Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Fail, Current Biology, molecular ecology, data store, reproducibility, light-years  
•       •       •

671 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Dec 2013 at 9:33 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-29 08:15:07 PM  
Clearly science can not be trusted
 
2013-12-29 08:26:21 PM  

Heliovdrake: Clearly science can not be trusted


...so climate change is a myth, and you should vote Republican.
 
NFA
2013-12-29 08:50:39 PM  

Heliovdrake: Clearly science can not be trusted


Well perhaps but the evidence was lost...
 
2013-12-29 09:14:40 PM  
The university I work for has a 20 year research project that is ending in the engineering school.  They've been running simulations for years and I came in to back up their data before the project was shut down. Half of their data was live on a SAN and easily backed up.  Anything older than 7 years was on tape in a room filled with farking tapes.  Thousands of them.  I figured we could hire students to load the tapes, move the data over to the SAN temporarily and then back it up.  The project team leader's response?  "Oh, the tape library broke 7 years ago.  We can't read those."

So what should have been a relatively inexpensive, uncomplicated project is now a logistical nightmare.  We found a local community college with a machine that can read the tapes, but they didn't label all of the stripe sets, so some are proving next to impossible to reconstruct.  And it's such a pain in the ass that we can't even use students, we found some old neckbeard at the community college who is working after hours to reconstruct the data for $40 an hour.  He should be done sometime in February.
 
2013-12-29 09:41:39 PM  
FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.
 
2013-12-29 09:47:32 PM  
I had some data invalidating that study, but I can't seem to locate it.....
 
2013-12-29 09:48:36 PM  
That's less a backup issue and more of an archiving problem.
 
2013-12-29 10:01:20 PM  
Up in Canada, PM Harper is giving away the government's science historical data-base to any 'university' who wants it. The rest goes into the dumpster.

/Can't have science interfering with the profits of his best Billionaire Buddys

If no one can be bothered to create new backups(or maintain old reading hardwares) to coincide with changes in storage, well you will be burned as a Witch for denying the 'dark-ages 2' non-electric boogaloo Priests.
 
2013-12-29 10:02:32 PM  
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.
 
2013-12-29 10:09:57 PM  
If you're surprised by this, you've probably never been involved with real science.

If you're bothered by this, may I ask: Do you have your tax-deduction-claimed receipts and work-vehicle mileage records from 1993?

/ holy crap, 1993 was 20 years ago
// may have published real-science articles ~20 years ago
 
2013-12-29 10:17:02 PM  
Apparently "Sad" tag was on a medium subby couldn't access.
 
2013-12-29 10:21:45 PM  

MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.


this is why every so often, you move your data to the new format.
 
2013-12-29 10:22:10 PM  

SFSailor: If you're surprised by this, you've probably never been involved with real science.

If you're bothered by this, may I ask: Do you have your tax-deduction-claimed receipts and work-vehicle mileage records from 1993?

/ holy crap, 1993 was 20 years ago
// may have published real-science articles ~20 years ago


I believe the main requirement was to hold all data for at least 5 years; longer if NIH/NIMH funded but not sure beyond that.
 
2013-12-29 10:23:41 PM  
This is pretty common everywhere, not just in scientific research. Toy Story 2 had a ton of production data deleted and the backups turned out to be garbage. If it wasn't for someone taking home a copy (against policy), the data would have been lost, likely delaying the release of the movie and creating a huge added expense.

It's also rumored that the reason why Microsoft rewrote a significant portion of Access is because the source code for the previous version was lost. This kind of thing happens disturbingly often even without the issue of obsolete media.
 
2013-12-29 10:48:15 PM  
The bible has been backed up and archived for at least 1500 years....but it seems a bit corrupted....wait...hold on, I got another call.
 
2013-12-29 10:48:56 PM  

sheep snorter: Up in Canada, PM Harper is giving away the government's science historical data-base to any 'university' who wants it. The rest goes into the dumpster.

/Can't have science interfering with the profits of his best Billionaire Buddys

If no one can be bothered to create new backups(or maintain old reading hardwares) to coincide with changes in storage, well you will be burned as a Witch for denying the 'dark-ages 2' non-electric boogaloo Priests.


I cant wait for the day when we are finally rid of that asshole. The only question is what kind of canada will be left?
 
2013-12-29 11:00:24 PM  
Hell, I can't remember where I put my keys 5 minutes ago.
 
2013-12-29 11:16:49 PM  

NFA: Heliovdrake: Clearly science can not be trusted
Well perhaps but the evidence was lost...


Lisa: Dad, a tornado is heading toward Springfield!
Homer: Oh Lisa, don't be silly. Springfield hasn't had a tornado in its entire recorded history.
Lisa: Yeah, but the records only go back to 1973 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.
 
2013-12-29 11:21:36 PM  

MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.


I'm sure you could find a 5 1/4" floppy drive around somewhere (probably used).

As for 3.5" drive you can buy them new for less than $15:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. aspx?Item=9SIA1PU0FD9579&nm_mc=A FC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076 &PID=6146953&SID=ueua30q5p9dx

If the data is not worth spending $15 to retrieve, it's probably not worth saving.
 
2013-12-29 11:27:18 PM  
Everything we ever published (~200x, over the lasat 35 years) came with the stipulation we save the data for 5 years.

...still have it all.  Kept transferring to new storage forms.  Funny how that mountain of floppies from the 80's now only needs a fraction of the space on a flash drive...
 
2013-12-29 11:28:54 PM  
Things can be really bad for some forms of data. Not too long ago, instruments usually had thermal printers for output but most labs didn't bother trying to set up direct data collection to a computer (too much hassle). Instead, the printouts were taped into a notebook. What happens to thermal printouts over a decade or more? They stop being readable.

There are also instruments that had proprietary output formats, so even if they did go to computer and the file is still around, it can't be read.
 
2013-12-29 11:33:14 PM  

gfid: As for 3.5" drive you can buy them new for less than $15:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product. aspx?Item=9SIA1PU0FD9579&nm_mc=A FC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076 &PID=6146953&SID=ueua30q5p9dx

If the data is not worth spending $15 to retrieve, it's probably not worth saving.


