Developing a de-centralized atmospheric science journal

[turtlehurricane]

I was making great progress on this until I started doing live tests, AT&T has every one of my ports blocked via a DVR firewall they cant even change. We've really lost most of our freedom in this country, I can't even imagine how horrible it's gonna be 50 years from now.

 

Anyways I found code which inserts text into the blockchain and retrieves it, which is a huge part of this project https://github.com/coinspark/python-OP_RETURN

 

With that code I could store all the NOAA data in history easy, and it's basically free. I'm not gonna do that, but definitely will start uploading key NHC advisories as they happen and my own forecasts. Once you upload something to the chain you can go back and see the exact time it was written, it can serve as a nice personal journal. Or in more serious context it can help someone prove they discovered something first, since the owner of the bitcoin address can sign a message with their key proving ownership.

[hm8]

Well he has been expressing himself.

Nice

[turtlehurricane]

It took me about 3-5 days to get my Bitcoin Core and full node running, due to new ISP security settings that make it hard to use your ports in general. Also my mom got diagnosed with stage 3-4 cancer which has been devestating, and I've spent most of my time researching cancer medicines. However that is becoming overwhelming and depressing to do 24/7, so I will go full force with this project until I get a functioning release out in the next few days. Then you guys can spam the Bitcoin blockchain with whatever weather stuff you want.

 

A full node will not be required to use this program/journal, I will make it easy for anyone to do this simply by using a website, running it through python, or even an easy to use .exe. It's gonna be real simple, not even a meteorology journal to start. Once I get it out there the sooner people make it more advanced though. Just need proof of concept so people can realize the power of this.

 

BTW it will be absolutely 100% free, at least until transaction fees start rising across the Bitcoin network, but that'll be a year or 2 from now.

[turtlehurricane]

I found an incredible program that will be the base of this de-centralized journal. They have blockchain messaging built in and a developers API. So I can work on making this a journal/forum rather than make it from scratch, still not easy even with this though

 

http://coinspark.org/http://www.multichain.com/

 

Literally this is exactly what I was aiming for, with this tool I can make it happen.

 

"CoinSpark messages allow bitcoin transactions to be enriched with additional content, such as an explanatory note, contracts, invoices, or even multimedia content such as images or videos. The message is transmitted from the sender to recipient(s) via a message delivery server, while the message’s presence is denoted by some message metadata added to the bitcoin transaction in an OP_RETURN output. This metadata contains the address of the delivery server, a list of output indexes for which the message is intended, and a hash of the full message content."

[Jenkins]

I'm surprised at the opposition to this project. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though this is quite analogous to an open source programming project except you're making the peer review process open source. Open source in the development world works every single day with minimal tomfoolery from disrupters.

 

I am familiar with python but have no working experience with it but I do have a wide swath of OOP language experience as well as standing up network infrastructure, strategic planning, etc. I'm quite busy right now but I can certainly offer advice/help if necessary. I am always interested in startup projects that people initially dismiss as impossible, silly, etc.

[Roger Smith]

I agree that there is a need for some alternatives in research publication in this science. The general lack of progress towards a long-term predictive science more or less proves that there is a need for more research, therefore more publication of research that might be somewhat less orthodox.

 

When people say that pseudo-science must be avoided, this is fine but sometimes they mean "anything that involves astronomical objects other than the Sun" which, while perhaps understandable given the history of such efforts, is still technically a violation of scientific ethics, to define without respect to evidence what approaches are legitimate and which are "pseudo-science."

 

I would submit that promising avenues of research are being either ignored or blacklisted by this approach, which is self-fulfilling prophecy in the following logical loop: we only hire qualified peer reviewers, these peer reviewers say this is pseudo-science, therefore it is pseudo-science.

 

What if part two of that syllogism is invalid? What if "these peer reviewers" actually just scan the abstract or title, see something like "solar system magnetic field modulation of temperature" and declare the whole paper to be pseudo-science without reading it?

 

Some would never get this point. But for those who do get it, there is nothing to stop interested parties from starting an alternative journal with reviewers who are at least open to reading the papers and assessing the data sets and evidence. They might still find that the results are below scientific standards, but what if they don't? Then at some point later, what if a large number of readers of said alternative journal, having read the papers and having understood the basic concepts, then apply them successfully to their own forecasting? Would that not gradually make the alternative journal more of an established and "mainstream" journal and the science in it also established and mainstream?

