Keep in mind that scientists publishing these peer-reviewed studies get their raw data from a variety of sources. The argument is that, regardless of the source of data, they should be compelled to make it available to anyone at any time.
And if we require this of climate scientists, how long until it's required of other scientists? Oh wait, I guess we didn't realize that raw data is more than just numbers on printouts, but now because of shoddy legislation, medical universities now have to provide samples of dangerous microbes to anyone who asks for them! After all, when researching pathogens, the "raw data" is quite literally living organisms.
Slippery slope argument is nonsense in this case. Because we published a spreadsheet, now we have to allow people to mail-order smallpox?
No. No we don't.
I'll cop to it being a slippery slope, but creating series of legislation with progressively more restrictive/burdensome requirements is a real practice.
Anyhow still, "variety of sources" is also not compelling. The study designers managed to collect all the data, they can provide it alongside their study. Is there any possible justification for climate science data to be locked away behind paywalls? Particularly when it was generated in part with public research grants?
Think of it this way: I write a literary study about... well, the topic itself doesn't really matter. What does matter is that in all my citations, that is to say, my raw data, I utilize a number of sources, many of which are copyrighted. I have either gotten express permission to include extended quotations, or I utilize quotations under Fair Use.
According to the argument being put forth, I should include the full texts of all these copyrighted works along with my study, for free access to anyone.
You are making the assumption that all data used is generated, at least in part, with public research grants. You are also making an assertion that if something is funded with public research grants, the public should have access to all aspects of the research. That's not the intention of public research grants. The research itself is for the public's benefit. The results of that study benefits the public even if they do not read or understand the study that was conducted. Indeed, If for most of the public, the peer-reviewed study will be too technical and complex for them to comprehend - so what good would it do to compel the even more esoteric and technical raw data to be seen on-demand?
I mean honestly, I don't know about other fields, but computational biology databases blink off with not-uncommon frequency. One of the databases I use has recently lost its funding, so it's not being updated any more, I guess. It's still online, but I think mostly just as a legacy holdover for that lab, and it could blink out of existence at any moment if they decide they need that part of their budget back.
And these are real databases with curated data and web-front UIs and such. We can't even keep this shit online, and we're talking about just barfing a billion plain-text files onto the Web. For what?
Also, at least in climate science, a lot of the data is already available or shared between labs. There are model comparison projects and the like that specifically work on that. The Republicans are basically trying the TRAP strategy, but for science, cloaked in the same sort of obscurantist "How could you be opposed to women's health?" disingenuousness.
Yes, in a time where science funding is being constantly slashed, you want to place a further monetary burden on them? Because hosting all that data ain't free.
Also, at least in climate science, a lot of the data is already available or shared between labs. There are model comparison projects and the like that specifically work on that. The Republicans are basically trying the TRAP strategy, but for science, cloaked in the same sort of obscurantist "How could you be opposed to women's health?" disingenuousness.
Right. What that Harvard group didn't release wasn't temperature data nor was it health data - I'd be surprised if they collected that data themselves, instead of accessing/retrieving it from public/semi-public sources. What they didn't release was the various bits and pieces of their own internal analyses as they arbitrarily spat out files for manual review. Which, look, if someone has some actual, specific, well-informed concerns about that data, I'd say they should make it available to at least those people for review and scrutiny. But otherwise, it's just a trawling expedition. They (hopefully) described their methods in good detail; just perform the damn analysis yourself using the same data and the same methods, or alternative methods if you prefer.
Besides, if I was a bad actor, I'd just chain together all my analyses into a single automated pipeline, so there was no intermediate data output, and thus no data for you to complain about my not releasing anyways. Frankly, most scientists aren't opposed to providing their data publicly. It's just too big a pain in the ass for no benefit to ourselves and next to no benefit generally. Most people will toss up most of the data they think is relevant already, at least in my field, in supplementary data. But again, I can't attach 80 GB of supplementary to my journal article, so....
What happens when the EPA has to cite a research project that churns through petabytes of raw data in simulation work?
"Trust me" science isn't a thing that actually exists as far as I know, it reeks of being a made up problem because scientists are coming up with politically inconvenient results. They even called it the HONEST act to create the implication that scientists are lying.
They could write legislation that creates a body that looks for and attempts to prosecute and expose the providers of false data, but that's not onerous to the EPA and wouldn't create the desired effect. Have they provided any instances where fraudulent science was used while making a decision?
what is the objection to providing raw data? Not trolling, dead serious here. Why would we not want every scrap of raw information available to us?
