[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

[Jerry Harris]

Ted,
Thanks for the explanations about the complexities with taking temperature
measurements and your comments about the human aspect of
scientific endeavors.

We are legitimizing (to a larger degree than I'd like to admit) the realm
of conspiracy theories and deliberate disinformation campaigns by tacitly
acknowledging the notion that labeling information a conspiracy or
disinformation is a matter of choice. Pointing out a person's profit motive
or ideological agenda for spreading the information isn't a strong argument
since we all apply our belief systems when selecting data on the ladder of
inference. On major topics where experts disagree, it especially opens the
door for non-experts to confuse the debate and dilute our collective
resolve to take important action.

Even in our discussion about actions we should take on climate change, it's
notable that many rational voices support action "but not if it hurts
economic growth". If the consequences of climate change are so severe, why
should we not act regardless? Does the complexity of predicting the outcome
of the status quo vs taking action lend bias towards non-change? Probably.
We're evolutionarily not equipped to deal with long-term threats.

Jerry


On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 11:39 AM Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry and all
>
> I think one has to be very careful in characterizing and manipulating data
> which may not be well understood [as to error sources, various
> pre-processing, etc.]
> Spencer*1 and Christy*2 are very careful scientists and in particular know
> the satellite microwave radiometer data better than nearly anybody  --
> having worked with it for more than 30 years
>
> The Satellite data record has been scrutinized, challenged and augmented
> over the years until the error bars[mostly now duie to the difficulty in
> calibrating from one satellite to a successor and the effects of
> orbital decay on the field of view] are miniscule  [+/- 0.02 C] in
> comparison to the very poorly characterized and grossly manipulated global
> surface temperature record.  For example the "Official Boston Temperature"
> has been collected from sites at different elevations above sea level,
> different distances from the edge of the harbor and even on different sides
> of the harbor.  Even for the nearly one hundred years that the temperature
> has been measured in East Boston-- there have been several measurement
> sites since the days of the East Boston Army Airfield [gravel strip]*3  --
> and then the configuration of the harbor's edge and nature of the
> surrounding surfaces near to the measurement site has changed drastically
> even when the measurements were taken at the old control tower.  Even since
> the measurement site returned to the edge of the harbor with the filling of
> Bird Island Flats and the construction of the Hyatt and Logan Office Center
> there have been further changes in the surroundings with the construction
> of the adjacent paved area for the one-way runway on one side and the
> consolidated garage for rental cars on the other side.
>
> As a personal observation I have had some extensive exposure to the NOAA
> ocean buoy data sets when I was working on an unrelated problem at Lincoln
> Lab.  I was bothered by a persistent "fat tail" on the distribution of the
> buoys' air temperature records despite a "careful design" of the sun
> shields for the thermometers.  On closer inspection the anomalous tails
> occurred only immediately before sunset and immediately after sunrise.  The
> best explanation -- low angle scattering of sunlight from the ocean under
> calm sea surface conditions.
>
>
> Overall its easy to assume the best for the data collection and processing
> -- no-one screws-up the data intentionally -- -- butrealloy understanding
> the constraints and quirks of the data is often complicated when all the
> idiosyncrasies get considered.
>
>
> *1
> Spencer's background
>
>> Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of
>> Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist
>> at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior
>> Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where
>> he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement
>> Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr.
>> Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the
>> Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He
>> has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global
>> warming.
>
>  Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
>> agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company
>> to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
>
>
>  *2
> Christy's background
>
>> Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science
>> and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
>> Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in
>> 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In
>> 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principal
>> Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data
>> set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For
>> this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for
>> Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. *In 1996, they were selected
>> to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for
>> developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational
>> polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor
>> climate."* In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the
>> American Meteorological Society.
>> Education
>> Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois, 1987
>> M.S., Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois, 1984
>> Graduate Research Assistant University of Illinois (summer 1985 at NCAR)
>
>
>
> *3
> Wikipedia article
>
>> Jeffries Point in East Boston was selected as the site, due to its
>> principal advantage of the capability for enlargement through the filling
>> in of the adjoining flats, owned by the state. The aircraft landing field
