That was from memory. I should have looked it up before posting. Sorry... lazy...
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise I seem to have gotten numbers much higher (roughly double) the actual rate. Thanks, -- Raul On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > > That said, I hope your property stays in good condition. > > Thank you. > > Reportedly, the sea levels have been rising at least for the last few > thousand years. The question is if there is an acceleration. Apparently, > Al Gore's house is near the coast of California. What is its elevation? I > have no idea. > >> The models can be wrong, and the change can still be happening. (If I >> understand properly, we've been seeing global average sea level rise >> at a rate of approximately 1 inch every five or six years since >> roughly the 1920s. It might not be that that sea level rise is because > > Do you have any references? > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Eh... I'm not sure anything I said should be a cause for rejoicing? >> >> The models can be wrong, and the change can still be happening. (If I >> understand properly, we've been seeing global average sea level rise >> at a rate of approximately 1 inch every five or six years since >> roughly the 1920s. It might not be that that sea level rise is because >> of changes in the amount of CO2 that's in the atmosphere, or maybe the >> fraction of the rise which attributable to CO2 is significantly wrong >> in the models, or maybe atmospheric CO2 has had a dampening effect on >> the actual mechanisms, somehow... or maybe even CO2 is more >> significant than the models propose, but something which has not been >> accounted for has dampened that effect... but any of these would just >> mean we don't adequately understand what's going on - not that it's >> not happening.) >> >> Also, there's erosion effects and so on that can also be significant. >> >> That said, I hope your property stays in good condition. >> >> -- >> Raul >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I am glad to hear that (my house in Miami Beach faces the Bay's waters). >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I have heard a variety of disagreements, both with that premise, and >> >> with attempts at experiments. >> >> >> >> (Including, since you brought up climate change, an attempt (by a >> >> reputable MIT graduate) to reproduce Hans Hug's data (funding for lab >> >> costs was there, and interns to do the legwork were available, but >> >> because there was a possibility that experimental results could >> >> conflict with current climate change models, lab access was denied). >> >> See http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm and >> >> http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm for writeups on what he was >> >> trying to reproduce.) >> >> >> >> Anyways, yeah, it's easy to find people to disagree with almost >> anything. >> >> >> >> Nevertheless, there's actually been quite a bit of notice attracted to >> >> this issue: >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis >> >> >> >> https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid- >> >> on-reproducibility-1.19970 >> >> >> >> So I guess I don't feel I need to place a lot of stock in people who >> >> simply "disagree". Much better to show the relevant work, in my >> >> opinion. (And, in some cases, the necessary work has been done. So >> >> it's not like I'm asking for the impossible.) >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raul >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Jose Mario Quintana >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > < One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it >> never >> >> > cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that >> >> > >> >> > I suspect some scientists (or "scientists" depending on one's point of >> >> > view), for example, those working on Climate Change (Global Warming) >> and >> >> > related matters, might disagree with the premise. >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> That's an interesting question... >> >> >> >> >> >> One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never >> >> >> cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that >> >> >> segment of academia can muster some way of supporting efforts to >> >> >> support / refute such work. This will be difficult because of >> >> >> communication issues - it's all too easy to refute something >> different >> >> >> from the original. But, also, because of human social issues - people >> >> >> do not like dealing with failures. >> >> >> >> >> >> But, also, not everything is science. >> >> >> >> >> >> So I expect things to fragment somewhat - there's the political >> >> >> patronage side of things, the engineering practicality side of >> things, >> >> >> the scientific reproducibility and extension work side of things, >> >> >> there's the artistic merit side of things, there's the historical >> >> >> perspectives side of things, there's the health benefit side of >> >> >> things, there's the accounting verification side of things, and so >> >> >> on... >> >> >> >> >> >> People who can tie into widespread support will tend to do well >> >> >> regardless (think: football, for example). Others... well, I think >> >> >> it's going to depend somewhat on the discipline. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't think the peer review system is going to just go away, but I >> >> >> think it's going to be seeing some different competition... >> >> >> >> >> >> Working code (github contributions, perhaps) might be one example of >> >> >> this. But computerized platforms tend to come and go far more quickly >> >> >> than the printed page. >> >> >> >> >> >> Mostly, I guess... anything involving people tends to need concerted >> >> >> effort to deal with. >> >> >> >> >> >> This was probably not a useful answer. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Raul >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > I've given up writing for Vector. (That's a terrible thing to say >> for >> >> >> > someone still loosely attached to the Vector committee.) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Why write a letter on vellum with a quill pen when you can pick up >> the >> >> >> > phone? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Of course, if I still had an academic reputation to defend, funding >> >> >> sources >> >> >> > to keep sweet, administrators to browbeat, pretty students to wow, >> I'd >> >> >> > think differently. My shelf full of journals would be like the >> >> diploma on >> >> >> > the wall. But the old systems are withering away. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yet academics continue to need accreditation, good peer-reviews, >> >> >> > publications for their CV (in case they get hounded out of their >> >> school). >> >> >> > What's to replace the old systems? Facebook Likes? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:00 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming < >> >> >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I asked for feedback on choosing one of 2 topics but received no >> >> reply. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Cliff Reiter <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> >> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 10:54 AM >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] RV: JoJ 2018 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear J forum, >> >> >> >> Writing for the Journal of J or Vector is different from writing >> for >> >> the >> >> >> >> Jforums or Wiki. All those venues are a valuable resource for us >> who >> >> >> >> work with J. I encourage us to supply all those forums with >> >> material. I >> >> >> >> submitted a paper to Vector a few months ago: >> >> >> >> http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10501760 >> >> >> >> and I noted that they too didn't have an issue in 2017. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I plan to submit an article to JoJ in a month or so. I would >> rather >> >> not >> >> >> >> be the only article in an issue. Anyone else game to submit >> >> notes/papers >> >> >> >> to the journals most relevant to J? I would love to see our >> journals >> >> >> >> have the some of the awesome energy that the forums have! >> >> >> >> Best, Cliff >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/15/2018 7:25 AM, mikel paternain wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi everybody >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > We have not received any contributions to publish in 2017. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > JoJ was born to collect works on J. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Send contributions to [email protected]<http:// >> >> >> >> webmail.journalofj.com/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX. >> >> Enviados&index=17# >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Thanks in advance >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > JoJ >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> ---------- >> >> >> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >> >> >> forums.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ---------- >> >> >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >> >> forums.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ---------- >> >> >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >> >> forums.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ---------- >> >> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >> >> forums.htm >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---------- >> >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >> forums.htm >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ---------- >> >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/ >> forums.htm >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