Edit: the argument that we don't need it is not compelling in the slightest... so what if we don't need it? Hand it over anyway!
It's not actually useful at all. I mean, here, have some raw data from my research:
I have another 80 GB of it if you want. For my one-person PhD project. I'll happily upload it all onto Dropbox when you pay for a Dropbox account with that capacity.
I mean, it's all kinda pointless though, since almost all my data is derived from other public sources. I imagine most climate data itself is too: it's not like Harvard University's had its own private temperature measuring equipment scattered all over the globe for decades generating proprietary data readings.
So where's the problem. I mean seriously, where is the problem. I've got 2tb of storage that I pay google $24/yr to provide me, so sure what the hell. Can I have your metadata too?
You're just proving my point here! If I was a sciencer, maybe this would be v useful to me! Why not provide it?
Sure. Pay me $24 a year. Multiply that by the number of (science) PhD students in North America. And then extend that temporally to keep their data online for years to come. Also, try to resist the urge to lower NIH and NSF budgets by that mu... oh wait, it's Republicans.
ok well the best number I can find says there are about 3m PhD holders so let's say you get your 2t dropbox with your degree, that's 36m/year to hold all the data generated by all the PhD's but this is fucking stupid because "we can't afford to store the data" is not the reason, is it. The data storage, the "extra work", the "you don't need it", the "no one likes reproducing", the "that's not how peer review works"... all these things are problems solvable by "if you work for the govt, you do it this way, the end."
The reason is that careers are made off this stuff and people don't want to get scooped. It would suck for you if a team of researchers took your PhD thesis data and turned it into a bunch of interesting papers while you were still looking for a job, and you never got any credit for the work. The reason is that the data is valuable to the researchers because their careers are based on the results they find. Which, fair enough, but that doesn't sound like a very compelling argument for people who are legit trying to save the world.
what is the objection to providing raw data? Not trolling, dead serious here. Why would we not want every scrap of raw information available to us?
Edit: the argument that we don't need it is not compelling in the slightest... so what if we don't need it? Hand it over anyway!
It's not actually useful at all. I mean, here, have some raw data from my research:
I have another 80 GB of it if you want. For my one-person PhD project. I'll happily upload it all onto Dropbox when you pay for a Dropbox account with that capacity.
I mean, it's all kinda pointless though, since almost all my data is derived from other public sources. I imagine most climate data itself is too: it's not like Harvard University's had its own private temperature measuring equipment scattered all over the globe for decades generating proprietary data readings.
So where's the problem. I mean seriously, where is the problem. I've got 2tb of storage that I pay google $24/yr to provide me, so sure what the hell. Can I have your metadata too?
You're just proving my point here! If I was a sciencer, maybe this would be v useful to me! Why not provide it?
Sure. Pay me $24 a year. Multiply that by the number of (science) PhD students in North America. And then extend that temporally to keep their data online for years to come. Also, try to resist the urge to lower NIH and NSF budgets by that mu... oh wait, it's Republicans.
ok well the best number I can find says there are about 3m PhD holders so let's say you get your 2t dropbox with your degree, that's 36m/year to hold all the data generated by all the PhD's but this is fucking stupid because "we can't afford to store the data" is not the reason, is it. The data storage, the "extra work", the "you don't need it", the "no one likes reproducing", the "that's not how peer review works"... all these things are problems solvable by "if you work for the govt, you do it this way, the end."
The reason is that careers are made off this stuff and people don't want to get scooped. It would suck for you if a team of researchers took your PhD thesis data and turned it into a bunch of interesting papers while you were still looking for a job, and you never got any credit for the work. The reason is that the data is valuable to the researchers because their careers are based on the results they find. Which, fair enough, but that doesn't sound like a very compelling argument for people who are legit trying to save the world.
If you're not going to engage with the substance of the arguments that have been presented, and instead insist on advancing your own nonsensical conspiracy theory - in which data is supposed to be released before the paper describing the data even exists, like my silently uploading data to a public Dropbox nobody knows about has any actual impact on the world lololololololol - have fun talking to yourself then. I have no interest in engaging with some paranoid-ass silly goose whose response to reasoned arguments is, "YEAH, but you're just fucking LYING, because you're a self-serving twit out to destroy the world."
Simpler version: you're a conservative, you should oppose onerous regulation that serves no real purpose.
