A massive meltwater sheet (larger than Texas) formed on top of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, aka the one that's most vulnerable to collapse. A disintegration would mean an almost instant 3.3 meter rise in sea level, which is more than the usual models (which are very conservative so as not to scare the crazies who claim everything is being exaggerated to steal their jerbs) right now are predicting for the entire next century. Also, it was warm enough that rain fell on the Ross Ice Shelf, meaning more melting there as well.
Whoa doggie. The meltwater was on the Ross Ice Shelf, which is floating, so no sea level change if anything happens to it. However it is one of those sheets protecting West Antartica, so if the shelf goes away, then the ice on the continent starts flowing and then things really go to hell.
It's still a slow-motion apocalypse.
If something is floating, it's only displacing the volume of it that is submerged. If it is entirely submerged, then it's displacing all of it.
(Which led to something that blew my mind in AP physics - if you have a rock in a boat, and you throw it out into the lake, the lake level falls, because it was displacing its weight in water before, and once in, it only displaces its volume in water)
ehh... it's thing where ice is less dense than water.
because it floating, it displaces an amount of liquid with a weight equal to it's own weight. which us the same volume as it's own liquid volume, if you ignore air pockets.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
A massive meltwater sheet (larger than Texas) formed on top of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, aka the one that's most vulnerable to collapse. A disintegration would mean an almost instant 3.3 meter rise in sea level, which is more than the usual models (which are very conservative so as not to scare the crazies who claim everything is being exaggerated to steal their jerbs) right now are predicting for the entire next century. Also, it was warm enough that rain fell on the Ross Ice Shelf, meaning more melting there as well.
Whoa doggie. The meltwater was on the Ross Ice Shelf, which is floating, so no sea level change if anything happens to it. However it is one of those sheets protecting West Antartica, so if the shelf goes away, then the ice on the continent starts flowing and then things really go to hell.
It's still a slow-motion apocalypse.
If something is floating, it's only displacing the volume of it that is submerged. If it is entirely submerged, then it's displacing all of it.
(Which led to something that blew my mind in AP physics - if you have a rock in a boat, and you throw it out into the lake, the lake level falls, because it was displacing its weight in water before, and once in, it only displaces its volume in water)
Which I guess is relevant as far as the quantity of soil and rock tied up in the ice shelf go, but not likely to make a huge difference one way or another. The main thing is that the ice shelf had the melt event, and if the shelf collapses you'd get a faster melt of the West Antarctic sheets but not an instantaneous 10' wall of water heading out around the world.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
apologies if this info is up somewhere in the last few dozen pages, but does anyone here run their own climate model or has anyone participated in running one? I'm thinking about getting an academic copy of EdGCM and was wondering if there were opinions about it or an alternative.
According to my phone it is currently 114 degrees and mostly cloudy over in Mesa. That tweet reply saying no one does anything till after 8 isn't snark.
I will never, ever get tired of how smoothly he just rolls with it.
+18
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Hey guys my favorite stupid politician-I-experienced-first-hand is back and boy is he unable to make an argument. The video title is wrong, nobody loses their cool. But Franken describes (generally) the process that has lead to the scientific community saying we need to do something about climate change, and Rick Perry pretty much goes, "nuh uh, we still need to do that." Reminder that this jackass is currently the Secretary of Energy for the USA.
As a quick aside, I am in the Vegas area and we're playing chicken with that level of heat right now. At one point it hit 118 this past week. This pressure dome is the goddamn worst.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm going to Moab gfor the 4th weekend! It's gonma be grand!
I don't suppose it's too hot for mosquitoes?
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Hey guys my favorite stupid politician-I-experienced-first-hand is back and boy is he unable to make an argument. The video title is wrong, nobody loses their cool. But Franken describes (generally) the process that has lead to the scientific community saying we need to do something about climate change, and Rick Perry pretty much goes, "nuh uh, we still need to do that." Reminder that this jackass is currently the Secretary of Energy for the USA.
I had assumed that with his reaction upon learning what the Department of Energy did (after he was nominated for it) and then the radio silence from him almost altogether after that meant that he realized how important it was and was buckling down to do the best job he could even though he was way out of his depth.
