Developing a de-centralized atmospheric science journal

[andyhb]

Interesting perspective and a great thread for intelligent discourse. Already some great insight provided by others ( minus the Andyhb garbage). Will be interesting to see some detailed responses from others who are in your field.  Having to pay per view for AMS articles is a huge PITA but somewhat understandable. Having spoken to many in your field they are in agreement with many but certainly not all of your points. A clique seems to exist at some level and I have to strongly agree with you on the over sensitivity to criticism.

 

What about mine is garbage? Have you not seen what happens every time this guy gets disagreed with on here?

 

If you want my opinion on the idea on the more accessible peer review journal, look towards Jake's posts.

[Stebo]

The only thing this would do, is allow for psuedoscience beliefs to be given an avenue of publishing. There is a reason it takes time for peer review articles to be published, they checked and double checked to make sure it is quality data being put out.

 

I won't even go into the bitcoins aspect, but something like that would turn off a lot of people because it is an unstable form of currency that could be devalued at any point.

[turtlehurricane]

It would certainly be a difficult project to build this entire de-centralized journal from scratch, especially when it comes to ensuring true de-centralization and cryptographic security. So I was thinking perhaps this could be built on the pre-existing Bitcoin structure.

 

As a test I embedded the entire 2 pm Erika advisory from the NHC into a blockchain transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/c80736858f5fbfc6859c12642b6f0da1e84f213e067730fd7378fa50cc1b796a

 

 

This NHC advisory is now stored in the blockchain forever, every single computer which runs Bitcoin will have the data from this NHC advisory. It is cryptographically encrypted and secured and can never be changed.

 

It actually took 183 tiny transactions all sent to different addresses to do that, but it was all part of the same transaction, and programmers have already written the code to do this.

 

 

Each address stores some a portion of the text as HEX data for example:

 

You get the HEX data from each address and when you sum it all up it gives the full advisory text

 

 

I think something like this can form the backbone of a de-centralized journal.

 

Also it costs a tiny fee of $0.01-$0.50 depending on the amount of text you store, which would discourage spamming big time.

[turtlehurricane]

The only thing this would do, is allow for psuedoscience beliefs to be given an avenue of publishing. There is a reason it takes time for peer review articles to be published, they checked and double checked to make sure it is quality data being put out.

 

I won't even go into the bitcoins aspect, but something like that would turn off a lot of people because it is an unstable form of currency that could be devalued at any point.

The price of Bitcoin has little to do with its actual value. It's anonymous, secure, instant, and completely unregulated, which gives it intrinsic value

 

That's the same properties I want for this de-centralized journal.

[turtlehurricane]

so this thread isn't about the AMS or your poorly-understood concept of the peer review system--it's somehow a bitcoin-related grift you're floating.

If you actually read the entire first post you will see it's about how the current ams publishing system is fundamentally flawed, and a de-centralized journal would fix a lot of the current issues.

Grift means swindle, no one gets any profit from this since it is decentralized so that makes no sense.

I'm very serious about creating this so I've begun research

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[turtlehurricane]

and it's poorly-written and abysmally-researched and makes no sense. furthermore, you didn't acknowledge any of the facts that were brought to bear on your faulty assumptions. instead you just suddenly moved the topic to creating a journal in bitcoin. this is all about some kind of bitcoin grift.

uhhhh:

someone makes money off it if you are using a system that costs the users to use it. why not just change the title of the thread and be honest about it, and then the mods can move it to the commercial enterprises subforum.

I've actually answered each one of your questions despite all the insults.

The money would pay bitcoin miner fees, miners are the ones who cryptographically secure the bitcoin network. Fee is very small but depends on total amount of data.

It is completely reasonable to pay a fee for the efficiency and security of the network. This fee certainly doesn't go to me like you imply, and it's amusing you assumed that.

This is simply not a commercial enterprise, its profit less. I want to do this for the good of humanity and science, in opposition to the increasingly centralized and regulated nature of everything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SchaumburgStormer]

So if I understand this correctly, you want a free, searchable, "pubmed" style stockpile of publications, that anyone can post to and search, stored in its entirety on computers worldwide, that somehow runs with no operating costs?

