From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Date: 18 Aug 92 07:11 PDT
Subject: Re: Mission to Planet Earth
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466900271:cdp:1466900273:000:3229
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 18 07:11:00 1992


To:    sci.geo.meteorology
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    Using EOS Data
Date:  18 Aug 1992
 
James Stricher (?) writes
 
>Mark Goodman writes
>
>+ Has anyone thought of trying to develop software "triggers" to filter the
>+ raw data and flag any that seem interesting or unusual?  It seems that this
>+ would be extremely difficult, but also potentially extremely valuable.
>
>Unless I'm in far, far left field, we don't really know what a lot of the
>interesting and unsual signals are.  Worse yet, it's usually a trend -
>you'd have to keep track of your trigger for weeks, perhaps months before
>it becomes significant.
 
I understand that it would be hard.  Perhaps it would take longer to
develop useful triggers than it would to uncover interesting data
by trial and error.  They would then offer no advantage and would
take people away from more important tasks.
 
On the other hand, there might be some very simple filters --
I don't know enough of the science to suggest any -- that would
extract from the raw data much more smaller and more manageable
data "abstracts" for preliminary analysis.
 
I would like to know: 1) has anyone given serious thought to this
possibility?  If so, what conclusions did they reach, if any?  2)
If not, what do people think of the idea?  Does it make sense to
pursue this approach?
 
>+ How are priorities determined for which data analyses to perform first?  Is
>+ there any formal procedure, or is it just done on the basis of individual
>+ scientists' interests?  If there is a formal procedure, does it contain
>+ any guidance about the most important policy questions?
>
>Mostly on what gets funded. Not that many people do science for the sake
>of science. It's a job like any other. Granted, I prefer to work on things
>I'd like to work on, but I will work on things that people will pay me
>for first.
>
>Given that I've only seen the proposal writing from a distance and have
>never done it myself, yes, there is guidance, and there are emphaphises
>toward's certain objectives...depending on the funding agency, the
>nature of the call for proposals, etc.
>
>I have my doubts if that's the best way to do science, but that is the
>way things are.
 
This is, of course, a big debate in science funding.  Should we
fund the "best" science (and how do you determine that) or should
we fund the most "useful" science?  Even from a purely utilitarian
point of view, however, it is hard to predict what will turn out
to be useful, so you would want to spend some money on more self-
directed research.
 
When it comes to climate change, we probably need a mix of research
with a policy agenda and research with a more scientific agenda.
I assume that that is, in fact, what we have.  What I'm curious about
are the details.  How much of the research is dictated by policy
concerns, how much by scientific concerns, and how much is left to
serendipity?
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+