Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 02, 2015, 05:40:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
86806 Posts in 2278 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Science
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Science  (Read 15275 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2168


« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2014, 06:06:49 PM »

http://www.policymic.com/articles/81873/experience-just-how-big-the-universe-is-in-one-mind-blowing-interactive?utm_source=upworthy

Very, very cool.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2168


« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2014, 08:44:56 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-kepler-telescope-doubles-number-of-known-planets-outside-solar-system/2014/02/26/e83af186-9ee0-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html

From the article:

“We’ve almost doubled today the number of planets known to humanity,” said Jack Lissauer, a NASA planetary scientist, announcing the discovery during a teleconference Wednesday with reporters. The findings will be published in March in two scientific papers in the Astrophysical Journal.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33599


« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2014, 09:45:50 PM »



http://earthsky.org/earth/warm-water-in-pacific-could-spark-a-monster-el-nino-in-2014

The giant red blob in this image is a huge, unusual mass of warm water that currently spans the tropical Pacific Ocean. Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist who writes about weather and climate for Slate, says the volume of water is big enough to cover the United States 300 feet deep. And that’s a lot of warm water, he says. Holthaus also says that, as the sub-surface warm water in the Pacific moves eastward – propelled by anomalous trade winds – it’s getting closer to the ocean’s surface. Once the warm water hits the sea surface, it will begin to interact with the atmosphere. Why? Because Earth’s oceans and atmosphere are always interacting. In this case, the warm water will likely boost temperatures and change weather patterns … and possibly bring on a monster El Nino in 2014. There are signs this is already beginning to happen.


El Niño 2014 Is Set To Be A Monster, But What Exactly Is It?

http://www.bustle.com/articles/20328-el-nio-2014-is-set-to-be-a-monster-but-what-exactly-is-it

This year, the major worry lies in the fact that there seems to be a lot of increasingly warm water loitering around the surface of the Pacific Ocean. The Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology shows steadily warming water temperatures in the past three months, with projects for April propelling these high temperatures upwards (closer to the surface) and eastwards. An April 4 map of ocean temperatures further corroborates the story of warm water emerging on the ocean’s surface.

As these oceanic temperatures continue to rise, global temperatures will follow suit, which may lead to 2014 being named the hottest year on record. El Niño, together with its equal-but-opposite cycle La Nina, form the “biggest source of year-to-year climate variability.” In fact, four of the five warmest years reported were years that saw an El Niño.

Now that the tropical Pacific Ocean is warming and continues to warm, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center and Columbia University’s International Research Institute for Climate and Society are suggesting that these temperatures will create enough energy to warm the rest of the world as well.


Monster El Nino Forming In The Pacific - OFF THE FREAKIN SCALE!

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/08/1290498/-Break-Out-Your-Sun-Tan-Lotion-Monster-El-Nino-Forming-In-The-Pacific?

The pool of 4-6+ degree Celsius above average temperatures continues to widen and lengthen, now covering 85 degrees of longitude from 170 East to 105 West. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that the zone of extreme 6+ C temperature anomalies has both widened and extended, covering about 50 degrees of longitude and swelling to a relative depth of about 30-40 meters. This is an extraordinarily intense temperature extreme that well exceeds those observed during the ramp-up to the record 1997-98 El Nino event.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4493


« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2014, 09:38:44 PM »

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longer-natures-hardest-material.html#.U2mb-xXD_b0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33599


« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2014, 08:29:09 PM »

http://news.discovery.com/adventure/new-crystal-could-let-divers-breathe-underwater-141002.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4493


Wow
« Reply #55 on: October 05, 2014, 10:29:41 AM »

In the words of the late Phil Rizzuto the 1950 MVP winner for the Yankees and later the beloved NY Yankee announcer (whom my parents once went to dinner with),

HOLY COW!