Your idea is basically a Wikipedia clone that you want stored on every users computer. From a simple size standpoint, that is not possible. Additionally, Wikipedia certainly has overhead costs and issues with copyright, plagiarism, and misinformation, and those are often extremely quickly remedied by peers and/or admin.

While I understand your frustration at what is perceived to be a lack of free flowing knowledge, your system as laid out above is simply not realistic. Peer review may not always be perfect, but it has gotten us to where we are today and is a fundamental piece of furthering scientific knowledge.

[Typhoon Tip]

AMS iniquity this... Bitcoin tedium that... 

 

I'm more fascinated with the other elephant in the room:  why/how the Meteorological field as a whole is characterized by such vitriol?  Scratch that ... why/how IS the Meteorological field as a whole overrun by vitriol.

 

It's mind boggling, ...yet, must have a cause.  And I know the "back-stabbing vitriol" is a loaded statement; more succinctly, the field is festooned by either back-stabbers, or trolls, at all ranks of the scientific echeloning at that.  It's just a plague in this field, simply put.

 

But why. why why why.  Why is this field so different from any other Nature science discipline?   Or hell - maybe it isn't.  Maybe in Astronomy circles, there is a preponderance of snipers in ranked positions scoping out whose veracious voices they think need to be muted. Maybe is Geology circles there are cabals, capable and willing to suppress the discoveries of a few in lieu of the popularity of others... Maybe in Biology, Sociology, Criminology ... anything with an "ology," they are all roiling in amoral douche-bags vying for intellectual supremacy, steeling material, ...basically, stymieing any hope of fluid scientific process.  

 

I may not agree with all the sentiments of many in this thread, but I certainly sympathize and agree with some of it.  Because I've seen the oddball form of wanton negative competitiveness that goes on the field of Meteorology, and I do think this fields boasts it in greater quantity than any of the others.  And I'm just perplexed to understand what it is about weather that attracts such discord and dysfunction.  

 

interesting

[bobbutts]

I think you're making things overly complicated for yourself.  By trashing the AMS you are losing much of your audience.  And mentioning Bitcoin is another can of worms at least until you have a solid plan on how to use it.  I'd focus more on selling the idea of a decentralized journal on it's own merits.

[Typhoon Tip]

it's all throughout all of academia. meteorology isn't special. lol.

 

I said that...

 

I also so, Met seems to have it in the greatest amount.   

[turtlehurricane]

you're not a bitcoin miner, then?

 Nope I am not, it's only profitable if you have millions of dollars of mining equipment. I have zero.

 

Main reason I wanted to use Bitcoin as a backbone is because it's already a well known platform and secure. If I was to make this from scratch, even with a team of experts, it would likely be hacked. The fundamental code of Bitcoin simply cannot be hacked.

 

The biggest problem with this idea is how to store the information on the Bitcoin network. It is probably not feasible to store it directly in the blockchain since at most 144 mb of data is transmitted per day via the blockchain.

 

However I think a separate program can be made which integrates Bitcoin's blockchain, so it has all the cryptographic benefits, a strong network of computers, and can store as much data as we need. The security generated by all the computers in the bitcoin network is unparalleled, would be stupid not to use it.

[turtlehurricane]

AMS iniquity this... Bitcoin tedium that... 

 

I'm more fascinated with the other elephant in the room:  why/how the Meteorological field as a whole is characterized by such vitriol?  Scratch that ... why/how IS the Meteorological field as a whole overrun by vitriol.

 

It's mind boggling, ...yet, must have a cause.  And I know the "back-stabbing vitriol" is a loaded statement; more succinctly, the field is festooned by either back-stabbers, or trolls, at all ranks of the scientific echeloning at that.  It's just a plague in this field, simply put.

 

But why. why why why.  Why is this field so different from any other Nature science discipline?   Or hell - maybe it isn't.  Maybe in Astronomy circles, there is a preponderance of snipers in ranked positions scoping out whose veracious voices they think need to be muted. Maybe is Geology circles there are cabals, capable and willing to suppress the discoveries of a few in lieu of the popularity of others... Maybe in Biology, Sociology, Criminology ... anything with an "ology," they are all roiling in amoral douche-bags vying for intellectual supremacy, steeling material, ...basically, stymieing any hope of fluid scientific process.  