It's not always that cut-and-dried.  I had a prof ask me to offload some files from some pedestrian-looking 3.5" floppies.  Turns out that Macs were using a totally different system (constant angular velocity vs constant linear velocity?) for their 3.5" floppies in the 400k/800k era (the 1984-88 era) than modern PC-compatible drives.  Like... literally, the hardware won't read the old disks. Macs started going to the latter after 1988, but many up to the mid-90s supported the old floppies.  Fortunately, a few years ago, we still had a vintage Mac available to copy the files.  Today, we'd have to troll fleaBay for one.
 
2013-12-29 11:36:34 PM  

Ishkur: NFA: Heliovdrake: Clearly science can not be trusted
Well perhaps but the evidence was lost...

Lisa: Dad, a tornado is heading toward Springfield!
Homer: Oh Lisa, don't be silly. Springfield hasn't had a tornado in its entire recorded history.
Lisa: Yeah, but the records only go back to 1973 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.


ummm. . .you mean hurricane. . .

We do contract work for application to the EPA.  We have to keep that work on file for several years after the EPA approves of the chemical.  Since we do work before the EPA sees the final results, the final application could be a decade or more after we have done our work.

We have nearly forty years of data in our archives.
 
2013-12-29 11:40:01 PM  

Lawnchair: It's not always that cut-and-dried.  I had a prof ask me to offload some files from some pedestrian-looking 3.5" floppies.  Turns out that Macs were using a totally different system (constant angular velocity vs constant linear velocity?) for their 3.5" floppies in the 400k/800k era (the 1984-88 era) than modern PC-compatible drives.  Like... literally, the hardware won't read the old disks. Macs started going to the latter after 1988, but many up to the mid-90s supported the old floppies.  Fortunately, a few years ago, we still had a vintage Mac available to copy the files.  Today, we'd have to troll fleaBay for one.


I'll go out on a limb and say that if you really want the data, you'll find the time to get the necessary hardware to do it.  The hardware exists, you just have to put out a small amount of effort to acquire it.  I know several people who still possess Commodore 64s.  I am certain I could find an Apple ][e if I wanted to.  All of the normal PC formats (5 1/4, 3 1/2; DD, HD) would be even easier still.
 
2013-12-29 11:54:25 PM  
Well if they kept it safe someone might use it to disprove their findings.
 
2013-12-30 12:10:30 AM  
I worked in the real sciences, and therefore still have all the data.

However, if I worked in an imaginary "science", like climatology, I could discard the data at my whim. In the words of Phil Jones, "we have the data protection act, which I will hide behind".

In English, Phil is saying, "so what if all the data is made up, fark you."

That's how climate "science" works.
 
2013-12-30 12:29:17 AM  
i spent the last half hour rummaging through boxes looking for a scsi adapter to see if an old iomega jaz disk is still readable, so i'm getting a kick out of this...
 
2013-12-30 12:31:19 AM  

SevenizGud: I worked in the real sciences, and therefore still have all the data.


Collecting your spunk in the freezer isn't "science", even if you wear a lab coat.
 
2013-12-30 12:35:09 AM  
I suspect that later ages are going to look at the 20th and 21st centuries as a dark age for sciences, specifically "social" sciences.
 
2013-12-30 12:37:17 AM  

SuperT: MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.

this is why every so often, you move your data to the new format.


Or, alternatively, just print the shiat out on paper and store it. Guaranteed, it will still be readable 100 years from now with no requirement to keep converting to new data formats and media.
 
2013-12-30 12:38:51 AM  
I don't know about the other science folks but at least in Chemistry research at the university level lab notebooks of procedures and data are standard. Data is printed out or written in when digital. When I left with my MS I had a stack of notebooks as high as an elephants eye, literally. Yes, original digital data can be lost or become harder to access but increases in hard drive sizes, flash drives and CD-R and DVD-R have made transferring between old computers and their replacements far easier. Still though most papers should have the necessary data in the form of percent yields and descriptions of data and procedures. Student thesis also contain lots of the same data. My thesis had 100+ pages of spectra and spectrum data. At the university I went to thesis had to be printed in this manner at minimum, a 100% cotton paper copy was archived by the library, and 25% cotton copies were also made up for library circulation, department storage, and one copy for the thesis advisor.
Here are some choice bits of the paper this article was based on:
"Our reason for needing the data (a reproducibility study) was not especially compelling for authors "
"Papers were also excluded if the data were already available as a supplementary file or appendix or on another website, as curation of these data sets is no longer the responsibility of the author."
"In every case, we attempted to find e-mail addresses for the first, corresponding, and last authors of every paper. "
"We therefore also searched online for a maximum of 5 min per author for a recent or current e-mail address. "
I'll let decide on your own what to think about some of that.
 
2013-12-30 12:47:46 AM  

dittybopper: SuperT: MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.

this is why every so often, you move your data to the new format.

Or, alternatively, just print the shiat out on paper and store it. Guaranteed, it will still be readable 100 years from now with no requirement to keep converting to new data formats and media.


yeah...it seems that our embrace of technology has in some ways reverted us back to just having an oral history,  Could a future historian or archaeologist ever be able to extract meaningful records from a hard drive?
 
2013-12-30 12:57:01 AM  

Nuclear Monk: yeah...it seems that our embrace of technology has in some ways reverted us back to just having an oral history


Revert is a strong word. We've never really lost oral tradition. The language changes, but Caligula wanted to be a poet every bit as much as Kanye West. And like Kanye, he was really bad at it and everyone thought he was insane.
 
2013-12-30 12:58:29 AM  
Preservation of computer data is hard. Frequent data format changes make maintaining data like this a very expensive endeavor. Punch cards, 5MB hard drives, 8" floppies, ZIP, JAZ, a multitude of tape backup formats. It's a nightmare.
 
2013-12-30 01:14:07 AM  
That's OK, they can just make up more.
 
2013-12-30 02:28:42 AM  
Lost being a euphemism for buried when it doesn't sufficiently $upport the dominant hegemony.
 
2013-12-30 02:49:54 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.


The thing is, though, you never quite know what's going to turn out to be important later. There have been countless studies over the years where you go in studying one thing, and then you end up collecting some interesting data on a completely different thing totally by accident. The Milgram experiment, for instance, had a precursor in Carney Landis examining facial expressions in 1924. He was looking to examine the facial expressions made when someone, oh say, killed a rat. He got pushback from his subjects at about the same ratio as the Milgram experiment would get decades later, and Landis noted the reluctance of the subjects, but that wasn't what he was aiming to study. When someone did refuse to kill the rat, he just did it himself, because he wanted the facial expressions.