 

I believe this needs to happen. The idea that successful long-range forecasting will come out of ever-improving computer models without respect to a guiding theory, while partially validated by some advances in the 3-15 day period over recent decades, still has a fairly obvious limitation beyond about 15 days. It seems intuitively obvious to me that advances in longer term forecasting (and that is the main challenge in this science, short-range questions are already well understood in general) will only come if we widen the net of what subject areas are acceptable in research and allow many good minds to ponder research findings in a larger field of possibilities.

 

And if the conventional path eventually leads to breakthroughs and vast improvements, so be it. Here's my first prediction you can test out in twenty years -- big advances will only come through a consideration of external (to the earth-atmosphere-ocean system) energy sources that may include advanced knowledge of the Sun's variability but must almost of necessity expand to cover other forms of gravitational and geomagnetic energy cycles not yet understood or at least not widely understood.

 

One can only prove the validity of this by providing testable data sets that have an objective basis that any two observers might accept as being the same. But if most of the "other observers" are brainwashed into thinking that the very concept itself is pseudo-science, then the elementary principle of functional fixedness will guarantee that they won't approach the task with anything but contempt and an initial bias to find no validity. You can call that whatever you want, but it is not true science.

 

So perhaps my concept is different from that of the OP in this thread. I know nada about bitcoins so I must pass on that part. My concept is to suggest something like "The Journal of Alternative Meteorology and Climatology" with a review panel composed of people with scientific and statistical training, enough to be able to assess whether the publications submitted contain valid science or not. If they get something like "Moon Obviously Modulates Atmosphere" and it has nothing but anecdotal evidence, then toss it. If there are full data sets number crunched in appropriate format and period to show validity of the hypothesis, then publish, discuss, test further. Why the hell not? It's not like we're getting anywhere otherwise.

[andyhb]

I agree that there is a need for some alternatives in research publication in this science. The general lack of progress towards a long-term predictive science more or less proves that there is a need for more research, therefore more publication of research that might be somewhat less orthodox.

 

When people say that pseudo-science must be avoided, this is fine but sometimes they mean "anything that involves astronomical objects other than the Sun" which, while perhaps understandable given the history of such efforts, is still technically a violation of scientific ethics, to define without respect to evidence what approaches are legitimate and which are "pseudo-science."

 

I would submit that promising avenues of research are being either ignored or blacklisted by this approach, which is self-fulfilling prophecy in the following logical loop: we only hire qualified peer reviewers, these peer reviewers say this is pseudo-science, therefore it is pseudo-science.

 

What if part two of that syllogism is invalid? What if "these peer reviewers" actually just scan the abstract or title, see something like "solar system magnetic field modulation of temperature" and declare the whole paper to be pseudo-science without reading it?

 

Some would never get this point. But for those who do get it, there is nothing to stop interested parties from starting an alternative journal with reviewers who are at least open to reading the papers and assessing the data sets and evidence. They might still find that the results are below scientific standards, but what if they don't? Then at some point later, what if a large number of readers of said alternative journal, having read the papers and having understood the basic concepts, then apply them successfully to their own forecasting? Would that not gradually make the alternative journal more of an established and "mainstream" journal and the science in it also established and mainstream?

 

I believe this needs to happen. The idea that successful long-range forecasting will come out of ever-improving computer models without respect to a guiding theory, while partially validated by some advances in the 3-15 day period over recent decades, still has a fairly obvious limitation beyond about 15 days. It seems intuitively obvious to me that advances in longer term forecasting (and that is the main challenge in this science, short-range questions are already well understood in general) will only come if we widen the net of what subject areas are acceptable in research and allow many good minds to ponder research findings in a larger field of possibilities.

 

And if the conventional path eventually leads to breakthroughs and vast improvements, so be it. Here's my first prediction you can test out in twenty years -- big advances will only come through a consideration of external (to the earth-atmosphere-ocean system) energy sources that may include advanced knowledge of the Sun's variability but must almost of necessity expand to cover other forms of gravitational and geomagnetic energy cycles not yet understood or at least not widely understood.