 

I may not agree with all the sentiments of many in this thread, but I certainly sympathize and agree with some of it.  Because I've seen the oddball form of wanton negative competitiveness that goes on the field of Meteorology, and I do think this fields boasts it in greater quantity than any of the others.  And I'm just perplexed to understand what it is about weather that attracts such discord and dysfunction.  

 

interesting

I think it's mostly due to a lack of funding, so meteorologists attack competitors out of a sub-conscious fear they may lose funding. Funding has only been decreasing, so anyone who obtains funding causes someone else to lose it.

 

I think if this de-centralized journal is created correctly the funding issue would become history, if atmospheric science was advancing as fast as I think it would in a free system then there'd be alot more investment.

[LocoAko]

AMS iniquity this... Bitcoin tedium that... 

 

I'm more fascinated with the other elephant in the room:  why/how the Meteorological field as a whole is characterized by such vitriol?  Scratch that ... why/how IS the Meteorological field as a whole overrun by vitriol.

 

It's mind boggling, ...yet, must have a cause.  And I know the "back-stabbing vitriol" is a loaded statement; more succinctly, the field is festooned by either back-stabbers, or trolls, at all ranks of the scientific echeloning at that.  It's just a plague in this field, simply put.

 

But why. why why why.  Why is this field so different from any other Nature science discipline?   Or hell - maybe it isn't.  Maybe in Astronomy circles, there is a preponderance of snipers in ranked positions scoping out whose veracious voices they think need to be muted. Maybe is Geology circles there are cabals, capable and willing to suppress the discoveries of a few in lieu of the popularity of others... Maybe in Biology, Sociology, Criminology ... anything with an "ology," they are all roiling in amoral douche-bags vying for intellectual supremacy, steeling material, ...basically, stymieing any hope of fluid scientific process.  

 

I may not agree with all the sentiments of many in this thread, but I certainly sympathize and agree with some of it.  Because I've seen the oddball form of wanton negative competitiveness that goes on the field of Meteorology, and I do think this fields boasts it in greater quantity than any of the others.  And I'm just perplexed to understand what it is about weather that attracts such discord and dysfunction.  

 

interesting

 

I agree with Trixie that meteorology isn't special in general. I do think, however, it is somewhat unique in that it deals with trying to predict the future (quite the task!), a general public that has strong thoughts about the subject, and occasionally life-threatening phenomena all of which up the stakes (and the egos along with them) along the way. Throw in that it is something many of us have been emotionally involved in from a young age and I think it's just a recipe for lots of bruised egos and sniping. 

[heavy_wx]

I think it's mostly due to a lack of funding, so meteorologists attack competitors out of a sub-conscious fear they may lose funding. Funding has only been decreasing, so anyone who obtains funding causes someone else to lose it.

 

I think if this de-centralized journal is created correctly the funding issue would become history, if atmospheric science was advancing as fast as I think it would in a free system then there'd be alot more investment.

 

I don't see how allowing anyone to post "articles" to an electronic journal will help the atmospheric sciences advance more rapidly. In fact, it may actually impede the field as legitimate scientists have to waste their time disproving bad articles. While not perfect, requiring authors to pay to publish their research reduces this problem substantially, as these scientists funded by NSF/DOE/etc. will likely produce higher quality research than people who haven't gone through the proposal process.

 

The Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology is an example of an-open access journal where there is still a rigorous peer-review process, but the cost to publish is substantially lower than the AMS journals. Perhaps that could be a model for serious scientific work to be published by those outside the traditional academic community.

[turtlehurricane]

I agree with Trixie that meteorology isn't special in general. I do think, however, it is somewhat unique in that it deals with trying to predict the future (quite the task!), a general public that has strong thoughts about the subject, and occasionally life-threatening phenomena all of which up the stakes (and the egos along with them) along the way. Throw in that it is something many of us have been emotionally involved in from a young age and I think it's just a recipe for lots of bruised egos and sniping.

