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
<jose.mario.quint...@gmail.com> 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 <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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to