But doesn't the free market state that if people are to receive no benefit from the scientific data they generate, that they will continue generating that data for free? I'm pretty sure Adam Smith not only wrote about that, but he also published the data that supported that claim before he wrote about it.
Aren't conservatives supposed to be against new regulations not shown to be necessary (unless they involve abortion clinics (joking))?
This is an extra burden, both in money used and time spent.
It also stiffles research because suddenly lot of data may become unavailable for theresearchers because people don't want to release it for every insane nutjob out there.
Only reason (apart from stiffling research) is if you assume that researchers are lying (and fix for that should come from peer review, not demanding largely useless data).
Let's fund repeat studies instead, that way we can have more thoroughly peer reviewed studies, instead of less studies done with less data.
what is the objection to providing raw data? Not trolling, dead serious here. Why would we not want every scrap of raw information available to us?
Edit: the argument that we don't need it is not compelling in the slightest... so what if we don't need it? Hand it over anyway!
It's not actually useful at all. I mean, here, have some raw data from my research:
I have another 80 GB of it if you want. For my one-person PhD project. I'll happily upload it all onto Dropbox when you pay for a Dropbox account with that capacity.
I mean, it's all kinda pointless though, since almost all my data is derived from other public sources. I imagine most climate data itself is too: it's not like Harvard University's had its own private temperature measuring equipment scattered all over the globe for decades generating proprietary data readings.
So where's the problem. I mean seriously, where is the problem. I've got 2tb of storage that I pay google $24/yr to provide me, so sure what the hell. Can I have your metadata too?
You're just proving my point here! If I was a sciencer, maybe this would be v useful to me! Why not provide it?
Sure. Pay me $24 a year. Multiply that by the number of (science) PhD students in North America. And then extend that temporally to keep their data online for years to come. Also, try to resist the urge to lower NIH and NSF budgets by that mu... oh wait, it's Republicans.
ok well the best number I can find says there are about 3m PhD holders so let's say you get your 2t dropbox with your degree, that's 36m/year to hold all the data generated by all the PhD's but this is fucking stupid because "we can't afford to store the data" is not the reason, is it. The data storage, the "extra work", the "you don't need it", the "no one likes reproducing", the "that's not how peer review works"... all these things are problems solvable by "if you work for the govt, you do it this way, the end."
The reason is that careers are made off this stuff and people don't want to get scooped. It would suck for you if a team of researchers took your PhD thesis data and turned it into a bunch of interesting papers while you were still looking for a job, and you never got any credit for the work. The reason is that the data is valuable to the researchers because their careers are based on the results they find. Which, fair enough, but that doesn't sound like a very compelling argument for people who are legit trying to save the world.
If you're not going to engage with the substance of the arguments that have been presented, and instead insist on advancing your own nonsensical conspiracy theory - in which data is supposed to be released before the paper describing the data even exists - have fun talking to yourself then.
eh? I'm referring to the previous page, where mrondeau points out that multiple studies are done using the same data set. It would be silly to expect you to publish it as you were generating it but none of these arguments have any substance, at least for non-PHI data, when you are talking about releasing after the fact. Data storage is not free, but it ain't expensive either. And upthread you were complaining about losing access to data!
Accusing me of conspiracy theorizing over the idea that people want to keep data proprietary because it's personally valuable is maybe the weakest, most benign accusation ever. Who could ever believe so outlandish a scenario?
what is the objection to providing raw data? Not trolling, dead serious here. Why would we not want every scrap of raw information available to us?
Edit: the argument that we don't need it is not compelling in the slightest... so what if we don't need it? Hand it over anyway!
It's not actually useful at all. I mean, here, have some raw data from my research:
I have another 80 GB of it if you want. For my one-person PhD project. I'll happily upload it all onto Dropbox when you pay for a Dropbox account with that capacity.
I mean, it's all kinda pointless though, since almost all my data is derived from other public sources. I imagine most climate data itself is too: it's not like Harvard University's had its own private temperature measuring equipment scattered all over the globe for decades generating proprietary data readings.
So where's the problem. I mean seriously, where is the problem. I've got 2tb of storage that I pay google $24/yr to provide me, so sure what the hell. Can I have your metadata too?
You're just proving my point here! If I was a sciencer, maybe this would be v useful to me! Why not provide it?