Maybe your ring-tailed lizard study ends up in the lizards being slower to mate at all when the researcher was in the room. That could be of use if the lizard ends up on the Endangered Species List at some point, so they know how best to get them to repopulate.
 
2013-12-30 02:56:34 AM  
Anybody want to check the NSA. As long as they're hoarding that data they could do something useful.
 
2013-12-30 03:22:23 AM  

LargeCanine: I suspect that later ages are going to look at the 20th and 21st centuries as a dark age for sciences, specifically "social" sciences.


I suspect that every age is going to look back at the previous age as a dark age.
 
2013-12-30 04:25:56 AM  

NFA: Heliovdrake: Clearly science can not be trusted

Well perhaps but the evidence was lost...


Which means that if you doubt it, it can never be proven either way...

flemardo: I don't know about the other science folks but at least in Chemistry research at the university level lab notebooks of procedures and data are standard. Data is printed out or written in when digital. When I left with my MS I had a stack of notebooks as high as an elephants eye, literally. Yes, original digital data can be lost or become harder to access but increases in hard drive sizes, flash drives and CD-R and DVD-R have made transferring between old computers and their replacements far easier. Still though most papers should have the necessary data in the form of percent yields and descriptions of data and procedures. Student thesis also contain lots of the same data. My thesis had 100+ pages of spectra and spectrum data. At the university I went to thesis had to be printed in this manner at minimum, a 100% cotton paper copy was archived by the library, and 25% cotton copies were also made up for library circulation, department storage, and one copy for the thesis advisor.
Here are some choice bits of the paper this article was based on:
"Our reason for needing the data (a reproducibility study) was not especially compelling for authors "
"Papers were also excluded if the data were already available as a supplementary file or appendix or on another website, as curation of these data sets is no longer the responsibility of the author."
"In every case, we attempted to find e-mail addresses for the first, corresponding, and last authors of every paper. "
"We therefore also searched online for a maximum of 5 min per author for a recent or current e-mail address. "
I'll let decide on your own what to think about some of that.


I make of it some allegory and a restating of the investigation criteria designed to make the study possible by restricting time spent.
 
2013-12-30 05:55:07 AM  

dittybopper: Or, alternatively, just print the shiat out on paper and store it. Guaranteed, it will still be readable 100 years from now with no requirement to keep converting to new data formats and media.


How do you print a few TB of data?
And how would you get it back into a usable format once you've printed it?
 
2013-12-30 06:33:00 AM  
I'm going through a bunch of old 3.5" floppies and copying the useful data as I read this, so I'm getting a kick. Word 2013 does a remarkably good job with WordPerfect files. Found my DOS 6.22 install disks and Microsoft Arcade, along with my TAPCI$ disk.

We still have a old PC tower with a tape drive and LS-120 drive. I need to get it fired back up to check about 10 LS-120's I have sitting around.

/Dang I feel old.
 
2013-12-30 07:32:58 AM  
My first job after graduating was backing up x-ray crystallography data from PDP to 5.25, then via KERMIT to...I don't know, the other side was somebody else's problem.

refl.foa

/getting a kick, etc.
 
2013-12-30 07:49:30 AM  
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.
 
2013-12-30 07:55:15 AM  

dittybopper: SuperT: MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.

this is why every so often, you move your data to the new format.

Or, alternatively, just print the shiat out on paper and store it. Guaranteed, it will still be readable 100 years from now with no requirement to keep converting to new data formats and media.


Paper lasts a long time, but it consumes alot more physical space.
You start getting into the heighty data collection jobs and there's just no way to keep it all in a file cabinet.

/It ends up getting shredded, burned, or flooded out anyway... unless you've got a proper storage facility.
/To which you could have put a cloud style server in there from the start, now that we have those.
 
2013-12-30 08:08:45 AM  
You don't think they actually want people to try and repeat their results, do you? C'mon, what the hell kind of science is that? You're just supposed to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible under the assumption no one will actually care to understand what you wrote and the grants will keep flowing.
 
2013-12-30 08:24:45 AM  
I did tape backups in college for the math and comp sci departments. Dailies and weeklies stayed in the office and monthlies and annuals were sent to Iron Mountain. I forget what the annual retention was - no way it was 20 years though.
 
2013-12-30 08:40:50 AM  

IwasKloot: I did tape backups in college for the math and comp sci departments. Dailies and weeklies stayed in the office and monthlies and annuals were sent to Iron Mountain. I forget what the annual retention was - no way it was 20 years though.


I worked in a "distance learning" production center in college. Taping and distributing graduate-level classes on U-matic cassettes.
 
2013-12-30 08:53:22 AM  
Look for the paper.
 
2013-12-30 08:59:04 AM  

Touched Inappropriately By The Hand Of God: dittybopper: Or, alternatively, just print the shiat out on paper and store it. Guaranteed, it will still be readable 100 years from now with no requirement to keep converting to new data formats and media.

How do you print a few TB of data?
And how would you get it back into a usable format once you've printed it?


How often do you need to store a few TB of data?  Don't forget that for something like a space mission, a large portion of the data sent back is images.  In fact, that tends to dominate the bandwidth.  When you look at it, an uncompressed image that would fit on a standard 8.5 x 11" paper at 300dpi and 16 bits per pixel would be about 128 megs.  A Terabyte is roughly about a million megabytes, so you'd need about 8,000-ish of them to constitute a terabyte.

Quality 100 lb coated gloss book paper measures .0048" by caliper, so 8,000 pages would take up (8,000 * .0048)/12 = ~ 3.2 feet of shelf space.  Let's be generous and say 4 feet, though, to account for covers.

By that standard, the space under the table I use as a night stand, where I store my current "reading books" holds about 2.5 terabytes of data.  The bookshelves downstairs in the basement hold approximately 8 terabytes.

And how is a printed format not usable?  Have you forgotten how to read?  But even barring that, they've got this new technology called "scanning" that allows you to automatically enter data into computer usable format.  Print the data off as either an image, or if the data is such that that isn't practical, as OCR characters.