Serves me right for giving a Republican politician the benefit of the doubt.
Hey guys my favorite stupid politician-I-experienced-first-hand is back and boy is he unable to make an argument. The video title is wrong, nobody loses their cool. But Franken describes (generally) the process that has lead to the scientific community saying we need to do something about climate change, and Rick Perry pretty much goes, "nuh uh, we still need to do that." Reminder that this jackass is currently the Secretary of Energy for the USA.
I mean he's right, the amount of hearing predicted to be produced by human emissions does not correlate with 100% off the observed temperature change. It correlates with about 120% of it because those much mocked climate scientists back in the 60s and 70s who said the world was cooling and that we may be due an ice age were also right and natural factors have shaved like 0.2 degrees off pre industrial average temperatures.
This whole thing is just a massive joke being played at the expense of our children. Do these people not realize that no amount of money can make corn grow when there is nowhere with sun and sub 45 C temperatures.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'd say it's amazing that this wretched poop-slurping hobgoblin is allowed to run America's top environmental watchdog bureau, but we're living in the darkest timeline so it really isn't that surprising at all.
Happened to see this when I was doing my daily news perusal. The article covers how climate change could impact GDP. A common theme I'm seeing here, is that Republican policy choices often come with adverse consequences that hit their voters the hardest. Republican states will be hit the hardest by the effects of climate change. Then there is also the factor that these the states that are most resistant to policies that could minimize the harm that climate change would have on their residents. Not to mention that many of those states also lack the kind of finding to implement any measures that could ease the pain.
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Climate change is already hitting the american appalachian region pretty hard. Just this last summer wildfires raged out of control for months spurred on by a drought and heatwave. The summer before we were getting so much rain that roads were being washed out and rivers were flooding. Emergency services around here are woefully underfunded and response times are slow. The rural poor are getting hit the hardest and everyone refuses to do anything about it.
GOP has spent decades lying to their voters and themselves, and while Republicans are masters of contradiction and gaslighting, trying to explain why climate change is suddenly real, and how those coal jobs are not coming back, might be a bit beyond even them.
GOP has spent decades lying to their voters and themselves, and while Republicans are masters of contradiction and gaslighting, trying to explain why climate change is suddenly real, and how those coal jobs are not coming back, might be a bit beyond even them.
GOP has spent decades lying to their voters and themselves, and while Republicans are masters of contradiction and gaslighting, trying to explain why climate change is suddenly real, and how those coal jobs are not coming back, might be a bit beyond even them.
democrats did it
A not insignificant chuck of their base would buy it, but they're already kinda teetering on the brink what with majority of people voting democrats and voter supression only barely keeping them in power, so they might not want to risk it.
Plus, another not insignificant chuck of the elected repubs are true believers.
Trump really is the avatar of modern GOP, stupid, beligerent, ignorant, bigoted and hostile to anything new (that does not somehow massage his ego and make him feel good).
So, turns out that the Republicans heard about how science needs to be open and reproducible, and decided to make a bill that requires the EPA to only consider studies that are entirely open and where all of the data is available and reproducible.
"This legislation ensures that sound science is the basis for EPA decisions and regulatory actions," Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the Science Committee, said on the House floor Wednesday.
"The days of 'trust-me' science are over. In our modern information age, federal regulations should be based only on data that is available for every American to see and that can be subjected to independent review," he said. "That's called the scientific method."
Ignoring Smith's basic misunderstanding of the scientific method...
On its face, that sounds good, but the reality is that reproducibility doesn't require access to every bit of raw data, and many studies that reproduce climate change data are not so open that they include every bit of raw data in the publishing.
This also opens up research to pundits and deniers crawling through the data until they find anything that they think supports their claim, despite that being unscientific or that particular piece being part of an outlier or explained by another situation.
So, in reality what happens is that the EPA drops tons of regulatory and environmental research, while paid consultants get to delay environmental regulation on the basis of outliers or based on the consultants nitpicking explained and examined scientific proceedure.
What's actually funny is that I managed to find the best evidence against this bill from a blog post by a rep from the Center for Accountability in Science (an anti-regulation, industry powered consultant group of the type I mentioned above)
The most prestigious academic journals lock research findings behind expensive paywalls, and virtually none publish the accompanying raw data.