Sure. Pay me $24 a year. Multiply that by the number of (science) PhD students in North America. And then extend that temporally to keep their data online for years to come. Also, try to resist the urge to lower NIH and NSF budgets by that mu... oh wait, it's Republicans.
ok well the best number I can find says there are about 3m PhD holders so let's say you get your 2t dropbox with your degree, that's 36m/year to hold all the data generated by all the PhD's but this is fucking stupid because "we can't afford to store the data" is not the reason, is it. The data storage, the "extra work", the "you don't need it", the "no one likes reproducing", the "that's not how peer review works"... all these things are problems solvable by "if you work for the govt, you do it this way, the end."
The reason is that careers are made off this stuff and people don't want to get scooped. It would suck for you if a team of researchers took your PhD thesis data and turned it into a bunch of interesting papers while you were still looking for a job, and you never got any credit for the work. The reason is that the data is valuable to the researchers because their careers are based on the results they find. Which, fair enough, but that doesn't sound like a very compelling argument for people who are legit trying to save the world.
If you're not going to engage with the substance of the arguments that have been presented, and instead insist on advancing your own nonsensical conspiracy theory - in which data is supposed to be released before the paper describing the data even exists - have fun talking to yourself then.
eh? I'm referring to the previous page, where mrondeau points out that multiple studies are done using the same data set. It would be silly to expect you to publish it as you were generating it but none of these arguments have any substance, at least for non-PHI data, when you are talking about releasing after the fact. Data storage is not free, but it ain't expensive either. And upthread you were complaining about losing access to data!
Accusing me of conspiracy theorizing over the idea that people want to keep data proprietary because it's personally valuable is maybe the weakest, most benign accusation ever. Who could ever believe so outlandish a scenario?
I did indeed notice that you seized upon the one post with the least relevance to the current situation. Because again, what climate data do you think these researchers are generating that they can possibly be scooped on? Climate data is not proprietary data. Climate change researchers have not gone out into the world and gathered their own datasets on temperatures around the world over the past century and each selfishly hoarded their own set, hoping to get multiple papers out of it.
You're chasing an absurd ghost because it's the ghost you want to chase. You'd rather believe the worst of scientists than actually listen to answers from scientists themselves.
The basic problem here is this isn't an act or initiative designed to provide open access to data (which is a good thing) - it's designed to force the EPA to reject all studies where open, free public access (but not necessarily access by the EPA or interested researchers who would apply for grants to review it under the EPA) is not immediately available, by shifting the burden of doing so onto scientists with no support or compensation.
How about congress instead create a Federal Agency of Research Typography, or FART, for short.
Which will be tasked with collecting, storing, printing and granting access to, all source data of all publicly available research.
....
Weren't the climate researchers the ones who were squirreling away data before this administration came in, for fear of losing that data?
Might they now no longer have access to the data because the admin destroyed it (as they could not save everything)?
I would be a lot less worried about his new edict if I had even a tiny bit of trust in the current US/EPA administration. I can see literally no other plausible reason why they would do this other than for nefarious reasons.
You could formulate some arguments for why this might be ok or good if it had been another group/administration. But for this lot of cartoon villains the only explanation is nefarious.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+4
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
....
Weren't the climate researchers the ones who were squirreling away data before this administration came in, for fear of losing that data?
Might they now no longer have access to the data because the admin destroyed it (as they could not save everything)?
Hahaha. Can't publish any new studies that rely on information they deleted.
@spool32 You saw where the "publish all raw data" bill came from. You've been paying attention to what's been going on politically in our country. You're more informed than the average American, given the depth and breadth of your postings here. You know how to interpret dog whistles and political code words. In your heart of hearts, I believe that you understand the true intent of this bill. Why are you still arguing in support of it?
Sure. Pay me $24 a year. Multiply that by the number of (science) PhD students in North America. And then extend that temporally to keep their data online for years to come. Also, try to resist the urge to lower NIH and NSF budgets by that mu... oh wait, it's Republicans.
There's also the issue that a couple of terabytes is peanuts in climate research, and would vanish without a trace inside a lot of datasets meant to model anything close to climate on a planetary scale, prior to the additional fun of knowing what the data is and how to interpret it. Hell, my last job was deep in the humanities and involved juggling a 130TB collection, and I'm pretty sure that would vanish inside anything modeling North American climate in detail.
When you're potentially looking at petabyte-scale datasets, "just get a dropbox" isn't an option, which sends a lot of people straight to "they must be hiding something!" It kind of ends up being like the climate debate itself, where the actual facts might be too large or nuanced to condense into a convenient page of point form notes, which is enough for a lot of people to just go "tl;dr, it's all bullshit, I win."
