It's not the time interval from 2014 to 2018 that we need to worry about, but the interval from now to the indefinite future:
From the report (oddly placed numbers refer to peer-reviewed scientific papers):
Projections of Future Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Projections for the region suggest that sea level rise in the Northeast will be greater than the global average of approximately 0.12 inches (3 mm) per year.247,248 According to Sweet et al. (2017),47 the more probable sea level rise scenarios—the Intermediate-Low and Intermediate scenarios from a recent federal interagency sea level rise report (App. 3: Data & Scenarios)—project sea level rise of 2 feet and 4.5 feet (0.6 m and 1.4 m) on average in the region by 2100, respectively.47 The worst-case and lowest-probability scenarios, however, project that sea levels in the region would rise upwards of 11 feet (3 m) on average by the end of the century.47 The higher projections for the region as compared with most others in the United States are due to continued changes in oceanic and atmospheric dynamics, thermal expansion, ice melt contributions from Greenland and Antarctica, and ongoing subsidence in the region due to tectonics and non-tectonic effects such as groundwater withdrawal.47,50,249,250,251,252 Furthermore, the strongest hurricanes are anticipated to become both more frequent and more intense in the future, with greater amounts of precipitation (Ch. 2: Climate, Box 2.5).50,253,254,255 Thirty-two percent of open-coast north and Mid-Atlantic beaches are predicted to overwash during an intense future nor’easter type storm,256 a number that increases to more than 80% during a Category 4 hurricane.257,258
There's no reason why NOAA can't use and study the data. They would have the access to the satellites and data that NASA has.
Only if NASA gives them the data. If the program is cut, then maybe not so much.
There's no reason why this couldn't be rolled under NOAA's budget as a cost savings measure
What evidence to you have that 1) NOAA would be funded for this; and 2) savings would result? I find both assertions dubious.
There's no reason why NASA, a Space Engineering Agency needs to be independently checking NOAA
They're not. NOAA is doing its own thing using different instruments and methods. Having multiple tracks for something as important as climate change is just good science.
This Notion that NASA is a science agency needs to stop now. It is an Engineering agency.
A demonstrably false assertion. You may not like that NASA does science, but it definitely does.
If we can shift that 10 Million from NASA to NOAA, and NOAA orders the satellite from NASA and uses the leftover cash
What evidence do you have that there would be leftover cash?
for more climate studies instead of hiring climate experts (which NASA would have to do. NOAA already has experts),
Again false. NASA has climate experts. One of the major climate data sets, GISTEMP, is produced by NASA.
I agree. Certain voting systems can render gerrymandering irrelevant and eliminate the fear of "throwing away one's vote" while still allowing consensus social opinion to become manifest. In general, these voting systems (e.g., "majority judgement") are more complicated than the "plurality" or "first past the post" system in general use. Computers can help here in tallying the results.
4) Don't use any kind of virtual environment, they just have no performance to offer and should never be used in a desktop setting. 9) Give every developer a multi head setup with good keyboards and mice, this never gets acknowledged, but a good Mechanical keyboard is essential 11) All the developers should have isolated build servers, that they have near full control over, maybe not the root account, but damn near. 12) Don't allow IT to dictate how the computers for the developers are used. 13) Buy high quality chairs that are designed for long work sessions, they can be pricey but they're worth it. 14) Allow developers to have full flex time, so they don't have strict hours, they can work 8 hours over the course of the day. 15) Don't allow management to over plan meetings.
I'll second #'s 9, and 11 through 15.
Regarding #4, I use a Linux VM on a Windows Host to good effect.
Your hypothesis doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. The Forest Service webpage http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/... indicates that the areas of greatest die-off are in the mountains rather than in farmland.
The Wikipedia article seems to indicate that laptop searches are legal -- at least in the jurisdiction of the 9th district:
The majority also found that reasonable suspicion was not needed since they considered the inspection as a routine search.
This is inconsistent with the PBS article, however:
In spring 2013, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government should have reasonable suspicion before conducting a comprehensive search of an electronic device.
I'm afraid this plug-in, though useful, isn't what I was looking for. I was hoping for a plug-in that would restrict annotation to experts-only (like from the climate organization referenced in the article). I'm tired of wading through all the bullshit that's out there.
This facility would be much more convenient (and more effective) if it was a browser plug-in that -- when the user viewed a target webpage -- communicated with the science site and annotated the page on the fly.
I don't believe there's a "new theory" about a new mini ice age. There's hype, but no peer-reviewed literature. If you know differently, then please give a reference.
So, a peer-reviewed scientific paper about the effects of a Maunder Minimum is, in your opinion, less credible than an un-peer-reviewed popular article.
Interesting.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO has this to say about a new Maunder Minimum:
https://www.google.com/url?q=h...
or, for the more scientifically literate:
http://opensky.library.ucar.ed...
The original hype would, therefore, appear to be pseudo-science.
According to the Snowden leaks, the NSA can and does intercept traffic that crosses the US border. Combined with the Dropbox move, this means that all Dropbox file accesses will now be fair game for the NSA.