>> at Jeffires Point in East Boston was to accommodate military, naval and air
>> mail airplanes and commercial and civilian flyers.
>> Built in 1923, East Boston's new airport had two 1,500 foot cinder
>> covered runways laid out in the shape of a "T" with turning circles at each
>> end.
>
>
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 2:46 PM Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>> > Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words,
>> nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic
>> debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s
>> a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics
>> then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.
>>
>> This is usually a sign the debater is approaching the topic with a
>> pre-conceived conclusion and will discard contradictory facts, treating the
>> data as a means to an end.
>>
>> As for this particular dataset on Dr Roy's website, I downloaded his data
>> file (it was not csv-formatted) and created a chart. The charts don't match
>> at all. It's also clear it's an incomplete dataset. The numbers are
>> "temperature anomalies", which are deltas from an average calculated across
>> a range of the original temperature data (eg, years 1981-2001). The average
>> of the anomaly data across the same range should equal zero. There was no
>> such range in his data file, so he's missing data.
>>
>> I don't know whether the data is legit or not, but someone who's this
>> sloppy with their charts and data is working from a trust deficit.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stephen Quatrano <stefanoq at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry,
>>>
>>> I get what you are saying.  Theories that explain the evidence are
>>> absolutely a matter of debate in the scientific community.  And it’s
>>> certainly true about what should be DONE about climate change, which is not
>>> a scientific question at all.  But with respect to the evidence itself,
>>> especially in a case like this, I think there is still a LOT we can say in
>>> order to push back on a post-modern kind of view where everyone is entitled
>>> to their own facts as well as their own opinions.  Furthermore, in this
>>> case, I think there’s evidence that this data set in particular is being
>>> used in bad faith — abused in other words — to undermine public confidence
>>> in science.
>>>
>>> This satellite data is not a set of “alternative facts” that are ignored
>>> by the scientific community.  It doesn’t even contradict warming that has
>>> been observed unless you cherry pick the data.  (Why are we looking at the
>>> last 18 years?)  On the contrary, the overall dataset confirms the fact
>>> that the planet is warming, first of all.  And second, this data set is
>>> PART of the empirical data we use to understand what is happening to our
>>> planet.  And finally, on its own, it does not falsify an overwhelming,
>>> global consensus on the fact of climate change and attribution models that
>>> can ONLY account for observed changes when we consider the effects of human
>>> activity.
>>>
>>> All you need to do to verify these three claims is search the scientific
>>> record for the dataset.  Voila!  You find it!!  Someone more skilled than I
>>> am with familiarity and access to original scientific research can do it
>>> even better than I have, no doubt.  I’d love to see and learn more about
>>> this dataset!
>>>
>>> This is pretty far from my own expertise but I have invested quite a bit
>>> of time into both the history and philosophy of science in order to
>>> understand “how we know what we know”.  I’ve learned to take a deep breath
>>> and ask some important questions before engaging in unproductive debate on
>>> science and pseudoscience.
>>>
>>> For example, my first question is:  “What exactly is this data set?”  I
>>> try hard to actually be interested in the data and interested in learning.
>>> Why not?  It’s cool.
>>>
>>> And my second question is:  “If it is legit, and if it does contradict
>>> other data, is it actually being ignored by scientists (which is what is
>>> being implied by the controversy)?  Is it being hidden or covered up?  Or
>>> perhaps it’s actually being used in their models?”
>>>
>>> Does anyone else notice that these questions are not asked by those who
>>> are sowing doubt?  And they surely don’t make explicit claims that
>>> scientists have ignored or tried to cover up the contradictory data.  Why
>>> not?  Because they can be investigated pretty easily.  And if you look,
>>> you’ll find out that ALL of the legitimate data is being used by the
>>> community, not just those “convenient” datapoints that support some kind of
>>> bogus theory.
>>>
>>> I used Google for literally 5 minutes and found these pretty interesting
>>> looking arguments that engage with the data, the actual data, NOT
>>> ALTERNATIVE FACTS, and explain that it IS being used and HOW it’s being
>>> used and WHY.
>>>
>>> https://skepticalscience.com/Response-Data-or-Dogma-hearing.html
>>>
>>> https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=466
>>>
>>> “What-about-ism” is a plague on our open society and rational public
>>> discourse.  It’s a problem that all you need to do to cast doubt on hard
>>> won consensus after years of debate and vital institutions, is to throw
>>> data that seems to contradict conventional wisdom and ask questions like
>>> these:  “What about the 'Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures’
>>> data set from satellites?”
>>>
>>> Even I experience a kind of knee-jerk, visceral response to this
>>> question.  I feel myself asking, “Yeah!  What ABOUT that contradictory
>>> data?”  Dang!
>>>
>>> You see, it’s just too easy to cast doubt and undermine confidence like
>>> this.  And it’s really, freakin hard to build trust.
>>>
>>> Stepping back, I notice that the record of scientific literature DOES
>>> consider these measurements, dare I call them “facts."  There are no
>>> alternative facts.  The prevailing models MUST account for all
>>> observations, including these.  And sure enough, these very datasets are