NOAA has free data sets, and they're 68mb per variable, per station, per month. Dozens of variables, tens of thousands of stations, and 102 years of historical data. And they're not even a particularly good source, there are far better sets, but they're not free because they need to be prepared and shipped in crates full of hard drives, nothing else is timely or cost effective.
+3
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Yesterday in India, volunteers planted 66 million trees in twelve hours in Madhya Pradesh, breaking the previous world record, set last year also in India, of 50 million trees planted in a single day. At least they're trying.
When I worked in physics, we did a calculation which established pretty clearly that the rate of growth in the size of raw data sets was beyond the rate at which internet speeds were increasing by about a factor of 3. So making raw data available becomes about 3 times more difficult each year.
NOAA has free data sets, and they're 68mb per variable, per station, per month. Dozens of variables, tens of thousands of stations, and 102 years of historical data. And they're not even a particularly good source, there are far better sets, but they're not free because they need to be prepared and shipped in crates full of hard drives, nothing else is timely or cost effective.
Volvo Cars became the first mainstream automaker to sound the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying on Wednesday that all the models it introduces from 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that currently represent a small share of the total vehicle market, but that are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution.
While most major automakers offer hybrids and battery-powered options, none of them have been willing to forsake cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel. On the contrary, United States automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Yet Volvo’s move may be the latest sign that the era of the gas guzzler is slowly coming to an end. Tesla, which makes only limited numbers of electric cars, this year surpassed Ford and General Motors in terms of stock market value, despite making significantly fewer cars than those automotive giants — a clear indication of where investors think the industry is headed.
Volvo Cars became the first mainstream automaker to sound the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying on Wednesday that all the models it introduces from 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that currently represent a small share of the total vehicle market, but that are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution.
While most major automakers offer hybrids and battery-powered options, none of them have been willing to forsake cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel. On the contrary, United States automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Yet Volvo’s move may be the latest sign that the era of the gas guzzler is slowly coming to an end. Tesla, which makes only limited numbers of electric cars, this year surpassed Ford and General Motors in terms of stock market value, despite making significantly fewer cars than those automotive giants — a clear indication of where investors think the industry is headed.
The first sentence contradicts the headline. And big fuckin' whoop, Volvo's annual volume is tiny.
Volvo Cars became the first mainstream automaker to sound the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying on Wednesday that all the models it introduces from 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that currently represent a small share of the total vehicle market, but that are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution.
While most major automakers offer hybrids and battery-powered options, none of them have been willing to forsake cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel. On the contrary, United States automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Yet Volvo’s move may be the latest sign that the era of the gas guzzler is slowly coming to an end. Tesla, which makes only limited numbers of electric cars, this year surpassed Ford and General Motors in terms of stock market value, despite making significantly fewer cars than those automotive giants — a clear indication of where investors think the industry is headed.
Isn't Volvo the auto manufacturer that got in big trouble last year for lying about diesel emissions testing?
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
Volvo Cars became the first mainstream automaker to sound the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying on Wednesday that all the models it introduces from 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that currently represent a small share of the total vehicle market, but that are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution.
While most major automakers offer hybrids and battery-powered options, none of them have been willing to forsake cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel. On the contrary, United States automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Yet Volvo’s move may be the latest sign that the era of the gas guzzler is slowly coming to an end. Tesla, which makes only limited numbers of electric cars, this year surpassed Ford and General Motors in terms of stock market value, despite making significantly fewer cars than those automotive giants — a clear indication of where investors think the industry is headed.
Isn't Volvo the auto manufacturer that got in big trouble last year for lying about diesel emissions testing?
Volvo Cars became the first mainstream automaker to sound the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying on Wednesday that all the models it introduces from 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that currently represent a small share of the total vehicle market, but that are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution.
While most major automakers offer hybrids and battery-powered options, none of them have been willing to forsake cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel. On the contrary, United States automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Yet Volvo’s move may be the latest sign that the era of the gas guzzler is slowly coming to an end. Tesla, which makes only limited numbers of electric cars, this year surpassed Ford and General Motors in terms of stock market value, despite making significantly fewer cars than those automotive giants — a clear indication of where investors think the industry is headed.
The first sentence contradicts the headline. And big fuckin' whoop, Volvo's annual volume is tiny.
Having more of them out there puts pressure on areas to allow or actively support building the necessary electric recharging stations to make long distance travel in an electric car possible.
+17
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
This came up in my feed, even though it's a week or two old.