Actually, it's relatively difficult to find good, peer-reviewed papers that conclude that humans aren't warming the planet. It is easy to find such in opinion pieces -- but that's not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot on.
It's not the time interval from 2014 to 2018 that we need to worry about, but the interval from now to the indefinite future:
From the report (oddly placed numbers refer to peer-reviewed scientific papers):
There's no reason why NOAA can't use and study the data. They would have the access to the satellites and data that NASA has.
Only if NASA gives them the data. If the program is cut, then maybe not so much.
There's no reason why this couldn't be rolled under NOAA's budget as a cost savings measure
What evidence to you have that 1) NOAA would be funded for this; and 2) savings would result? I find both assertions dubious.
There's no reason why NASA, a Space Engineering Agency needs to be independently checking NOAA
They're not. NOAA is doing its own thing using different instruments and methods. Having multiple tracks for something as important as climate change is just good science.
This Notion that NASA is a science agency needs to stop now. It is an Engineering agency.
A demonstrably false assertion. You may not like that NASA does science, but it definitely does.
If we can shift that 10 Million from NASA to NOAA, and NOAA orders the satellite from NASA and uses the leftover cash
What evidence do you have that there would be leftover cash?
for more climate studies instead of hiring climate experts (which NASA would have to do. NOAA already has experts),
Again false. NASA has climate experts. One of the major climate data sets, GISTEMP, is produced by NASA.
If you read the peer-reviewed literature on climate science, then you'll realize that climate scientists care greatly about uncertainty.
If you disagree, then please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed scientific literature indicating otherwise.
To learn how raw data is collected and processed into a global surface temperature, go to http://www.realclimate.org/ind....
WARNING: Understanding will require work on your part.
I agree. Certain voting systems can render gerrymandering irrelevant and eliminate the fear of "throwing away one's vote" while still allowing consensus social opinion to become manifest. In general, these voting systems (e.g., "majority judgement") are more complicated than the "plurality" or "first past the post" system in general use. Computers can help here in tallying the results.
My first programming job was in 1969.
Since then, I've only programmed for tax-exempt, scientific organizations -- doing original R&D.
It works for me very well.
The graphic from wattsupwiththat is bad.
See http://www.realclimate.org/ind... for more information.
Citation needed
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The author is a leading expert on tropical cyclones. His article contains references to peer-reviewed papers.
4) Don't use any kind of virtual environment, they just have no performance to offer and should never be used in a desktop setting.
9) Give every developer a multi head setup with good keyboards and mice, this never gets acknowledged, but a good Mechanical keyboard is essential
11) All the developers should have isolated build servers, that they have near full control over, maybe not the root account, but damn near.
12) Don't allow IT to dictate how the computers for the developers are used.
13) Buy high quality chairs that are designed for long work sessions, they can be pricey but they're worth it.
14) Allow developers to have full flex time, so they don't have strict hours, they can work 8 hours over the course of the day.
15) Don't allow management to over plan meetings.
I'll second #'s 9, and 11 through 15.
Regarding #4, I use a Linux VM on a Windows Host to good effect.
Much negative opinion. Little evidence.
Your response is inconsistent with your previous assertion. I conclude, therefore, that you're trolling.
Your hypothesis doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. The Forest Service webpage http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/... indicates that the areas of greatest die-off are in the mountains rather than in farmland.
I would view this ACM webinar on the five sub-disciplines in machine learning (assuming you can) and then investigate the listed resources:
http://event.on24.com/wcc/r/10...
This is inconsistent with the PBS article, however:
There's a type of shrimp that preferentially eats crown-of-thorns sea stars. I wonder how their population will be affected.
I'm afraid this plug-in, though useful, isn't what I was looking for. I was hoping for a plug-in that would restrict annotation to experts-only (like from the climate organization referenced in the article). I'm tired of wading through all the bullshit that's out there.
This facility would be much more convenient (and more effective) if it was a browser plug-in that -- when the user viewed a target webpage -- communicated with the science site and annotated the page on the fly.
God, I hope that's sarcasm. :-)
I don't believe there's a "new theory" about a new mini ice age. There's hype, but no peer-reviewed literature. If you know differently, then please give a reference.
So, a peer-reviewed scientific paper about the effects of a Maunder Minimum is, in your opinion, less credible than an un-peer-reviewed popular article. Interesting.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO has this to say about a new Maunder Minimum: https://www.google.com/url?q=h... or, for the more scientifically literate: http://opensky.library.ucar.ed... The original hype would, therefore, appear to be pseudo-science.
According to the Snowden leaks, the NSA can and does intercept traffic that crosses the US border. Combined with the Dropbox move, this means that all Dropbox file accesses will now be fair game for the NSA.
Questioning the motivation of the granting agencies is a form of ad hominem argument -- which is fallacious and also isn't science.
Actually, it's relatively difficult to find good, peer-reviewed papers that conclude that humans aren't warming the planet. It is easy to find such in opinion pieces -- but that's not science.