 

One can only prove the validity of this by providing testable data sets that have an objective basis that any two observers might accept as being the same. But if most of the "other observers" are brainwashed into thinking that the very concept itself is pseudo-science, then the elementary principle of functional fixedness will guarantee that they won't approach the task with anything but contempt and an initial bias to find no validity. You can call that whatever you want, but it is not true science.

 

So perhaps my concept is different from that of the OP in this thread. I know nada about bitcoins so I must pass on that part. My concept is to suggest something like "The Journal of Alternative Meteorology and Climatology" with a review panel composed of people with scientific and statistical training, enough to be able to assess whether the publications submitted contain valid science or not. If they get something like "Moon Obviously Modulates Atmosphere" and it has nothing but anecdotal evidence, then toss it. If there are full data sets number crunched in appropriate format and period to show validity of the hypothesis, then publish, discuss, test further. Why the hell not? It's not like we're getting anywhere otherwise.

 

Assuming you are referring to your past presentations here, the methods in which you presented your findings were just not scientifically sound. MS Paint graphs/maps/etc. are just not good enough for presenting findings. Also, you failed so many times to present any data, supporting evidence or results backing up your claims (when specifically asked for it). The J-Field method predicting severe weather outbreaks showed no skill either.

[turtlehurricane]

I bought a server so I can have this fully functioning, users will be able to interact with it as a forum but it will be completely decentralized, so if the server failed the forum would keep running and another user could host the external forum software. I'm installing the Sparkbit API which will facilitate blockchain information storage, installing python to do hashing and such in the background, php and html to build the gui. Will be a busy week, and I'm excited I figured out a clear way forward. Once I get it functioning I can start turning it into a journal and the community can input what they want at that point

[Roger Smith]

I hope this project works out and I am going to try to post something if it does, but also I am working on the larger project of an e-book that explains my research and gives as much evidence as possible, although I would be first to say that my findings would mostly suggest much more work required in many other regions to find out what details apply. Trying to create any sort of new paradigm that explains any part of atmospheric variation is a challenge for even a large research organization and it is probably beyond the capacity of one individual worker, except perhaps in some partial discovery phase that can then inspire further work.

 

Some rather artificial barriers are put in place. People can say you have used the "wrong" graphics program or that your data sets are "unofficial" as soon as you create them from original sources as the only affordable alternative to paying huge amounts for an official download. These are essentially stalling tactics to keep the unwashed out of the castle, so to speak. I'm surprised more people don't easily recognize them for what they are, but more would like to be in the castle than doing the work, I would guess.

[turtlehurricane]

I finally got the sparkbit API working on my new server, after much frustration and 1 rebuild. Now the real fun begins, I can use this API to send messages through the blockchain, which is the fundamental building block of the future de-centralized journal. I should have some real results to show quite soon.

[turtlehurricane]

Sent a message through the blockchain with the sparkbit API

 

 

It's encoded in: OP_RETURN 53504b6d7e904cafe4003abc8ee0b5f9bf68f26e57eefd2cdc412caf28b28e73f3eabdd6b08fb136

 

I am going to install python on my server now and install the coinspark libraries, so I have more control over the OP_RETURN. Can't do much with the sparkbit API since the encryption for OP_RETURN is hard coded.

 

I could use it though as the base of the system as it is, but sparkbit wallet would need to be part of the program forever, and it would give me alot less control of this program.

 

Main thing is with the python libraries I can retrieve messages from the blockchain easily, which is essential for this project.

[andyhb]

Saying that graphics presented with MS paint are "not valid" is just an evasion of a sort, an invisible hurdle with no actual science content involved. It's like saying that your publication was on the wrong sized paper therefore the findings are invalid.

 

These sorts of rules do nothing other than preserve an artificial barrier between researchers and actual publication, imposed for no other reason than to discourage sharing of new ideas.