Basically, we, as in the whole entire fucking world, have to reduce our emissions within 3 years, and we can stop the life-ending snowball effect of runaway global warming.
It's not all doom though. For the last three years, CO2 emissions have remained steady. If we commit to it, and permanently reduce the amount we dump into the atmosphere, we can stand a chance. Green energy producing technology is becoming cheaper and more viable, which is helping, as are the reduction of gas powered automobiles, like Volvo. However, if we make power generation cheaper, and each home actually viable, as well as really invest in battery powered trucks, we can definitely hit that.
There's a lot more, and those are a paraphrase.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Volvo Cars became the first mainstream automaker to sound the death knell of the internal combustion engine, saying on Wednesday that all the models it introduces from 2019 will be either hybrids or powered solely by batteries.
The decision is the boldest commitment by any major car company to technologies that currently represent a small share of the total vehicle market, but that are increasingly viewed as essential to combating climate change and urban pollution.
While most major automakers offer hybrids and battery-powered options, none of them have been willing to forsake cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel fuel. On the contrary, United States automakers have continued to churn out S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, whose sales have surged because of relatively low fuel prices.
Yet Volvo’s move may be the latest sign that the era of the gas guzzler is slowly coming to an end. Tesla, which makes only limited numbers of electric cars, this year surpassed Ford and General Motors in terms of stock market value, despite making significantly fewer cars than those automotive giants — a clear indication of where investors think the industry is headed.
The first sentence contradicts the headline. And big fuckin' whoop, Volvo's annual volume is tiny.
How do the CO2 emissions of a diesel powered truck compare to a battery operated truck of similar performance, assuming natural gas powerplant and normal transmission losses?
That question has too many variables to easily answer and also is kinda missing the forest for the trees.
Switching to electrical vehicles isn't good because it inherently reduces emissions by itself (although on the aggregate, because not all electricity generation releases carbon dioxide, it does), but rather because we switch from a distributed problem to a fixed-point problem. There's a lot of cars out there. Reducing their emissions a small amount would make a huge difference, but a) is practically impossible to do as new technologies come out, because the existing fleet of cars is unimpacted, only future ones, and b) there's SO MANY of them, even a small cost becomes a huge financial burden. Electric vehicles go "let's move the problem from here to the power plant." The power plant can be upgraded after it's built more easily. It's much more reasonable to have more robust, expensive solutions of carbon capture there.
So switching to electrical vehicles isn't necessarily going to reduce emissions (although it frequently will). It will, however, make it much easier to reduce emissions in a large-scale manner in the future.
How do the CO2 emissions of a diesel powered truck compare to a battery operated truck of similar performance, assuming natural gas powerplant and normal transmission losses?
The diesel truck is absurdly worse, even if the electric vehicle is powered by a coal power plant on the utterly atrocious US grid.
How do the CO2 emissions of a diesel powered truck compare to a battery operated truck of similar performance, assuming natural gas powerplant and normal transmission losses?
This tool gives you a sense of CO2 emissions saved for various types of power generation:
The big thing with electric vehicles is that their energy is as clean as the power grid. Don't feel they are clean enough, just upgrade the grid if you can.
Also Volvo phasing out gas powered engines in 2019 will put more pressure on governments to build more infrastructure to support them and you already have demand from Tesla owners. The more people that have a need for a place to charge their vehicle, the more likely an elected official would push for policy that address that need. Eventually, a government somewhere will pass the law that requires all new vehicles in their nation to be either hybrid or electric.
The big thing with electric vehicles is that their energy is as clean as the power grid. Don't feel they are clean enough, just upgrade the grid if you can.
Also Volvo phasing out gas powered engines in 2019 will put more pressure on governments to build more infrastructure to support them and you already have demand from Tesla owners. The more people that have a need for a place to charge their vehicle, the more likely an elected official would push for policy that address that need. Eventually, a government somewhere will pass the law that requires all new vehicles in their nation to be either hybrid or electric.
Although I tend to lean free market, I think it would be awesome if some state would do this. Say California. If successful it would take hold across the country. I have a feeling we are 20 years away from battery tech that can compete with gasoline but California is pretty rich and early adoption seems to require being rich.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Posts
I'll cop to it being a slippery slope, but creating series of legislation with progressively more restrictive/burdensome requirements is a real practice.
Think of it this way: I write a literary study about... well, the topic itself doesn't really matter. What does matter is that in all my citations, that is to say, my raw data, I utilize a number of sources, many of which are copyrighted. I have either gotten express permission to include extended quotations, or I utilize quotations under Fair Use.