...
To make matters worse, many people may be surprised to find that the EPA doesn't own, nor does it even have access to, much of the data justifying its most impactful regulations. The trouble stems largely from EPA research grants, which don't currently require researchers to release the totality their findings to the federal agency.
EPA staff admitted to their meager access to information after being unable to produce raw air pollution data requested under a 2013 Congressional subpoena. Part of the data in question belonged to Harvard University, where researchers tied air pollution to deaths in six U.S. cities. Since its publication, the study has supported upwards of $65 billion in regulatory oversight.
Basically? Raw data is not regularly available. However it's also often not necessary for reproduction studies. This regulation would let the EPA throw out essentially all of their peer-reviewed science based on an arbitrary degree transparency that they know is not supported by scientific journals, nor will it be in the future.
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!
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 an unnecessary burden created for the sole purpose of stifling research. Dedwrekka's post sums it up pretty well.
I see this as an issue of timelines. Slowly gradually shifting to this approach requiring raw data for reproduction is fine, suddenly chopping off anything that doesn't meet that rigorous standard causes chaos. Chaos that is fantastic for somebody trying to spread misinformation.
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 an unnecessary burden created for the sole purpose of stifling research. Dedwrekka's post sums it up pretty well.
Can you walk me through the burden involved?
"raw files we used can be downloaded at the following dropbox address:" doesn't seem like much of a burden, technically. I feel like the research stifling part is the part where private groups who are receiving public money don't want to give it up, so they themselves stifle research instead of opening access.
If you've got the raw data in the first place, just put it up on the web yo. This is a solved problem, and it has been for 15 years.
edit: I discarded the "unnecessary" part of your response because I couldn't possibly care less how necessary it is. More information is always better.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Also, It's pretty common to get many papers from one set of experimental data, and you can't do that if the data is made public, and someone else use it to publish first.
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?
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.
Also, It's pretty common to get many papers from one set of experimental data, and you can't do that if the data is made public, and someone else use it to publish first.
The whole open science movement is something that sounds cool and sensible, but is utterly inadequate towards solving the problems with science that it claims to. What we need are credible, funded reproduction and validation studies. Having publicly available data would facilitate such studies, but it would not necessarily generate them, plus it's just generally throwing a wheelbarrow of hammers at a wall to see what sticks. When real, designed public databases are already being taken offline due to a lack of funding - part of funding agencies' drive to generate novel, high-buzz research at the expense of fundamental supportive research - the whole approach seems fairly ignorant of the actual dynamics of scientific data and its publicity.
I mean hell, when it comes to climate change data, I don't think any of the primary observational data is private anyways. It's not like Harvard University's had a bunch of temperature sensors scattered around the globe for the past few decades, generating proprietary data readings. They're just taking the publicly available temperature data! Just take the same data - or an alternate set of data - and run your own analysis if you doubt their work.
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!
Just for some examples, studies about health risks contain private HIPPA data and industry studies contain private trade secrets.
Requirements of repeatability of decades long health studies prior to being acted on puts lives at risk for decades in the future. It's a move done purely to prevent regulation, not to improve its quality.
Requiring that reviewers basically re-do entire studies themselves from the raw data rather than do the normal peer-reviww process of checking methodology and that conclusions follow correctly fundamentally misunderstands how the scientific process works.
In addition, if you receive grants from the EPA for scientific studies, you are barred from being part of their scientific advisory board. Industry "experts" are not restricted. Assuming bias because they got a government grant but not assuming any bias from the industries being regulated is stupid.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
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 an unnecessary burden created for the sole purpose of stifling research. Dedwrekka's post sums it up pretty well.
Can you walk me through the burden involved?
"raw files we used can be downloaded at the following dropbox address:" doesn't seem like much of a burden, technically. I feel like the research stifling part is the part where private groups who are receiving public money don't want to give it up, so they themselves stifle research instead of opening access.
If you've got the raw data in the first place, just put it up on the web yo. This is a solved problem, and it has been for 15 years.
edit: I discarded the "unnecessary" part of your response because I couldn't possibly care less how necessary it is. More information is always better.