You're stuck thinking "technology".  You see modern problems and you think there must be a modern solution to them.  Sometimes there isn't.

That doesn't, of course, mean that you should abandon modern technology, just be aware of it's limitations.  I write software for a living.  Been programming since the early 1980's, and professionally since the mid-1990's.  I've seen a *LOT* of changes in that time.  I have a little reminder I keep at my desk at work:  An 8" floppy disk that, according to the label, has some source code on it, and a book entitled "The Mythical Man-Month" by Fred Brooks.  Both are from 1982.

Guess which one I can still read.
 
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?
 
2013-12-30 12:42:14 PM  

Jon Snow: 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?

Who cares? We know that these cycles occur because we have seen them repeatedly and we can (and do) make successful predictions that they will continue. Climatology's predictions of catastrophic warming have not been seen at all and their predictions have not come true.

Jon, you can shimmy up next to things like established meteorogical cycles and try and suggest that maybe your climatology has the same credibility, but it does not. It's a mile away from any kind of objective credibility.


I think you may be kidding yourself. When I point out that climate is unpredictable due to chaotic variability, you claim that the drivers (or forcings, or boundary conditions) make your stuff credible. But science needs predictions. I can predict higher temp next midday versus next midnght. You can predict catastrophic warming by 2100. We both know I will be right, but will you? There is no reason to trust it other than your models, which have all so-far failed.

  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 can prove that wouldn't happen though natural variability? I doubt it.


  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.

Chaos theory isn't magic. It's real and you have to accept it and stop spreading likes like the white-noise assumption. It would in fact be more like magic if a complex chaotic system like the climate had random behaviour that simulated a series of independent random events - and this would be required for the fluctuations to be white in character, which is required for decadal-scale trends to require anthropogenic cause.
 
2013-12-30 12:46:44 PM  

Ishkur: 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.


If we frame climatology as a historical science (which you may be trying to do here, not sure) then it would need a HELL of a lot more historical evidence to attribute ANY anthropogenic element to climate behaviour. And it would NEVER predict an acceleration of warming over 21st century LET ALONE try and influence government policy based on it.
 
2013-12-30 12:52:33 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: The failure of air temps to rise since 1998


This is the trend in global temps from 1998 to present. The trend is positive.

img.fark.net

The claim that temperature hasn't risen since 1998 is based on cherry picking an extremely warm El Nino year, and using an outdated data set (HadCRUT3) that had known cool bias arising from insufficient coverage of the rapidly warming arctic.

This is no different than looking at the period from 1992-2007 and claiming that we're warming more rapidly than the models and so therefore we've dramatically underestimated the amount of future warming we'll see. It depends on a complete ignorance of the data and climate dynamics.

We are now below the IPCC's lowest predicted temps. It hasn't worked.

Again, the obs are within the model spread. Stop lying.

Its predictions have not come true.

Feel free to refute those I listed above.
 
2013-12-30 12:54:18 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Who cares? We know that these cycles occur because we have seen them repeatedly and we can (and do) make successful predictions that they will continue.


So it's your claim that we have no understanding of why it's warmer during the daytime and summertime than it is during nighttime and wintertime, but rather we simply have observed this to be the case and successfully predicted that it will occur?

In other words, you are claiming that we have no understanding of the physical reasons for this phenomenon?

Yes or no?

So when the summer during 1816 turned out to be cold, that invalidated your naive predictive model and therefore we cannot say anything about whether or not summer will be warmer than winter, let alone what causes this, right?
 
2013-12-30 12:55:03 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: 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.

If we frame climatology as a historical science (which you may be trying to do here, not sure) then it would need a HELL of a lot more historical evidence to attribute ANY anthropogenic element to climate behaviour. And it would NEVER predict an acceleration of warming over 21st century LET ALONE try and influence government policy based on it.


Maybe an analogy would help.

Say I'm beating you over the head with a baseball bat. Chaos theory, together with physics and biology can be used to predict the effect on your brain. If your calculations don't give a precise, measureable and accurate prediction of the damage to your head, I will deny that beating you with the bat is a bad idea.

That's what you're doing with calls to STOP POLLUTING THE FARKING PLANET.
 
2013-12-30 12:55:11 PM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: The failure of air temps to rise since 1998

This is the trend in global temps from 1998 to present. The trend is positive.

[img.fark.net image 600x360]

The claim that temperature hasn't risen since 1998 is based on cherry picking an extremely warm El Nino year, and using an outdated data set (HadCRUT3) that had known cool bias arising from insufficient coverage of the rapidly warming arctic.

This is no different than looking at the period from 1992-2007 and claiming that we're warming more rapidly than the models and so therefore we've dramatically underestimated the amount of future warming we'll see. It depends on a complete ignorance of the data and climate dynamics.

We are now below the IPCC's lowest predicted temps. It hasn't worked.

Again, the obs are within the model spread. Stop lying.

Its predictions have not come true.

Feel free to refute those I listed above.


Utter nonsense. Even the IPCC and the UK Met Office accept temps stopped rising. You have just proved that you are a charlatan.
 
2013-12-30 12:57:00 PM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Who cares? We know that these cycles occur because we have seen them repeatedly and we can (and do) make successful predictions that they will continue.

So it's your claim that we have no understanding of why it's warmer during the daytime and summertime than it is during nighttime and wintertime, but rather we simply have observed this to be the case and successfully predicted that it will occur?

In other words, you are claiming that we have no understanding of the physical reasons for this phenomenon?


Absolutely not. I said "who cares". You even quoted it. I did not say "we don't know". You made that up. Is making stuff up the only way you can get by? Typical climatologist.
 
2013-12-30 12:59:30 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Jon, you can shimmy up next to things like established meteorogical cycles and try and suggest that maybe your climatology has the same credibility, but it does not. It's a mile away from any kind of objective credibility.


This is pants on head retarded.

The diurnal cycle and seasonal cycles are driven by changes in insolation. This is absolutely no different than climate change. It's a question of energy balance, and has nothing to do with chaos theory.

If chaos theory prevented making meaningful statements about background climatic conditions more than a few weeks in advance, it would prevent us from saying that it will be hotter in summer than winter in the Northern Hemisphere. We would simply not know, on a physical basis.

This is absurd.

You are retreating to the position that we don't need a physical justification for making a claim about the future in cases where we have a record of the behavior in question occurring repeatedly.