It's probably due to competition for money, there is so little money in meteorology it drives people bat****. If there was funding for everyone there would be way less fighting I think...

A de-centralized journal wouldn't completely solve this, it'll also be used as a platform to attack each other. 1 benefit is it will eliminate censorship associated with the constant fighting

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LocoAko]

It's probably due to competition for money, there is so little money in meteorology it drives people bat****. If there was funding for everyone there would be way less fighting I think...

A de-centralized journal wouldn't completely solve this, it'll also be used as a platform to attack each other. 1 benefit is it will eliminate censorship associated with the constant fighting

Sent from my iPhone

 

I must run in different meteorological circles than you, because I'm not constantly surrounded by fighting and everyone biting each other's heads off. Most scientists I know are eager for collaboration and experience a healthy sense of competition. You make it sound like everyone is a backstabbing monster motivated solely by the next grant proposal. Sorry that you seem to have had such bad experiences. 

 

And really, lack of funding doesn't explain the vitriol from most posters on the forums..  

[turtlehurricane]

I don't see how allowing anyone to post "articles" to an electronic journal will help the atmospheric sciences advance more rapidly. In fact, it may actually impede the field as legitimate scientists have to waste their time disproving bad articles. While not perfect, requiring authors to pay to publish their research reduces this problem substantially, as these scientists funded by NSF/DOE/etc. will likely produce higher quality research than people who haven't gone through the proposal process.

The Electronic Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology is an example of an-open access journal where there is still a rigorous peer-review process, but the cost to publish is substantially lower than the AMS journals. Perhaps that could be a model for serious scientific work to be published by those outside the traditional academic community.

There's only one way to find out

No one will be forced to use it, so I don't see how it could do harm. In fact it may nicely compliment ams journals if they adopt it. I started this post with the ams discussion just to get the point across that our current system has some serious flaws.

Unfortunately even journals outside the ams are prone to centralization problems, so I'm not going to try and make another journal with editors and such. People who support underdog journals might love this new system though.

Sent from my iPhone

[WxUSAF]

I have some sympathy to the high entrance cost for science and certainly think things should be more open to the public.  The US gov't has taken steps for the second part of that with legislation to make sure publically-funded science produces publically-available results. 

 

For my field, most people publish in either JGR or Icarus.  JGR costs about $2K to publish and Icarus is free.  I could certainly publish in JAS, but haven't seen the need yet. 

 

Not sure where other people get money to pay for those publication costs, but it's very normal (and accepted/encouraged) to put these costs in a grant proposal.  2 proposals I'm submitting next week will have $4K each for publication costs. 

 

But going to some sort of open-source peer review is just fraught with issues and would really up the noise-to-signal ratio in science.  That said there are several online repositories of submitted articles (and some journals encourage this), with arxiv.org being the most well-known in my field at least. 

[turtlehurricane]

I have some sympathy to the high entrance cost for science and certainly think things should be more open to the public.  The US gov't has taken steps for the second part of that with legislation to make sure publically-funded science produces publically-available results. 

 

For my field, most people publish in either JGR or Icarus.  JGR costs about $2K to publish and Icarus is free.  I could certainly publish in JAS, but haven't seen the need yet. 

 

Not sure where other people get money to pay for those publication costs, but it's very normal (and accepted/encouraged) to put these costs in a grant proposal.  2 proposals I'm submitting next week will have $4K each for publication costs. 

 

But going to some sort of open-source peer review is just fraught with issues and would really up the noise-to-signal ratio in science.  That said there are several online repositories of submitted articles (and some journals encourage this), with arxiv.org being the most well-known in my field at least. 

It's certainly well accepted to pay thousands of dollars for an article, but it creates an insurmountable entry barrier for most. If you're middle class and not employed by the government or a university you won't be able to publish ideas, even if you have the best idea ever. Allowing all people in the world to post to the de-centralized journal would probably increase the flow of new ideas by orders of magnitude.

 

And it definitely won't be easy, but I expect the community will over time develop a rigorous and legitimate peer review system on this platform.

 

Thank you for mentioning arXiv.org, I've never seen it before and it is somewhat similar to what I'm imagining here.