 

As to the other critiques above, I have posted data sets on various forums in connection with discussions of research and this is the only place where people raise objections about there being "no data" -- I think what is actually meant is that I don't post every part of the work, but that is normal, a cross-checker can take the same data set and use the same periods to find out if the profiles are calculated correctly or not. I honestly think it is more a case of a refusal of many people in this science to make any sort of first step mentally towards grasping connections from external sources, as a sort of rigid inflexibility designed to make it impossible for this sort of cause-effect relationship to gain any foothold. And why that is, I can't really say, because simple logic would tell you that the external energy sources are as plausible as feedback from recycled energy within the system. Also I note that a lot of people are open to this approach and will look and try to understand the significance of profiles shown in the research. But of course it is a disincentive to both those potential readers and people who want to post alternative research to find these rather contrived barriers in place.

 

And as I said before, meteorology has done nothing to earn any special privileges that other sciences do not seem to care about. We are the problem child of the scientific family, just about the only science left that can't predict anything reliably.

 

Harping on the lack of cleaner methods to display your data is not an evasion. It makes everything hard to interpret when all you have to present is a bunch of squiggly lines over a blank map of the United States or graphs that have unclear intervals of measurement. It would not be difficult to put together an Excel presentation of your data, which is much cleaner and easier to interpret for people interested in learning about what you have to say, end of story.

 

As for the rest, that third paragraph is a quite honestly a bunch of gibberish. Providing data to back up your claims shouldn't be that hard and you wouldn't have to reveal a lot to give people a better idea of what you were saying. Why should we have to cross-check other forums to connect the dots? Why not just post the picture you are trying to draw here?

 

Your view of meteorology as the "problem child" seems to be in direct response to the fact that people scoffed at your methods (and this was universal, I might add). You made things overly difficult to interpret and didn't respond very well to the criticism.

[Roger Smith]

I think some of those criticisms are skewed and many people who saw the work in question (which a determined lobby here managed to get removed from the forum, so that the point can no longer be debated) know that the truth is somewhat different.

 

That seems to be the general drift of modern climate science, for which I have very little respect as a rather transparent attempt to mix politics with science. And anyone can see that our science, in general, has failed the first test of being an actual science, at least beyond let's say five days, up to then it more or less passes the test. This is not meant to bring anybody down, maybe our chosen field is more difficult than any other so we're going to be last in with an actual predictive science to show for our efforts. And even those people who know all about excel graphics, correct page sizes and know all the right people in the right places can't do any better. That much I do know. And I suspect that until there is a more open "climate" of inquiry in this science, it won't make much progress.

 

People seem to forget that the golden age of science came and went before computers and people worked things out on paper and communicated with blackboards and rather rudimentary scientific papers. Style often trumps substance in the modern world. Anyway, that's my last contribution to this subject, I know things are not going to change quickly if ever in meteorology and it may well be the case that a different science just grows up somewhere else in the spectrum and provides these answers while meteorology just collapses into an empirical occupation where people read forecasts from computer models. It has come fairly close to that paradigm already, as anyone can see, you don't have to have any actual training in meteorology to make weather forecasts. Try going into the workspace of any actual science and more or less performing at a professional level, it just isn't even remotely possible. But rank amateurs are often just about as capable of reading a computer printout of tomorrow's weather as the average meteorologist, it's just a fact of life and proven around the sub-forums every day of the year. And what that tells you is that meteorology is more of an empirical occupation like auto mechanics than a theoretical science. I don't relay these conclusions to be abrasive, I think it's an interesting fact in and of itself and can lead to valuable conclusions, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water ...

[MacChump]

eff the naysayers, turtle...

[MacChump]

btw, me and my buddy, dude named katodog, have some theories i can't wait to post in your journal...lemme know when it's ready to go...pretty excited to be a published meteorologist, honestly...

[ohleary]

I think what turtle is going to end up with is a weather forum.

[turtlehurricane]

I got Bitcoin Core installed on a linux server, and I'm able to store messages in the blockchain via the coinspark API in PHP. I've also got the Sparkbit wallet (coinspark's version of the bitcoin wallet) and a python API which interacts with it. Another major tool I've installed is a python API which interacts with Bitcoin Core itself. This is the fundamental backbone of what I needed, and now I will begin building the software necessary for a journal/forum. I want it to be functional yet concise, nothing fancy in the first version. I will be hosting it on a server to start, with the option for people to download a stand alone client on their own computer.

 

Users can send messages publicly or privately, they will have a cryptographic key which they can give to people in order to reveal the messages, without the key it will be impossible.