So then the End Permian, Triassic-Jurassic, Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, and other various episodes during which a significant carbon pulse drove warming in the paleo record satisfy that absurd position.

But you'll find some reason to once again change your standards to exclude the uncontroversial physics necessitating that increasing GHGs result in an energy imbalance necessitate warming to a higher equilibrium.
 
2013-12-30 12:59:39 PM  

MrBallou: THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: 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.

If we frame climatology as a historical science (which you may be trying to do here, not sure) then it would need a HELL of a lot more historical evidence to attribute ANY anthropogenic element to climate behaviour. And it would NEVER predict an acceleration of warming over 21st century LET ALONE try and influence government policy based on it.

Maybe an analogy would help.

Say I'm beating you over the head with a baseball bat. Chaos theory, together with physics and biology can be used to predict the effect on your brain. If your calculations don't give a precise, measureable and accurate prediction of the damage to your head, I will deny that beating you with the bat is a bad idea.

That's what you're doing with calls to STOP POLLUTING THE FARKING PLANET.


So (a) you don't know what chaos theory is and (b) you're a ranting eco-freak and (c) you drew your conclusions about global warming long before you looked at the evidence, if indeed you have ever looked at the evidence.

By the way, if you're SO FARKING WORRIED about pollution, do the world a favour and kill yourself.
 
2013-12-30 01:00:09 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Absolutely not.


Great!

Then what causes it?
 
2013-12-30 01:00:23 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.


Oh, I see what your problem is. You think Climatologists are like some sort of long-term weather forecasters and that's all they do (hence your insistence on Meteorology as a better replacement). And that if they make predictions, and those predictions are wrong, it means the entire branch of science is discredited (a fallacy of composition). Of course, that same standard is not applied to weathermen, but I digress.

First of all, you have to understand the difference between the two. To put it briefly, Meteorology studies the "what" and "when" questions concerning the weather. Climatology studies the "how" and "why" questions. It takes a much broader look at interceding conditions at the global level, it considers things like ocean currents, ice caps and ecosystems that have a profound effect on why the weather is the way it is, it analyzes atmospheric compositions and it tracks all of these things globally over lengthy periods of time. It is an incredibly useful science, one of the few that has the temerity to speculate on the ramifications of a number of very large and very involving systems.

These are things that other disciplines just aren't equipped to study, much less understand. But hey, if you still think Meteorology can do all that, and if it did, and Meteorology comes to the same conclusions regarding climate change that the (formerly) climatology did, you'd probably throw out Meteorology as being pseudo-science too. After all, their experts never apologize for being wrong either (especially on the nightly news).
 
2013-12-30 01:01:07 PM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Jon, you can shimmy up next to things like established meteorogical cycles and try and suggest that maybe your climatology has the same credibility, but it does not. It's a mile away from any kind of objective credibility.

This is pants on head retarded.

The diurnal cycle and seasonal cycles are driven by changes in insolation. This is absolutely no different than climate change. It's a question of energy balance, and has nothing to do with chaos theory.


In that case, how come we can't predict the weather more than two weeks ahead? It is truly you who is retarded.
 
2013-12-30 01:04:00 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Chaos theory isn't magic.


I don't think you understand what chaos theory actually is. You seem to be handwaving it as some sort of copout exercise in futility. That demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance. To wit, it does not mean "everything is crazy-ass random!". It is random, yes, but in predictable ways. It is still mathematics, after all.

/don't get your science education from Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park
 
2013-12-30 01:11:34 PM  

dittybopper: 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?


A decent chunk is processed data for my work (maybe around ~70%).  However, generally for our work, we want to keep the raw data as well.  We're always getting requests for data, and oftentimes the effort required to acquire the raw data in the first place makes the data rather valuable.  It's also not uncommon to come up with additional interesting research questions that require the original data to work on a few years later.
 
2013-12-30 01:18:13 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: If we frame climatology as a historical science


It is. It is trying to understand how things came to be.

THE GREAT NAME: then it would need a HELL of a lot more historical evidence to attribute ANY anthropogenic element to climate behaviour.


I don't know how much of man's meddling affects the environment, but the science of climatology has these facts to report:

Before the Industrial era, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm (parts per million).
Today, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is 392 ppm.

We know that C02 can bring about a greenhouse effect -- one look at blistering Venus, which is 96% C02 and has temperatures hot enough to melt lead -- is clear evidence of this.

And we also know from studying ice cores that the last time the Earth had C02 levels greater than 400 ppm was about 3-5 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch. The Earth was much warmer and drier back then. Ocean levels were about 25m higher. There was no arctic ice cap (but Greenland and Antarctica had land ice).

Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given these facts: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS HAPPENING?
 
2013-12-30 01:20:11 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: MrBallou: THE GREAT NAME: Ishkur: 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.

If we frame climatology as a historical science (which you may be trying to do here, not sure) then it would need a HELL of a lot more historical evidence to attribute ANY anthropogenic element to climate behaviour. And it would NEVER predict an acceleration of warming over 21st century LET ALONE try and influence government policy based on it.

Maybe an analogy would help.

Say I'm beating you over the head with a baseball bat. Chaos theory, together with physics and biology can be used to predict the effect on your brain. If your calculations don't give a precise, measureable and accurate prediction of the damage to your head, I will deny that beating you with the bat is a bad idea.

That's what you're doing with calls to STOP POLLUTING THE FARKING PLANET.

So (a) you don't know what chaos theory is and (b) you're a ranting eco-freak and (c) you drew your conclusions about global warming long before you looked at the evidence, if indeed you have ever looked at the evidence.

By the way, if you're SO FARKING WORRIED about pollution, do the world a favour and kill yourself.


(a) Dude, I have taught courses in chaos theory, so don't try to double-talk your way through to a false result (b) I rarely rant, but I also don't shiat where I eat and (c) 30 years ago, it was obvious to any idiot what would happen if we keep poisoning the planet, so, yeah.

Not sure how your last suggestion would help. I think my bat idea holds more promise.
 
2013-12-30 01:22:10 PM  

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: 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.

Oh, I see what your problem is. You think Climatologists are like some sort of long-term weather forecasters


Climatologists' predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are exactly that.

And that if they make predictions, and those predictions are wrong, it means the entire branch of science is discredited (a fallacy of composition).

