward expansion of the tropics?

And on and on and on.

But of course you're completely ignorant of these and a whole host of other validated predictions. Because you are staggeringly ignorant of even the fundamentals on this issue.

Or perhaps you think that climate models and surface instrumental readings are in wild disagreement? They're not.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-30 11:53:58 AM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.

So tell me: What natural model for understanding and explaining the composition and changes in the Earth's climate do you accept, since you consider Climatology to be an alternative pseudo-science?


Meteorology. In the long term limit, it becomes chaos theory (basically) and predicts unpredictable fluctuations that resemble pink noise (scale-invariant) and what we see in the data seems to fit, so this is the null hypothesis we run with until someone else can do better. Climatology has not.
 
2013-12-30 11:56:11 AM
Summercat:

Thats a lot of words that just boil down to "Deeeeerrrrrrrrpppppp".

/would say more but on mah phone


I was going to respond, but then I saw the Bio: section on your profile and realised it would be like wrestling a pig.
 
2013-12-30 11:56:18 AM

THE GREAT NAME: I say all these are legitimate sciences


Climate science is simply interdisciplinary work within all of these sciences, which you yourself agree are "legitimate".

So congratulations! You've demonstrated why climate science is a legitimate field.
 
2013-12-30 11:59:44 AM

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: The reality is, climatology has mode no correct predictions.

Like:

[i.imgur.com image 600x544]


What your graph clearly shows is that the unadjusted trend differs from the IPCC prediction and indeed has recently gone outside even the widest error margin; a failed prediction. Were you hoping people would look at that graph uncritically?
 
2013-12-30 12:00:05 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.

So tell me: What natural model for understanding and explaining the composition and changes in the Earth's climate do you accept, since you consider Climatology to be an alternative pseudo-science?

Meteorology. In the long term limit, it becomes chaos theory (basically) and predicts unpredictable fluctuations that resemble pink noise (scale-invariant) and what we see in the data seems to fit, so this is the null hypothesis we run with until someone else can do better. Climatology has not.


Oh look. Someone doesn't understand the difference between initial value problems and boundary value problems!

Hey, TGN. Is it typically colder in the NH during boreal winter or summer?

According to your insane ramblings, chaos theory should make this question unanswerable. But it's obviously not. And the reason is that it's not an initial value problem, but rather a boundary value problem.

We're not trying to forecast the local weather in Chicago on June 17th, 2106.

We're examining how changing the boundary values of the climate system affect the background conditions of the system across large spatial and temporal scales.
 
2013-12-30 12:00:48 PM

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: I say all these are legitimate sciences

Climate science is simply interdisciplinary work within all of these sciences, which you yourself agree are "legitimate".

So congratulations! You've demonstrated why climate science is a legitimate field.


That clearly does not follow. Citing papers by real scientists does not make you a real scientist.
 
2013-12-30 12:03:35 PM

dittybopper: How often do you need to store a few TB of data?


You might be surprised.  I have one project that only clocks in around 50-75 MB for all the data and analysis.  On the other hand, my current paper's backup just hit 450 MB, and will easily surpass a TB by the time everything has been calculated.  I know a colleague who's got a project going that's using a database that hits about 3.5 TB.  A decent number of the projects going on around here probably use less than 100 MB for their storage.  I'd say the larger > TB databases are more the exception than the rule in my experience.
 
2013-12-30 12:04:46 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Summercat:

Thats a lot of words that just boil down to "Deeeeerrrrrrrrpppppp".

/would say more but on mah phone

I was going to respond, but then I saw the Bio: section on your profile and realised it would be like wrestling a pig.


In short, you got nuffin.

/I dont even know what i have there anymore, i set it and forgot.
 
2013-12-30 12:05:12 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.

So tell me: What natural model for understanding and explaining the composition and changes in the Earth's climate do you accept, since you consider Climatology to be an alternative pseudo-science?

Meteorology. In the long term limit, it becomes chaos theory (basically) and predicts unpredictable fluctuations that resemble pink noise (scale-invariant) and what we see in the data seems to fit, so this is the null hypothesis we run with until someone else can do better. Climatology has not.


Chaos theory does not predict unpredictable fluctuations. Your statement shows a pathetic lack of understanding of non-linear dynamics. What it describes is "strange attractors"* which can be thought of as probability regions where a modeled event is likely to be found in actuality.

Sorry it doesn't tell you whether to wear a coat to next March's Science Denier rally, but it is a real science.

*Chaos theory and strange attractors are unfortunate terminology that have created great confusion about the discipline. Cutesy names really don't belong here.
 
2013-12-30 12:07:16 PM

THE GREAT NAME: I say all these are legitimate sciences - we have learned much from them and will learn more in the future.


So your complaint against climatology is that it is an interdisciplinary science that takes into account evidence and research from other sciences? Do you also have similar beefs against physics, chemistry and biology, because they're interdisciplinary as well, each one reliant on dozens of smaller specialized fields. Hell, there's a huge debate over where chemistry ends and biology begins, and it necessitated the creation of a new field: Biochemistry. That's how science works. The more we learn about something, the more it is broken down into specialized fields of study.

