A new PNAS paper estimated the environmental impact of 57,000 food products & the results favor chips.
#fig04" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">pnas.org/doi/full/10.10…
@apuffycloud@frodre Agreed, it won’t help the climate modeling side much, but it should speed up analysis, and that is when you might be sitting at your computer twiddling your thumbs while you wait.
🚨Opportunity to reach the talented pool of early career scientists at #AMSMountain2022!🚨
Fill out this form by June 24 to let attendees know you're recruiting: forms.gle/HDPWuJRHuSHQss…. The information will be shared with our students and early career attendees!
Want to help students refine their scientific presentation skills? 🧑🏾🏫🧑🏾💼 Heck yeah you do! 🥳
Then consider signing up to judge student presentations for #AMSMountainMet2022! Whether attending in-person or virtually, all are welcome! Sign up by June 10 - docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI…
Are you an early career researcher in the ocean and/or climate sciences, and haven't been invited to review a paper? Drop me a line. I've started editing for @theAGU's GRL and we always need more reviewers!
We are (and I am) looking for postdocs! Apply here: apply.interfolio.com/90818 and/or contact me directly if you are a computational math person, and particularly if you want to do some UQ for coastal hazards with me! #postdoc#mathpostdoc
🚨🚨 Life update!! Announcing late, but excited to report that I began a research position with @NASAGoddard and @ESSICUMD this month. Keep posted for research on future snow projections and hydrologic data assimilation.
@banannareli@nplareau Just FYI, historically, excel has computed some simple statistics incorrectly for science uses (I’m looking at you standard deviation!)
@pkumar3691 It is not the criticism in well done reviews that I have seen frustrate EC sci, it is the downright offensive reviews, 3/4 of which are completely wrong on top of it. (Also reviewers… do better, it doesn’t take time to not be a jerk)
@pkumar3691 It will take a long time to change a culture (but you have to start somewhere). It would change faster if editors called out the 1% of reviews that are overly negative (to the reviewer)…
Reviewers are asked for their criticism of a submitted manuscript/proposal. Would the tone, outcome, and value of the evaluation be different if they were asked to "appraise" the submission. Would the reviewers focus on the good/positive rather than drill for the bad/negative?