Until they make some successful predictions, they are not credible as scientists. Religious high priests maybe but not scientists. No fallacy there, Ishkur.

Of course, that same standard is not applied to weathermen, but I digress.

Meteorologists have been seen to produce consistently valid forecasts at below a week timescale. Not always right, but right enough of the time to know there is value in those predictions. This is something climatologists have not achieved.

First of all, you have to understand the difference between the two. To put it briefly, Meteorology studies the "what" and "when" questions concerning the weather. Climatology studies the "how" and "why" questions.

Utter nonsense. Both are concerned with how and why, but both make predictions, i.e. what and when. The only difference is the timescale.

It takes a much broader look at interceding conditions at the global level, it considers things like ocean currents, ice caps and ecosystems that have a profound effect on why the weather is the way it is, it analyzes atmospheric compositions and it tracks all of these things globally over lengthy periods of time.

True, but that hasn't helped in making predictions so far.

It is an incredibly useful science

To whom?

one of the few that has the temerity to speculate on the ramifications of a number of very large and very involving systems.

Temerity as a positive? You're giving away your emotional investment.

These are things that other disciplines just aren't equipped to study, much less understand. But hey, if you still think Meteorology can do all that,

I don't think meteorology can make predictions on a climate timescale. Did I suggest otherwise, or are you putting words in my mouth for the third time in this thread alone?

and if it did, and Meteorology comes to the same conclusions regarding climate change that the (formerly) climatology did, you'd probably throw out Meteorology as being pseudo-science too.

If meteorology was going to do that it would have by now. Instead it accepted the reality of the chaotic system and stopped making claims it could not
back up. Then cliamtology came along and said "we're somehow immune to chaos  and we say the world's about to end".

After all, their experts never apologize for being wrong either (especially on the nightly news).

As a science, it accepted it's limitations. Climatology has not and will not because it isn't really a science anyway.
 
2013-12-30 01:22:54 PM  

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: Chaos theory isn't magic.

I don't think you understand what chaos theory actually is. You seem to be handwaving it as some sort of copout exercise in futility. That demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance. To wit, it does not mean "everything is crazy-ass random!". It is random, yes, but in predictable ways. It is still mathematics, after all.

/don't get your science education from Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park


You certainly don't.
 
2013-12-30 01:25:44 PM  

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: If we frame climatology as a historical science

It is. It is trying to understand how things came to be.

THE GREAT NAME: then it would need a HELL of a lot more historical evidence to attribute ANY anthropogenic element to climate behaviour.

I don't know how much of man's meddling affects the environment, but the science of climatology has these facts to report:

Before the Industrial era, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm (parts per million).
Today, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is 392 ppm.

We know that C02 can bring about a greenhouse effect -- one look at blistering Venus, which is 96% C02 and has temperatures hot enough to melt lead -- is clear evidence of this.

And we also know from studying ice cores that the last time the Earth had C02 levels greater than 400 ppm was about 3-5 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch. The Earth was much warmer and drier back then. Ocean levels were about 25m higher. There was no arctic ice cap (but Greenland and Antarctica had land ice).

Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given these facts: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS HAPPENING?


I have no reason to believe any of this implies an imminent climate catastrophe. And yet, that it what climatolgists predict. And they do predict it, even though you say climatology is a historical science (but I don't think you actually believe that, you just backed yourself into a corner, didn't you).
 
2013-12-30 01:28:18 PM  

MrBallou: THE GREAT NAME:

(a) Dude, I have taught courses in chaos theory, so don't try to double-talk your way through to a false result


Qualifications please.

(b) I rarely rant, but I also don't shiat where I eat and

People like you always rant.

(c) 30 years ago, it was obvious to any idiot what would ...

30 years ago morons like you were running around screaming about GLOBAL COOLING.
 
2013-12-30 01:35:15 PM  

Ishkur: And we also know from studying ice cores that the last time the Earth had C02 levels greater than 400 ppm was about 3-5 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch. The Earth was much warmer and drier back then. Ocean levels were about 25m higher. There was no arctic ice cap (but Greenland and Antarctica had land ice).

Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but given these facts: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS HAPPENING?


Obviously, time travelers took SUVs back to the Pliocene Epoch and humans caused global warming back then. Because only humans cause warming, and humans are obviously also to blame for the warming before oil started being burned in the 1950s.
 
2013-12-30 01:35:51 PM  
So, where is the data for this backup study available from?
 
2013-12-30 01:41:43 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: MrBallou: THE GREAT NAME:

(a) Dude, I have taught courses in chaos theory, so don't try to double-talk your way through to a false result

Qualifications please.


Ph.D. Genetics/Population Biology. Yours?

(b) I rarely rant, but I also don't shiat where I eat and

People like you always rant.


You seem to think you know a lot about me. Are you in the NSA?

(c) 30 years ago, it was obvious to any idiot what would ...

30 years ago morons like you were running around screaming about GLOBAL COOLING.


Actually, we were running around screaming that a finite planet cannot continue to support unbridled human expansion forever and that we should think about the long-term instead of just immediate profit. Same as now.
 
2013-12-30 01:47:16 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Until they make some successful predictions, they are not credible as scientists.


Listen: Making predictions and failing is the BEDROCK of science. Falsifying claims is what separates it from every other form of investigative inquiry. Science is supposed to fail. It fails constantly. It fails, stumbles, and falls into success. There are a thousand failed predictions for every successful one. And that is how the more robust theories are developed: They're the ones that stand up to scrutiny and weather the onslaught of millions of studies done every day trying to prove them wrong. Trial and error, throw out what doesn't work, keep what does, each time getting a little better at it, and little more refined, a little more accurate, a little more correct. Being wrong is the hallmark of science. It is a feature, not a bug. The greatest phrase in science is not "Eureka, I've found it!" but rather "Hmm. That's odd. Why did that happen?"

If a Climatologist makes a prediction and it's proven wrong, that doesn't make Climatology wrong (which is kind of a misnomer anyway, because Climatology isn't a thing, it's a process), that makes that particular climatologist's claim wrong. Know the difference.

THE GREAT NAME: I have no reason to believe any of this implies an imminent climate catastrophe.


That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking: WHAT DO YOU THINK IS HAPPENING?