Evolution is also an interdisciplinary science. It's not just biology. It is also reliant on geology and geophysics, geography, astronomy and cosmology, anatomy and medicine, paleontology, genetics, molecular biology and microbiology, botany, glaciology and hydrology, pharmocology, oceanography, lithology and petrology, nematology, ornithology, zoology and ethology, chronology, gerontology, cybernetics and linguistics, ecology and environmental sciences, information sciences and systems sciences and more.

But would you dispute its findings because it relies on all these other things? That's a peculiar way of looking at rational inquiry. Most sciences rely on other sciences to bolster their claims. Why would you think they all operate in a vacuum? That's not the way the natural world works.

THE GREAT NAME: You think you have NAME's number but you are so full of your own opinions you haven't actually stopped to listen to what NAME has been saying in climate threads.


I'm not interested in your chest-thumping bravado, I would like to see you back up your assertions with facts.

THE GREAT NAME: NAME's view is that climatology is not like these real sciences, but instead more like astrology or tarot-card reading, and is rapidly turning into a new religion.


In what way?

THE GREAT NAME: Climatologists cite legitimate papers in other areas as supporting the climate apocolypse myth, when they do nothing of the sort. They then claim that the real scientists who produced those papers are supporters of tthe myth when they are not. This is where the "hundreds of scientists and thousands of papers" lie comes from. Any real scientist who dares to protest gets their funding cut because the institutions that control funding are politicised and controlled by left-wing activists.


An interesting claim. Please provide evidence on why you think this is so.
 
2013-12-30 12:09:49 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: The reality is, climatology has mode no correct predictions.

Like:

[i.imgur.com image 600x544]

What your graph clearly shows is that the unadjusted trend differs from the IPCC prediction and indeed has recently gone outside even the widest error margin; a failed prediction. Were you hoping people would look at that graph uncritically?


Sorry, swing and a miss. Even the raw obs don't fall outside of the multimodel spread.

i.imgur.com

We're of course not interested in whether or not any given year is going to be above or below the model predictions. Variability induced by things like ENSO guarantee this will happen. As I mentioned in our previous discussion, the period from 1992-2007 had temps increasing higher than the models during that period, and we understood that this was simply a combination of Pinatubo induced cooling and rather warm ENSO events.

We're interested in looking at the underlying forced signal rather than the variability.

But, THE GREAT NAME, why did you ignore the successful predictions I listed? Why did you ignore the fact that you don't even understand the process by which GHGs and the ocean warm the planet?

I mean other than the fact that it reveals you to be completely ignorant of the subject matter under discussion that is.
 
2013-12-30 12:10:09 PM

THE GREAT NAME: This sound cute but the claims made by astrologers do not conflict in any way with the claims made by astronomers


Yes they do. Astrologers claim that the position of the planets in the night sky in some way contribute to your personality, in addition to what month your parents were having the most productive sex. Science has affirmed these claims as, at the very least, statistically insignificant, and at the most, egregiously false.

Now: What claims has climatology made that has been demonstrated to be false by scientific studies?
 
2013-12-30 12:16:02 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Meteorology


Is the study of the atmosphere, which is important in climate studies but not the only thing. So it cannot capture the big picture. It's like saying biology covers everything about evolution. As I previously said, yes it is a vital component, but it doesn't explain everything.

Your claim is insufficient.
 
2013-12-30 12:21:25 PM

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: And, indeed, this is the company climatology keeps. It is utterly supernatural.

So tell me: What natural model for understanding and explaining the composition and changes in the Earth's climate do you accept, since you consider Climatology to be an alternative pseudo-science?

Meteorology. In the long term limit, it becomes chaos theory (basically) and predicts unpredictable fluctuations that resemble pink noise (scale-invariant) and what we see in the data seems to fit, so this is the null hypothesis we run with until someone else can do better. Climatology has not.

Oh look. Someone doesn't understand the difference between initial value problems and boundary value problems!

Hey, TGN. Is it typically colder in the NH during boreal winter or summer?

According to your insane ramblings, chaos theory should make this question unanswerable. But it's obviously not. And the reason is that it's not an initial value problem, but rather a boundary value problem.

We're not trying to forecast the local weather in Chicago on June 17th, 2106.

We're examining how changing the boundary values of the climate system affect the background conditions of the system across large spatial and temporal scales.


I assume thay you are using the term "initial value problem" to refer to a prediction problem, and "boundary value problem" to refer to calculating an expected state based on drivers

But if (apart from obvious cycles like day/night, summer/winter etc) the system is chaotic then you can never go further than hypothesize about the effects of drivers because you can never show that your models are correct, because you can never eliminate the chaotic effect. You can never say, "I know this artifact is a result of the drivers (changing boundary conditions in your terminology)" because you have no way of showing it wasn't a chaotic fluctuation of a sort that cannot be predicted (neither initial nor boundary conditions can practially predict chaotic behaviour).

So, you can model from boundary conditions, but you can never test your model, which is why it is not science. Controversial aspects of the models such as strong positive feedbacks cannot be proved, and should not be accepted
on trust. You can say that a certain articact, like the 1978-1998 rise is due to drivers, but you can't show that it wasn't natural. And to claim that the rise was the result of anthropogenic drivers but that the level period since then is just sort-of-random is utter charlatanism.
 