I wonder as suggested in the piece if cobalt would be safe in the lungs.  So many people whose lungs are damaged who cannot get enough oxygen into their systems. 
I have a few now who lug O2 tanks around.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33599


« Reply #56 on: October 05, 2014, 05:48:52 PM »



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/scientists-ready-to-test-lab-grown-penises-on-men/ 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33599


« Reply #57 on: June 18, 2015, 10:17:51 AM »

Science, Now Under Scrutiny Itself

By BENEDICT CAREYJUNE 15, 2015
Photo
­Dr. Ivan Oransky edits the Retraction Watch blog with Adam Marcus. Credit Christian Hansen for The New York Times

The crimes and misdemeanors of science used to be handled mostly in-house, with a private word at the faculty club, barbed questions at a conference, maybe a quiet dismissal. On the rare occasion when a journal publicly retracted a study, it typically did so in a cryptic footnote. Few were the wiser; many retracted studies have been cited as legitimate evidence by others years after the fact.

But that gentlemen’s world has all but evaporated, as a remarkable series of events last month demonstrated. In mid-May, after two graduate students raised questions about a widely reported study on how political canvassing affects opinions of same-sex marriage, editors at the journal Science, where the study was published, began to investigate. What followed was a frenzy of second-guessing, accusations and commentary from all corners of the Internet: “Retraction” as serial drama, rather than footnote. Science officially pulled the paper, by Michael LaCour of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Donald Green of Columbia, on May 28, because of concerns about Mr. LaCour’s data.

“Until recently it was unusual for us to report on studies that were not yet retracted,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, an editor of the blog Retraction Watch, the first news media outlet to report that the study had been challenged. But new technology and a push for transparency from younger scientists have changed that, he said. “We have more tips than we can handle.”

The case has played out against an increase in retractions that has alarmed many journal editors and authors. Scientists in fields as diverse as neurobiology, anesthesia and economics are debating how to reduce misconduct, without creating a police-state mentality that undermines creativity and collaboration.

“It’s an extraordinary time,” said Brian Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and a founder of the Center for Open Science, which provides a free service through which labs can share data and protocols. “We are now seeing a number of efforts to push for data repositories to facilitate direct replications of findings.”

But that push is not universally welcomed. Some senior scientists have argued that replication often wastes resources. “Isn’t reproducibility the bedrock of science? Yes, up to a point,” the cancer biologist Mina Bissell wrote in a widely circulated blog post. “But it is sometimes much easier not to replicate than to replicate studies,” especially when the group trying to replicate does not have the specialized knowledge or skill to do so.

The experience of Retraction Watch provides a rough guide to where this debate is going and why. Dr. Oransky, who has a medical degree from New York University, and Adam Marcus, both science journalists, discovered a mutual interest in retractions about five years ago and founded the blog as a side project. They had, and still have, day jobs: Mr. Marcus, 46, is the managing editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News, and Dr. Oransky, 42, is the editorial director of MedPage Today (he will take a position as distinguished writer in residence at N.Y.U. later this year).

In its first year, the blog broke a couple of retraction stories that hit the mainstream news media — including a case involving data faked by an anesthesiologist who later served time for health care fraud. The site now has about 150,000 unique visitors a month, about half from outside the United States.

Dr. Oransky and Mr. Marcus are partisans who editorialize sharply against poor oversight and vague retraction notices. But their focus on evidence over accusations distinguishes them from watchdog forerunners who sometimes came off as ad hominem cranks. Last year, their site won a $400,000 grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, to build out their database, and they plan to work with Dr. Nosek to manage the data side.

Their data already tell a story.

The blog has charted a 20 to 25 percent increase in retractions across some 10,000 medical and science journals in the past five years: 500 to 600 a year today from 400 in 2010. (The number in 2001 was 40, according to previous research.) The primary causes of this surge are far from clear. The number of papers published is higher than ever, and journals have proliferated, Dr. Oransky and other experts said. New tools for detecting misconduct, like plagiarism-sifting software, are widely available, so there’s reason to suspect that the surge is a simple product of better detection and larger volume.
Photo
The increasing challenges to the veracity of scientists’ work gained widespread attention recently when a study by Michael LaCour on the effect of political canvassing on opinions of same-sex marriage was questioned and ultimately retracted.