Because these are the facts. Ask a hundred scientists about what they mean, and you'll get 101 predictions. Some may be right. Some may be wrong. But that is why we do the science. Because some will be proven wrong does not mean we throw out the science.

THE GREAT NAME: even though you say climatology is a historical science


Climatology is a historical science. It also makes predictions based on its historical findings. It does both (I never said it didn't).

You are really good at dodging, evading questions, and not posting any facts, and you have an amazing capacity for self-deception. How on Earth do you do that?
 
2013-12-30 01:58:30 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Meteorologists have been seen to produce consistently valid forecasts at below a week timescale. Not always right, but right enough of the time to know there is value in those predictions. This is something climatologists have not achieved.


Climatologists aren't looking at next week's weather. They're looking at global trends over the past 50 years, and extrapolating over the next 50. (or 500, or 5000, or 5 million). They aren't interested in localized specifics.

THE GREAT NAME: I don't think meteorology can make predictions on a climate timescale. Did I suggest otherwise, or are you putting words in my mouth for the third time in this thread alone?


That is indeed what you claimed in this very thread. So if you're changing your answer, then what discipline is better equipped at studying macro changes in the Earth's atmosphere? Give reasons why.

THE GREAT NAME: As a science, it accepted it's limitations. Climatology has not and will not because it isn't really a science anyway.


Those aren't limitations, those are demarcated fields of study that are too broad and byzantine to be encapsulated within a single discipline of science, necessitating fragmentation into specialized areas of research. That's what happens when we end up knowing too much about one thing. We separate it into component parts and dedicate each part to a community of specialists.

You seem to be dodging the issue and I'm going to keep asking you this: If Climatology is not science, as you claim, then what field do you suggest should study the areas of expertise normally covered by Climatology? We've already gone over the fact that Meteorology is woefully ill-equipped at handling the additional obligations. So what else?
 
2013-12-30 02:46:32 PM  
Autocad used a 3 1/2" floppy icon for "save."

Should I be worried?

A cloud icon for "save" would worry me too.
 
2013-12-30 02:47:17 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: In that case, how come we can't predict the weather more than two weeks ahead


Weather and climate are not the same thing, despite your complete and total failure to understand this.

Weather forecasting is attempting to predict a single realization of a host of stochastic processes which makes it a problem that is incredibly sensitive to initial conditions. Chaos applies here.

Understanding the change to the background state of a system when you change its boundary conditions is a completely different issue.

A single roll of a fair six-sided die is an initial value problem. Realistically, the end result is so dependent on so many stochastic processes that the outcome of a prediction is no better than chance (though chance bounded by the physical characteristics of the die, i.e. 1-6). This is analogous to long term weather forecasting, where skill declines over time until it decays to climatology (which is the meteorological analogy of the 1-6 range).

And yet!

I can confidently tell you that the mean of many rolls of a fair six-sided die will converge over time to 3.5. Even better, I can tell you that the average value would increase to 4.5 if I switched out the six-sided die with a fair eight-sided die. And I could tell you a great many things about other changes to the average statistics that occur with such a change in number of sides. This is analogous to projecting changes in climatology (e.g. average temperatures, average precipitation amounts, frequencies of some kinds of events, large scale features of the general circulation, etc.) due to changes in boundary values, such as radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere, via increases in GHGs.

You don't get to throw up your hands and shriek "chaos!" as though that's an actual problem for talking about climate change. It's not, and it's an embarrassingly easy concept to grasp.
 
2013-12-30 02:52:02 PM  

MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.


I still have my King's Quest and Infocom floppies. They still work but I always keep the 5.25 and 3.5 drives handy for new builds.

The sad thing is I've actually had people ask me what those drives are for.


/I should make a few extra copies or at least re-magnetize/refresh the data
 
2013-12-30 02:59:59 PM  
SuperT:

MrBallou: Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.

this is why every so often, you move your data to the new format.


art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-12-30 03:00:12 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: You can prove that wouldn't happen though natural variability? I doubt it.


Another argument from ignorance.

Just because you don't understand how potential different drivers of surface temperature affect other aspects of the climate system in ways distinct from one another, the variability internal to the system, etc. that does not mean everyone else is equally ignorant.

Increasing the greenhouse effect by increasing atmospheric CO2 levels results in stratospheric cooling, over timescales distinct from any source of natural variability that exists in either the observational record, atmospheric physics and chemistry, or state of the art modeling.

Is it possible that there exists some heretofore unknown kind of natural variability that is simultaneously capable of affecting changes consistent only with increased GHGs as well as simultaneously managing to prevent exactly those changes that fundamental chemistry and physics necessitate that increased GHGs must result in?

It's possible. Just like it's possible that I have an invisible dragon breathing heatless fire in my garage.

Look.

You know nothing about this topic. You scream about pink noise and chaos and cannot understand fundamental ideas like boundary value problems, how GHGs, the sun, and the ocean heat the Earth's surface, any of the successful predictions of climate science, that there is no demarcation between the science underlying our understanding of anthropogenic climate change vs. our understanding of other aspects of the Earth system or general planetary behavior. Hell, you don't even understand that the "70s cooling consensus myth" is complete and utter rubbish, and that even in the 70s we understood that increasing GHGs would lead to warming.

So why do you post in these threads?

It is clearly not to gain knowledge, as you appear to be immune to corrections to your errors/ignorance. It is equally clear that it is not to disseminate knowledge, as you have none on this topic. Is it to seek confrontation?
 
2013-12-30 03:57:42 PM  

dittybopper: 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.


The problem is you don't always know what is (or when it will become) important, hence the importance of saving it all.

Some guy taking temperatures in his backyard in the 1800's probably didn't think it would mean a damn thing, and now its center stage in the global weather changing debate. Whole economies are going to shift on incomplete data because many paper records of the era were still lost.

There are scientists gathering data today that don't have a clue what it will mean to someone in a few hundred years time. Most paper isn't being stored in anywhere near ideal conditions, and it isn't being backed up, and it isn't globally accessible.

You can solve all three problems by going to the cloud. The only roadblocks are sorting out formats and access rights.
 
2013-12-30 04:24:16 PM  

untaken_name: You don't think they actually want people to try and repeat their results, do you? C'mon, what the hell kind of science is that? You're just supposed to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible under the assumption no one will actually care to understand what you wrote and the grants will keep flowing.