For clinical research:
1) A data management access plan is required to guide distribution of raw data and must be approved by the local IRB
2) Some research institutions, such as the VA, don't allow any cloud sharing software, including Dropbox
3) Raw data may contain personally identifiable information needing to be expunged
4) Raw data may be so poorly organized that external interpretation may lead to faulty results
5) The infrastructure may not exist to keep records for long term past study closure
6) Databanking for retention of long term results may require extra steps with the IRB, FDA, and hospital administration to ensure quality and safety, especially if these are perishable specimens
7) PIs can't be bothered
I am actually ambivalent about this since post study data management has been necessary at the VA since the previous administration.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Right it's a thing that sounds like "show us 2 and 2 so we can see for ourselves if it makes four" and is actually more like "show us [incomprehensible] so we can do nothing and also you've got an extra hoop to jump through and also we can retroactively ignore everything published prior to 2018."
I mean raw data is sometimes useful, but it's mostly useless without like a real effort to library, archive, and provide contextual help. Like that's why it's usually transferred between folks working on the same shit.
If someone's like "no only I can see this data and interpret it I don't trust you person in the same field studying the same problem" you can be rightly suspicious because hey are you trying to keep your peers from properly reviewing this? If someone's like nah I don't usually keep my experimental scripts printed out as 90,000 pages of 0's and 1's that's reasonable because no one does. I don't think I have any of the "raw data" from my experiments because like the output from my experimental procedure was not raw key-press times it was "if X then do Y" with various conditionals.
Edit: Oh, also requiring reproduction without providing any positive benefit to doing said reproduction may as well literally be "you must not bother doing these experiments".
Like there is literally no incentive for anyone to reproduce difficult or time-consuming work (read: like all of it). What do you get for a reproduction study? Nothing! You weren't the first. Sure you might hit it big by finding something other than the initial finding but there's no reason to focus on that when you've gotta write grants literally every second of every day to stay in work. You need to look for new shit.
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.
Posts
ehh... it's thing where ice is less dense than water.
because it floating, it displaces an amount of liquid with a weight equal to it's own weight. which us the same volume as it's own liquid volume, if you ignore air pockets.
Which I guess is relevant as far as the quantity of soil and rock tied up in the ice shelf go, but not likely to make a huge difference one way or another. The main thing is that the ice shelf had the melt event, and if the shelf collapses you'd get a faster melt of the West Antarctic sheets but not an instantaneous 10' wall of water heading out around the world.
I host a podcast about movies.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/heatwaves-climate-change-global-warming/
According to my phone it is currently 114 degrees and mostly cloudy over in Mesa. That tweet reply saying no one does anything till after 8 isn't snark.
Ornithopters.
Weather map is prescient.
"Again, I'm not your dad, but get out."
"Don't bother looting up there, it's not going to be worth it."
This guy.
I don't suppose it's too hot for mosquitoes?
It's never too hot for those little fuckers.
They survived the Dinosaurs so a little heat is not going to do them in
Jesus Christ, what an asshole
Serves me right for giving a Republican politician the benefit of the doubt.
I mean he's right, the amount of hearing predicted to be produced by human emissions does not correlate with 100% off the observed temperature change. It correlates with about 120% of it because those much mocked climate scientists back in the 60s and 70s who said the world was cooling and that we may be due an ice age were also right and natural factors have shaved like 0.2 degrees off pre industrial average temperatures.
This whole thing is just a massive joke being played at the expense of our children. Do these people not realize that no amount of money can make corn grow when there is nowhere with sun and sub 45 C temperatures.
I'd say it's amazing that this wretched poop-slurping hobgoblin is allowed to run America's top environmental watchdog bureau, but we're living in the darkest timeline so it really isn't that surprising at all.
democrats did it
Plus, another not insignificant chuck of the elected repubs are true believers.
Trump really is the avatar of modern GOP, stupid, beligerent, ignorant, bigoted and hostile to anything new (that does not somehow massage his ego and make him feel good).
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326380-house-votes-to-restrict-epas-use-of-science Ignoring Smith's basic misunderstanding of the scientific method...
On its face, that sounds good, but the reality is that reproducibility doesn't require access to every bit of raw data, and many studies that reproduce climate change data are not so open that they include every bit of raw data in the publishing.