>>> clearly referenced in the literature.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, notice that the opposite does NOT happen.  In other words,
>>> nowhere in the “alternative” or “pseudoscience” world are the real academic
>>> debates on these supposedly “alternative facts” actually referenced.  It’s
>>> a one-sided argument where science engages it’s critics but it’s critics
>>> then ignore those legitimate responses to their attacks.  They repeat
>>> themselves.  Or they move on.  They don’t actually debate the issue:  they
>>> just cast doubt on the entire endeavor.
>>>
>>> I call this “bad faith” or pseudo-discourse.  It’s not, in fact, a
>>> conversation at all.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this creates a lot of collateral damage as well.  It
>>> affects our confidence and public trust in EVERYTHING.
>>>
>>> SQ
>>>
>>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 12:15 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>> I disagree. The climate change debate shows us that alternative facts
>>> have been created and used to support pre-determined conclusions. The
>>> latest example recently shared on this list was that global warming is on
>>> "pause" and CO2 increase is not the cause of climate change. (
>>> https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/)
>>>
>>> Even in situations where the facts are agreed upon by all parties, there
>>> can be plenty of alternative conclusions. Sometimes these are positive and
>>> progressive, eg, the scientific method where a new theory is proposed based
>>> on existing data. Sometimes there is incorrect or flawed reasoning (e.g.,
>>> stupidity) that is used to reach a different conclusion. And sometimes,
>>> there are belief- or ideologically-driven conclusions where the data and
>>> reasoning chain only serves as means to an end.
>>>
>>> This gets me back to conspiracy theorists. Dismissing them as either
>>> "stupid" or "fact-deprived" ignores the harm they can cause through
>>> disinformation amplification and brainwashing.
>>>
>>> I know this is typical over-thinking of a simple cartoon, but this is
>>> why I feel the cartoon is timelessly funny, IMO.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:21 AM <palbin24 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fortunately in science “alternate facts” do not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 11:11 AM, carllazarus at comcast.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Facts don’t matter to conspiracy theorists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Jerry Harris
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:30 AM
>>>> *To:* john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net>
>>>> *Cc:* Lex Computer Group <LCTG at lists.toku.us>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If only conspiracy theories or disinformation campaigns could be so
>>>> easily refuted with facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM john rudy <jjrudy1 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>
>>>> ===============================================
>>>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>>>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>>>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>>>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>>>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>>>> <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>>>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>>> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com.
>>>> Set your list options:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> ===============================================
>>>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>>>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>>>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>>>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>>>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>>>> <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>>>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>>> This message was sent to palbin24 at yahoo.com.
>>>> Set your list options:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/palbin24@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> ===============================================
>>>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>>>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>>>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>>>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>>>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>>>> <http://lctg.toku.us/>
>>>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>>> This message was sent to jerryharri at gmail.com.
>>>> Set your list options:
>>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/jerryharri@gmail.com
>>>
>>> ===============================================
>>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us <lctg-subscribe at toku.us>  To
>>> unsubscribe: email lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us <lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us>
>>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>>> This message was sent to stefanoq at gmail.com.
>>> Set your list options:
>>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/stefanoq@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ===============================================
>> ::The Lexington Computer and Technology Group Mailing List::
>> Reply goes to sender only; Reply All to send to list.
>> Send to the list: LCTG at lists.toku.us      Message archives:
>> http://lists.toku.us/private.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> To subscribe: email lctg-subscribe at toku.us  To unsubscribe: email
>> lctg-unsubscribe at toku.us
>> Future and Past meeting information: http://LCTG.toku.us
>> List information: http://lists.toku.us/listinfo.cgi/lctg-toku.us
>> This message was sent to tedpkphd at gmail.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/tedpkphd@gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220725/d9071f83/attachment.html>