How does the data being kept help with repeating the results? If the data is flawed then you will still get flawed results no matter how often the analysis is redone. If people want to see if the paper is true, then they should set up another experiment based on the methodology. Not simply re-run the numbers. I also fail to see how re-running the numbers aids in understanding the material. It isn't as if clicking a few boxes in some maths program and waiting for the results grants new insights into the hypotheses or the conclusions drawn from them.
 
2013-12-30 04:48:34 PM  

MrBallou: FTFA: "Some of the time, for instance, it was saved on three-and-a-half inch floppy disks, so no one could access it, because they no longer had the proper drives,"

I can confirm. I even have the 5 1/4" floppy disks holding my Master's degree data, and a bunch of later stuff on Zip Disks. Sorry, Science.

Someday the Cloud will be obsolete and you'll have to transfer all your data to ectoplasm storage via direct mental link, or some damn thing.


GO AWAY MOM I'M UPSPIRTING MY SCIENCE DATA!!
 
2013-12-30 06:50:49 PM  

DerAppie: untaken_name: You don't think they actually want people to try and repeat their results, do you? C'mon, what the hell kind of science is that? You're just supposed to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible under the assumption no one will actually care to understand what you wrote and the grants will keep flowing.

How does the data being kept help with repeating the results? If the data is flawed then you will still get flawed results no matter how often the analysis is redone. If people want to see if the paper is true, then they should set up another experiment based on the methodology. Not simply re-run the numbers. I also fail to see how re-running the numbers aids in understanding the material. It isn't as if clicking a few boxes in some maths program and waiting for the results grants new insights into the hypotheses or the conclusions drawn from them.


Because it helps you decide whether the data is flawed or the analysis that was done on it. It allows separation of the two parts. Otherwise you just go "There may be something wrong but we don`t know where or what"
 
2013-12-30 06:55:33 PM  
And in Canada, we just chuck it in the garbage while smiling.
 
2013-12-30 06:58:41 PM  

DerAppie: untaken_name: You don't think they actually want people to try and repeat their results, do you? C'mon, what the hell kind of science is that? You're just supposed to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible under the assumption no one will actually care to understand what you wrote and the grants will keep flowing.

How does the data being kept help with repeating the results? If the data is flawed then you will still get flawed results no matter how often the analysis is redone. If people want to see if the paper is true, then they should set up another experiment based on the methodology. Not simply re-run the numbers. I also fail to see how re-running the numbers aids in understanding the material. It isn't as if clicking a few boxes in some maths program and waiting for the results grants new insights into the hypotheses or the conclusions drawn from them.


New analyses are possible on existing/old data. It's not that someone else does the same analysis on the same data (because aside from error-checking that would be a waste of time), but someone else can do a new analysis on that data.

Why would you think that the purpose of keeping the data is simply to allow someone to rerun the same analyses that have already been done? Do you think that scientists have somehow overlooked the pointlessness of that, and want to just redo the same work over and over again, because that will somehow (actually, it won't at all) enable them to roll around in grant money?
 
2013-12-30 07:42:03 PM  

HighZoolander: DerAppie: untaken_name: You don't think they actually want people to try and repeat their results, do you? C'mon, what the hell kind of science is that? You're just supposed to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible under the assumption no one will actually care to understand what you wrote and the grants will keep flowing.

How does the data being kept help with repeating the results? If the data is flawed then you will still get flawed results no matter how often the analysis is redone. If people want to see if the paper is true, then they should set up another experiment based on the methodology. Not simply re-run the numbers. I also fail to see how re-running the numbers aids in understanding the material. It isn't as if clicking a few boxes in some maths program and waiting for the results grants new insights into the hypotheses or the conclusions drawn from them.

New analyses are possible on existing/old data. It's not that someone else does the same analysis on the same data (because aside from error-checking that would be a waste of time), but someone else can do a new analysis on that data.


Well, yes. A new analysis can be done on old data. But that has nothing to do with the comment I quoted or the comment I made.

Why would you think that the purpose of keeping the data is simply to allow someone to rerun the same analyses that have already been done? Do you think that scientists have somehow overlooked the pointlessness of that, and want to just redo the same work over and over again, because that will somehow (actually, it won't at all) enable them to roll around in grant money?

I now really hope you quoted the wrong person. If not, do read on:

Why would you think that I think that? Because it is easy to do a superficial reading of a post and comment from up high? Do you think I am a moron? Didn't I say in my comment that doing the same analysis based on the same data was useless? Did you manage to miss that in your self-righteous need to correct people who aren't wrong? Where did I ever mention grants?

Just look at this part of the original quote:

You're just supposed to publish as much as possible as quickly as possible under the assumption no one will actually care to understand what you wrote and the grants will keep flowing.

How does keeping the data around help people understand the research? It doesn't. Which is exactly my point. My quote had very little to do with my understanding of how things work but with my curiosity about the reasoning behind the comment I quoted.

dready zim: Because it helps you decide whether the data is flawed or the analysis that was done on it. It allows separation of the two parts. Otherwise you just go "There may be something wrong but we don`t know where or what"


When a replicated study gives different results, that is when you start looking at whether or not the datasets are correct (the maths should have been checked during peer-review). Without that second dataset it is pretty much impossible to tell whether or not the first dataset is wrong (apart from glaring errors such as values outside of the possible range). And then a third experiment should be done to determine which one was right. So while I do agree that keeping the datasets around definitely is useful, it does not help with replicating a study. Which the person I quoted insinuated and whose reasoning behind his statement I was curious about.
 
2013-12-30 08:01:23 PM  

DerAppie: I now really hope you quoted the wrong person


Yep, my bad. I missed that you were responding to untaken_name (who did mention grants, in what you responded to) and conflated the text into one post, hence misreading the thrust of what you said.
 
2013-12-30 08:44:14 PM  

WelldeadLink: So, where is the data for this backup study available from?


They tell you right in the paper. Dryad. DOI:10.5061/dryad.q3g37
 
2013-12-30 11:13:39 PM  
It's not my responsibility to keep my data for 20 years after I've published.  I have new projects with new deadlines and new papers to write.  If someone wants to store my data for a few decades, they can pay for it.

I run weather models that routinely generate tens of terabytes of data per project.  Have fun.
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report