[Msalgado]

It's certainly well accepted to pay thousands of dollars for an article, but it creates an insurmountable entry barrier for most. If you're middle class and not employed by the government or a university you won't be able to publish ideas, even if you have the best idea ever. Allowing all people in the world to post to the de-centralized journal would probably increase the flow of new ideas by orders of magnitude.

 

And it definitely won't be easy, but I expect the community will over time develop a rigorous and legitimate peer review system on this platform.

 

Thank you for mentioning arXiv.org, I've never seen it before and it is somewhat similar to what I'm imagining here.

 

The idea that you wouldn't have a novel idea published for the reasons you listed is simply false.  You may not have the resources, but you would simply collaborate with someone who does.  In essence, that's the system grad students such as myself find ourselves in and it works fine.  This also ignores that private entities not affiliated with the government or universities also publish.  I know because I worked for a consulting firm prior to grad school where there was much active scientific publication.

 

You have a view of science that is very shallow.  Science is an expensive endeavour and publication costs are the least of the concern.  Honestly, 2 grand in publication fees can't even stack up to the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars that come into play for getting publishable results to begin with.

[turtlehurricane]

There's definitely people with zero funding that have made groundbreaking discoveries, and as it is now their voices are not heard. It would benefit everyone to change that.

Honestly I see the need for funding to do science as somewhat a farce. You can do as much meteorological science as experts in the laboratory with simply a computer and Internet connection.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Msalgado]

Yeah, well, I'd love for you to do the atmospheric chemistry work that I do without funding.  You seem to have a very narrow idea of what science is and how little it costs, but I have seen first hand how much experimental research costs and how quickly those costs can grow.

[turtlehurricane]

What I say is true though, someone with no money and just a computer can do excellent research, via the massive amounts of public data. Most of the data collected by research organizations is totally unused, which is a waste of resources, yet they spend money to get even more data.

I would say it's narrow to even say that science is expensive just because whatever you're doing is expensive. Science can be done for free, and it hurts society to try and make it seem like anything done without funding isn't real science.

Just another example of people trying to keep the barrier for entry as extreme as possible. It's inhibiting growth, and ironically leads to less funding since progress is extremely slow in atmospheric science.

Sent from my iPhone

[WEATHER53]

I have no idea if the AMS is a hinderance but you have offered an idea that even should it be ultimately proved correct you will be lambasted no matter the outcome.

[turtlehurricane]

Found a much more feasible way to upload documents to Bitcoin's blockchain.

 

I start with this NHC advisory:

 