Still, the pressure to publish attention-grabbing findings is stronger than ever, these experts said — and so is the ability to “borrow” and digitally massage data. Retraction Watch’s records suggest that about a third of retractions are because of errors, like tainted samples or mistakes in statistics, and about two-thirds are because of misconduct or suspicions of misconduct.

The most common reason for retraction because of misconduct is image manipulation, usually of figures or diagrams, a form of deliberate data massaging or, in some cases, straight plagiarism. In their dissection of the LaCour-Green paper, the two graduate students — David Broockman, now an assistant professor at Stanford, and Joshua Kalla, at California-Berkeley — found that a central figure in Mr. LaCour’s analysis looked nearly identical to one from another study. This and other concerns led Dr. Green, who had not seen any original data, to request a retraction. (Mr. LaCour has denied borrowing anything.)

Data massaging can take many forms. It can mean simply excluding “outliers” — unusually high or low data points — from an analysis to generate findings that more strongly support the hypothesis. It also includes moving the goal posts: that is, mining the data for results first, and then writing the paper as if the experiment had been an attempt to find just those effects. “You have exploratory findings, and you’re pitching them as ‘I knew this all along,’ as confirmatory,” Dr. Nosek said.

The second leading cause is plagiarizing text, followed by republishing — presenting the same results in two or more journals.

The fourth category is faked data. No one knows the rate of fraud with any certainty. In a 2011 survey of more than 2,000 psychologists, about 1 percent admitted to falsifying data. Other studies have estimated a rate of about 2 percent. Yet one offender can do a lot of damage. The Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel published dozens of studies in major journals for nearly a decade based on faked data, investigators at the universities where he had worked concluded in 2011. Suspicions were first raised by two of his graduate students.

“If I’m a scientist and I fabricate data and put that online, others are going to assume this is accurate data,” said John Budd, a professor at the University of Missouri and an author of one of the first exhaustive analyses of retractions, in 1999. “There’s no way to know” without inside information.

Here, too, Retraction Watch provides a possible solution. Many of the egregious cases that it posts come from tips. The tipsters are a growing cadre of scientists, specialized journalists and other experts who share the blog’s mission — and are usually not insiders working directly with a suspected offender. One of the blog’s most effective allies has been Dr. Steven Shafer, the current editor of the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia who is now at Stanford, whose aggressiveness in re-examining published papers has led to scores of retractions. The field of anesthesia is a leader in retractions, largely because of Dr. Shafer’s efforts, Mr. Marcus and Dr. Oransky said. (Psychology is another leader, largely because of Dr. Stapel.)

Other cases emerge from issues raised at post-publication sites, where scientists dig into papers, sometimes anonymously. Dr. Broockman, one of the two who challenged the LaCour-Green paper, had first made public some of his suspicions anonymously on a message board called poliscirumors.com. Mr. Marcus said Retraction Watch closely followed a similar site, PubPeer.com. “When it first popped up, a lot of people assumed it would be an ax-grinding place,” he said. “But while some contributors have overstepped, I think it has had a positive impact on the literature.”

What these various tipsters, anonymous post-reviewers and whistle-blowers have in common is a nose for data that looks too good to be true, he said. Sites like Retraction Watch and PubPeer give them a place to discuss their concerns and flag fishy-looking data.

These, along with data repositories like Dr. Nosek’s, may render moot the debate over how to exhaustively replicate findings. That burden is likely to be eased by the community of bad-science bloodhounds who have more and more material to work with when they pick up a foul scent.

“At this point, we see ourselves as part of an ecosystem that is advocating for increased transparency,” Dr. Oransky said. “And that ecosystem is growing.”

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!