According to the argument being put forth, I should include the full texts of all these copyrighted works along with my study, for free access to anyone.
You are making the assumption that all data used is generated, at least in part, with public research grants. You are also making an assertion that if something is funded with public research grants, the public should have access to all aspects of the research. That's not the intention of public research grants. The research itself is for the public's benefit. The results of that study benefits the public even if they do not read or understand the study that was conducted. Indeed, If for most of the public, the peer-reviewed study will be too technical and complex for them to comprehend - so what good would it do to compel the even more esoteric and technical raw data to be seen on-demand?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
And these are real databases with curated data and web-front UIs and such. We can't even keep this shit online, and we're talking about just barfing a billion plain-text files onto the Web. For what?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Right. What that Harvard group didn't release wasn't temperature data nor was it health data - I'd be surprised if they collected that data themselves, instead of accessing/retrieving it from public/semi-public sources. What they didn't release was the various bits and pieces of their own internal analyses as they arbitrarily spat out files for manual review. Which, look, if someone has some actual, specific, well-informed concerns about that data, I'd say they should make it available to at least those people for review and scrutiny. But otherwise, it's just a trawling expedition. They (hopefully) described their methods in good detail; just perform the damn analysis yourself using the same data and the same methods, or alternative methods if you prefer.
Besides, if I was a bad actor, I'd just chain together all my analyses into a single automated pipeline, so there was no intermediate data output, and thus no data for you to complain about my not releasing anyways. Frankly, most scientists aren't opposed to providing their data publicly. It's just too big a pain in the ass for no benefit to ourselves and next to no benefit generally. Most people will toss up most of the data they think is relevant already, at least in my field, in supplementary data. But again, I can't attach 80 GB of supplementary to my journal article, so....
"Trust me" science isn't a thing that actually exists as far as I know, it reeks of being a made up problem because scientists are coming up with politically inconvenient results. They even called it the HONEST act to create the implication that scientists are lying.
They could write legislation that creates a body that looks for and attempts to prosecute and expose the providers of false data, but that's not onerous to the EPA and wouldn't create the desired effect. Have they provided any instances where fraudulent science was used while making a decision?
ok well the best number I can find says there are about 3m PhD holders so let's say you get your 2t dropbox with your degree, that's 36m/year to hold all the data generated by all the PhD's but this is fucking stupid because "we can't afford to store the data" is not the reason, is it. The data storage, the "extra work", the "you don't need it", the "no one likes reproducing", the "that's not how peer review works"... all these things are problems solvable by "if you work for the govt, you do it this way, the end."
The reason is that careers are made off this stuff and people don't want to get scooped. It would suck for you if a team of researchers took your PhD thesis data and turned it into a bunch of interesting papers while you were still looking for a job, and you never got any credit for the work. The reason is that the data is valuable to the researchers because their careers are based on the results they find. Which, fair enough, but that doesn't sound like a very compelling argument for people who are legit trying to save the world.
If you're not going to engage with the substance of the arguments that have been presented, and instead insist on advancing your own nonsensical conspiracy theory - in which data is supposed to be released before the paper describing the data even exists, like my silently uploading data to a public Dropbox nobody knows about has any actual impact on the world lololololololol - have fun talking to yourself then. I have no interest in engaging with some paranoid-ass silly goose whose response to reasoned arguments is, "YEAH, but you're just fucking LYING, because you're a self-serving twit out to destroy the world."
But doesn't the free market state that if people are to receive no benefit from the scientific data they generate, that they will continue generating that data for free? I'm pretty sure Adam Smith not only wrote about that, but he also published the data that supported that claim before he wrote about it.
This is an extra burden, both in money used and time spent.
It also stiffles research because suddenly lot of data may become unavailable for theresearchers because people don't want to release it for every insane nutjob out there.
Only reason (apart from stiffling research) is if you assume that researchers are lying (and fix for that should come from peer review, not demanding largely useless data).
Let's fund repeat studies instead, that way we can have more thoroughly peer reviewed studies, instead of less studies done with less data.
eh? I'm referring to the previous page, where mrondeau points out that multiple studies are done using the same data set. It would be silly to expect you to publish it as you were generating it but none of these arguments have any substance, at least for non-PHI data, when you are talking about releasing after the fact. Data storage is not free, but it ain't expensive either. And upthread you were complaining about losing access to data!
Accusing me of conspiracy theorizing over the idea that people want to keep data proprietary because it's personally valuable is maybe the weakest, most benign accusation ever. Who could ever believe so outlandish a scenario?