2013-12-30 12:22:28 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: Meteorology

Is the study of the atmosphere, which is important in climate studies but not the only thing. So it cannot capture the big picture. It's like saying biology covers everything about evolution. As I previously said, yes it is a vital component, but it doesn't explain everything.


Indeed. You can use simple energy balance models to understand the differences in climate between Earth, Venus, and Mars that have zero meteorology in them.
 
2013-12-30 12:23:45 PM

THE GREAT NAME: That clearly does not follow. Citing papers by real scientists does not make you a real scientist.


You're missing the point completely.

The exact same methods, data, and researchers involved in what you agree are "legitimate" science are involved in climate science.

The same models used to investigate the impact of increasing GHGs on Earth's climate are used to model the climates of other planets.

The same atmospheric dynamics that we have used to attribute changes in the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere on Earth apply to the atmospheres of other planets.

There is no "AGW-oceanography" and then "non-AGW-oceanography".

If we stabilized GHG emissions tomorrow and effectively removed the issue from international concern, researchers would simply focus on different aspects of the same fields they have been working in. That's because there is no "AGW science" apart from vanilla science.
 
2013-12-30 12:26:33 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: I say all these are legitimate sciences - we have learned much from them and will learn more in the future.

So your complaint against climatology is that it is an interdisciplinary science that takes into account evidence and research from other sciences?


No. My complaint is that climatology is a pseodo-science that misuses and misrepresents evidence and research from other sciences. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
 
2013-12-30 12:28:46 PM

KhanAidan: dittybopper: How often do you need to store a few TB of data?

You might be surprised.  I have one project that only clocks in around 50-75 MB for all the data and analysis.  On the other hand, my current paper's backup just hit 450 MB, and will easily surpass a TB by the time everything has been calculated.  I know a colleague who's got a project going that's using a database that hits about 3.5 TB.  A decent number of the projects going on around here probably use less than 100 MB for their storage.  I'd say the larger > TB databases are more the exception than the rule in my experience.


How much of that is raw data that you don't need to save long term, and how much of it is processed data that you want to save?
 
2013-12-30 12:29:27 PM

THE GREAT NAME: But if (apart from obvious cycles like day/night, summer/winter etc)


What makes it warmer in the daytime vs. the nighttime? What makes it warmer in summer vs. winter?

THE GREAT NAME: you can never go further than hypothesize about the effects of drivers because you can never show that your models are correct


THE GREAT NAME: You can never say, "I know this artifact is a result of the drivers (changing boundary conditions in your terminology)" because you have no way of showing it wasn't a chaotic fluctuation of a sort that cannot be predicted (neither initial nor boundary conditions can practially predict chaotic behaviour)


You mean like demonstrating the change in the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere occurring inline with theoretical expectations of enhanced greenhouse warming, which is a completely different behavior than occurs either due to natural variability or due to increases in other kinds of radiative forcing, such as solar?

You're acting like the climate system is magic and that we don't have physics. You're making a classic fallacious argument from ignorance.
 
2013-12-30 12:30:21 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: I say all these are legitimate sciences - we have learned much from them and will learn more in the future.

So your complaint against climatology is that it is an interdisciplinary science that takes into account evidence and research from other sciences?

No. My complaint is that climatology is a pseodo-science that misuses and misrepresents evidence and research from other sciences. I thought I was pretty clear about that.


Truly, a dizzying intellect.
 
2013-12-30 12:32:21 PM

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: This sound cute but the claims made by astrologers do not conflict in any way with the claims made by astronomers

Yes they do. Astrologers claim that the position of the planets in the night sky in some way contribute to your personality, in addition to what month your parents were having the most productive sex. Science has affirmed these claims as, at the very least, statistically insignificant, and at the most, egregiously false.

Your thinking is fuzzy. Astrology makes claims that do not contradict those of astronomy. I agree that these claims are nonsense, but my point was that they are not contradictory, and you were wrong to suggest they were.

 Now: What claims has climatology made that has been demonstrated to be false by scientific studies?

The failure of air temps to rise since 1998 when climatologists said they would. We are now below the IPCC's lowest predicted temps. It hasn't worked.


Climatology is in the same bracket as astrology now. Its predictions have not come true.
 
2013-12-30 12:39:27 PM

THE GREAT NAME: So, you can model from boundary conditions, but you can never test your model, which is why it is not science.


Not all science is experimentation. In fact, quite a great deal of it isn't. Most science is deductive science: You study the evidence and you build models that account for how the evidence came to be. This is how ALL the historical sciences (including climatology, glaciology, geology, petrology, archeology, paleontology, and yes, even evolution and plate tectonics) operate. Some of them may have some predictive power, but that is not their primary purpose. They are purely explanatory disciplines.

I'm not sure why you need this to be explained to you.
 
2013-12-30 12:40:03 PM

THE GREAT NAME: My complaint is that climatology is a pseodo-science that misuses and misrepresents evidence and research from other sciences.


In what way?
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report