> 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 <rauldmil...@gmail.com> 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
> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> 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 <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> 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
> >> <jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> 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 <rauldmil...@gmail.com>
> >> 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 <earthspo...@gmail.com>
> >> 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 <
> >> >> > programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I asked for feedback on choosing one of 2 topics but received no
> >> reply.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>       From: Cliff Reiter <reit...@lafayette.edu>
> >> >> >>  To: programm...@jsoftware.com
> >> >> >>  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 i...@journalofj.com<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

Reply via email to