Also a giant digital hippie. Information wants to be free, dude.
Back to climate change please.
I did indeed notice that you seized upon the one post with the least relevance to the current situation. Because again, what climate data do you think these researchers are generating that they can possibly be scooped on? Climate data is not proprietary data. Climate change researchers have not gone out into the world and gathered their own datasets on temperatures around the world over the past century and each selfishly hoarded their own set, hoping to get multiple papers out of it.
You're chasing an absurd ghost because it's the ghost you want to chase. You'd rather believe the worst of scientists than actually listen to answers from scientists themselves.
Which will be tasked with collecting, storing, printing and granting access to, all source data of all publicly available research.
Weren't the climate researchers the ones who were squirreling away data before this administration came in, for fear of losing that data?
Might they now no longer have access to the data because the admin destroyed it (as they could not save everything)?
You could formulate some arguments for why this might be ok or good if it had been another group/administration. But for this lot of cartoon villains the only explanation is nefarious.
Hahaha. Can't publish any new studies that rely on information they deleted.
There's also the issue that a couple of terabytes is peanuts in climate research, and would vanish without a trace inside a lot of datasets meant to model anything close to climate on a planetary scale, prior to the additional fun of knowing what the data is and how to interpret it. Hell, my last job was deep in the humanities and involved juggling a 130TB collection, and I'm pretty sure that would vanish inside anything modeling North American climate in detail.
When you're potentially looking at petabyte-scale datasets, "just get a dropbox" isn't an option, which sends a lot of people straight to "they must be hiding something!" It kind of ends up being like the climate debate itself, where the actual facts might be too large or nuanced to condense into a convenient page of point form notes, which is enough for a lot of people to just go "tl;dr, it's all bullshit, I win."
Are you sure it's not tape drives?
The first sentence contradicts the headline. And big fuckin' whoop, Volvo's annual volume is tiny.
Isn't Volvo the auto manufacturer that got in big trouble last year for lying about diesel emissions testing?
That was Volkswagen and Mitsubishi.
Having more of them out there puts pressure on areas to allow or actively support building the necessary electric recharging stations to make long distance travel in an electric car possible.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/world-has-three-years-left-to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-warn-experts
Basically, we, as in the whole entire fucking world, have to reduce our emissions within 3 years, and we can stop the life-ending snowball effect of runaway global warming.
It's not all doom though. For the last three years, CO2 emissions have remained steady. If we commit to it, and permanently reduce the amount we dump into the atmosphere, we can stand a chance. Green energy producing technology is becoming cheaper and more viable, which is helping, as are the reduction of gas powered automobiles, like Volvo. However, if we make power generation cheaper, and each home actually viable, as well as really invest in battery powered trucks, we can definitely hit that.
There's a lot more, and those are a paraphrase.
Well it ain't fuckin' nothing. Every bit counts.
Switching to electrical vehicles isn't good because it inherently reduces emissions by itself (although on the aggregate, because not all electricity generation releases carbon dioxide, it does), but rather because we switch from a distributed problem to a fixed-point problem. There's a lot of cars out there. Reducing their emissions a small amount would make a huge difference, but a) is practically impossible to do as new technologies come out, because the existing fleet of cars is unimpacted, only future ones, and b) there's SO MANY of them, even a small cost becomes a huge financial burden. Electric vehicles go "let's move the problem from here to the power plant." The power plant can be upgraded after it's built more easily. It's much more reasonable to have more robust, expensive solutions of carbon capture there.
So switching to electrical vehicles isn't necessarily going to reduce emissions (although it frequently will). It will, however, make it much easier to reduce emissions in a large-scale manner in the future.
The diesel truck is absurdly worse, even if the electric vehicle is powered by a coal power plant on the utterly atrocious US grid.
This tool gives you a sense of CO2 emissions saved for various types of power generation:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html
Also Volvo phasing out gas powered engines in 2019 will put more pressure on governments to build more infrastructure to support them and you already have demand from Tesla owners. The more people that have a need for a place to charge their vehicle, the more likely an elected official would push for policy that address that need. Eventually, a government somewhere will pass the law that requires all new vehicles in their nation to be either hybrid or electric.
Although I tend to lean free market, I think it would be awesome if some state would do this. Say California. If successful it would take hold across the country. I have a feeling we are 20 years away from battery tech that can compete with gasoline but California is pretty rich and early adoption seems to require being rich.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck