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  
•       •       •

674 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Dec 2013 at 9:33 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-30 12:32:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:21:25 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:51:12 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:46:19 AM  
1 vote:
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)


Oceanography, physics, chemistry, biology


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 09:44:06 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:01:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 05:55:07 AM  
1 vote:

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 03:22:23 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2013-12-29 11:54:25 PM  
1 vote:
Well if they kept it safe someone might use it to disprove their findings.
2013-12-29 10:48:15 PM  
1 vote:
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 10:21:45 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:09:57 PM  
1 vote:
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 10:02:32 PM  
1 vote:
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 09:41:39 PM  
1 vote:
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 08:26:21 PM  
1 vote:

Heliovdrake: Clearly science can not be trusted

...so climate change is a myth, and you should vote Republican.
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.