This also opens up research to pundits and deniers crawling through the data until they find anything that they think supports their claim, despite that being unscientific or that particular piece being part of an outlier or explained by another situation.
So, in reality what happens is that the EPA drops tons of regulatory and environmental research, while paid consultants get to delay environmental regulation on the basis of outliers or based on the consultants nitpicking explained and examined scientific proceedure.
What's actually funny is that I managed to find the best evidence against this bill from a blog post by a rep from the Center for Accountability in Science (an anti-regulation, industry powered consultant group of the type I mentioned above)
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/327833-honest-act-answers-sciences-call-for-transparency-why-is-it
Basically? Raw data is not regularly available. However it's also often not necessary for reproduction studies. This regulation would let the EPA throw out essentially all of their peer-reviewed science based on an arbitrary degree transparency that they know is not supported by scientific journals, nor will it be in the future.
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 an unnecessary burden created for the sole purpose of stifling research. Dedwrekka's post sums it up pretty well.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Can you walk me through the burden involved?
"raw files we used can be downloaded at the following dropbox address:" doesn't seem like much of a burden, technically. I feel like the research stifling part is the part where private groups who are receiving public money don't want to give it up, so they themselves stifle research instead of opening access.
If you've got the raw data in the first place, just put it up on the web yo. This is a solved problem, and it has been for 15 years.
edit: I discarded the "unnecessary" part of your response because I couldn't possibly care less how necessary it is. More information is always better.
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.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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.
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.
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?
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?
aha
I mean hell, when it comes to climate change data, I don't think any of the primary observational data is private anyways. It's not like Harvard University's had a bunch of temperature sensors scattered around the globe for the past few decades, generating proprietary data readings. They're just taking the publicly available temperature data! Just take the same data - or an alternate set of data - and run your own analysis if you doubt their work.
Just for some examples, studies about health risks contain private HIPPA data and industry studies contain private trade secrets.
Requirements of repeatability of decades long health studies prior to being acted on puts lives at risk for decades in the future. It's a move done purely to prevent regulation, not to improve its quality.
Requiring that reviewers basically re-do entire studies themselves from the raw data rather than do the normal peer-reviww process of checking methodology and that conclusions follow correctly fundamentally misunderstands how the scientific process works.
In addition, if you receive grants from the EPA for scientific studies, you are barred from being part of their scientific advisory board. Industry "experts" are not restricted. Assuming bias because they got a government grant but not assuming any bias from the industries being regulated is stupid.
For clinical research:
1) A data management access plan is required to guide distribution of raw data and must be approved by the local IRB
2) Some research institutions, such as the VA, don't allow any cloud sharing software, including Dropbox
3) Raw data may contain personally identifiable information needing to be expunged
4) Raw data may be so poorly organized that external interpretation may lead to faulty results
5) The infrastructure may not exist to keep records for long term past study closure
6) Databanking for retention of long term results may require extra steps with the IRB, FDA, and hospital administration to ensure quality and safety, especially if these are perishable specimens
7) PIs can't be bothered
I am actually ambivalent about this since post study data management has been necessary at the VA since the previous administration.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I mean raw data is sometimes useful, but it's mostly useless without like a real effort to library, archive, and provide contextual help. Like that's why it's usually transferred between folks working on the same shit.
If someone's like "no only I can see this data and interpret it I don't trust you person in the same field studying the same problem" you can be rightly suspicious because hey are you trying to keep your peers from properly reviewing this? If someone's like nah I don't usually keep my experimental scripts printed out as 90,000 pages of 0's and 1's that's reasonable because no one does. I don't think I have any of the "raw data" from my experiments because like the output from my experimental procedure was not raw key-press times it was "if X then do Y" with various conditionals.
Edit: Oh, also requiring reproduction without providing any positive benefit to doing said reproduction may as well literally be "you must not bother doing these experiments".
Like there is literally no incentive for anyone to reproduce difficult or time-consuming work (read: like all of it). What do you get for a reproduction study? Nothing! You weren't the first. Sure you might hit it big by finding something other than the initial finding but there's no reason to focus on that when you've gotta write grants literally every second of every day to stay in work. You need to look for new shit.
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.