TROPICAL STORM ERIKA INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY NUMBER  15ANWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL       AL052015200 PM AST FRI AUG 28 2015...ERIKA SPREADING HEAVY RAINS AND GUSTY WINDS INTO THE DOMINICANREPUBLIC...SUMMARY OF 200 PM AST...1800 UTC...INFORMATION----------------------------------------------LOCATION...17.7N 70.2WABOUT 60 MI...95 KM SW OF SANTO DOMINGO DOMINICAN REPUBLICABOUT 305 MI...490 KM SE OF GREAT INAGUA ISLANDMAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...50 MPH...85 KM/HPRESENT MOVEMENT...W OR 280 DEGREES AT 18 MPH...30 KM/HMINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...1009 MB...29.80 INCHESWATCHES AND WARNINGS--------------------CHANGES WITH THIS ADVISORY:The Tropical Storm Warning has been discontinued for Puerto Rico,Vieques, and Culebra.SUMMARY OF WATCHES AND WARNINGS IN EFFECT:A Tropical Storm Warning is in effect for...* Dominican Republic* Haiti* Southeastern Bahamas* Turks and Caicos Islands* Central BahamasA Tropical Storm Watch is in effect for...* Northwestern Bahamas* The Cuban Provinces of Ciego de Avila, Camaguey, Las Tunas,Holguin, and GuantanamoA Tropical Storm Warning means that tropical storm conditions areexpected somewhere within the warning area.A Tropical Storm Watch means that tropical storm conditions arepossible within the watch area, generally within 48 hours.Interests elsewhere in eastern and central Cuba, as well as thesouthern Florida Peninsula and Florida Keys, should monitor theprogress of Erika.For storm information specific to your area in the United States,including possible inland watches and warnings, please monitorproducts issued by your local National Weather Service forecastoffice. For storm information specific to your area outside theUnited States, please monitor products issued by your nationalmeteorological service.DISCUSSION AND 48-HOUR OUTLOOK------------------------------At 200 PM AST (1800 UTC), the center of Tropical Storm Erika waslocated near latitude 17.7 North, longitude 70.2 West.  Erika hasbeen moving westward near 18 mph (30 km/h) for the past severalhours.  A motion toward the west-northwest is expected to beinglater this afternoon or tonight and continue through Sunday.  Onthe forecast track, the center of Erika will move over the DominicanRepublic and Haiti during the next few hours, move near the Turksand Caicos Islands tonight, and move near the central andnorthwestern Bahamas Saturday and Saturday night.Maximum sustained winds are near 50 mph (85 km/h) with highergusts.  Some weakening is forecast this afternoon and tonight asErika moves over land, followed by little change in strength throughSaturday night.Tropical storm force winds extend outward up to 150 miles (240 km)to the east of the center.  Punta Cana at the eastern end of theDominican Republic has been reporting wind gusts of 40 mph (64 km/h)for the past few hours.The minimum central pressure based on Hurricane Hunter aircraft dataand surface observations is 1009 mb (29.80 inches).HAZARDS AFFECTING LAND----------------------WIND: Tropical storm conditions are currently spreading acrossportions of the Dominican Republic.  Tropical storm conditions areexpected to spread across Haiti this afternoon, the Turks and CaicosIslands and the southeastern Bahamas later this afternoon andtonight, and the central Bahamas on Saturday.  Tropical stormconditions are possible in the northwestern Bahamas by Saturdaynight.RAINFALL: Erika is expected to produce total rainfall accumulationsof 3 to 6 inches with maximum amounts of 10 inches possible acrossportions of the Dominican Republic and Haiti, the Turks and CaicosIslands, and the southeastern and central Bahamas through Saturday.An additional 1 to 2 inches is expected for Puerto Rico.  Theserains could cause life-threatening flash floods and mud slides.NEXT ADVISORY-------------Next complete advisory at 500 PM AST.$$Forecaster Beven

 

I then run it through RIPEMD160 hashing, producing a 40 character hash:

 

c7de2e62a3058a6d053e87e01c4d1ba6d36a4f36

 

 

I then send out a Bitcoin transaction with this encoded into it: https://blockchain.info/tx/5c4854b7bb7c9ea9e1264db68c1ce1317efbabab95787fd88fff5afc0a2063da?show_adv=true

 

The first 2 strings of HEX come out to c7de2e62a3058a6d053e + 87e01c4d1ba6d36a4f36 so I recover the RIPEMD160 hash.

 

Then feed the RIPEMD160 hash through a decrypter and you get the NHC advisory

 

 

So it is actually quite easy to store entire documents into small hashes, and store that hash on the blockchain forever. Then external software can be used to decode the hash and read the documents.

 

I'm sure I can find something even more optimal than this. To say the least I don't think there will be much of a problem storing as much info as people desire, via encrypting into tiny strings of hash. Also the cost is fractions of a cent to store/post large amounts of text.

[Stebo]

So this all about bit coins and nothing else.

[turtlehurricane]

So this all about bit coins and nothing else.

It's about making a journal, or perhaps just a forum to start, that is completely de-centralized so no one can control or censor it. I'm using Bitcoin's backbone since it is very robust and has de-centralization built in.

[turtlehurricane]

I'm going to branch this project into another thread, the title is making things overly confrontational. I'm hoping to find some other weather people who want to help develop this new platform to post meteorological ideas. I know for sure it will be beneficial, it'll probably compliment the AMS journals and not replace them outright.

[Bozart]

I heard this was the Amway thread. Am I in the right place?

[turtlehurricane]

Adler 32 hashing is amazing for this, entire NHC advisory becomes an 8 character string. That means I can put literally the entre history of the NHC in a single Bitcoin transaction easily.... And hell I might do it just to test the concept.