[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Shelly Lowenthal
shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com
Wed Jul 27 11:11:07 PDT 2022
One of the members posted the first scary slide so I posted the second. At this rate it will take 1-2000 years for Greenland to melt. That’s long enough to replace all electric generation with nuclear plants and adapt to other consequences while we’re rich. Turning off electricity today will make us all poor and not able to adapt to the coming changes, plus or minus.
Shelly Lowenthal
> On Jul 27, 2022, at 1:49 PM, carllazarus at comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> The chart of sea level rise from tide gage data labels the 0.5 inch per decade rise from 1880 to 1940 or 1950 as “Natural Rise”. This was all in the industrial age, so why assume it was natural as opposed to the result of burning fossil fuels?
>
> Also, while the scale on the left chart of Greenland ice melt makes the melt look much more significant than it has been, the one on the right suffers from the opposite problem—the scale chosen makes it look like there has been no change in the rate of ice melt. The title of the first graph claims that is what the media shows us, but it cites no media. Reading the fine print, both graphs were created by the same person, Willis Eschenbach, a non-scientist who often speaks and writes climate change skepticism. In these graphs he created a strawman that he could knock down.
>
> -- Carl
>
> From: LCTG <lctg-bounces+carllazarus=comcast.net at lists.toku.us> On Behalf Of Shelly Lowenthal
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 4:34 PM
> To: Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com>
> Cc: Lex Computer Group <lctg at lists.toku.us>
> Subject: Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>
> Great graph - pictures and statistics are wonderful to project views. 48cm of water seems like a lot until you realize that Boston was under 12,500cm of ice! Now that’s scary! Hence two views of Greenland:
>
>
>
> Just to be more complete, ice has been melting for far longer before we started pumping CO2 by inference of tide gauges. I wonder what could have caused that?
>
>
>
>
> To be fair - global tides might be growing a little faster and we can now also measure it by satellite radar.
>
>
>
> https://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/
>
> Water level growth seems small enough for us to adapt to (my opinion). In fact, those coral islands land mass is growing even though water level is also growing - because that’s what coral islands do. Coral grows up to the sun. In fact, coral loves heat. The most varieties grow around Indonesia close to the equator.
>
> No one agrees with NO global sea level rise, in fact beaches are globally getting bigger!
> -No lack of ice on Greenland, ice is steadily increasing
>
> However, polar bears are doing great since Canada put them on the endangered list which means hunters can’t shoot them. Big rebound in population. Funny that they didn’t take long to adapt from brown bears and have hollow hair fibers that allow them to float and swim 100 miles. They are doing a little worse this summer because less ice has melted near Alaska. They stuff themselves with seal pups in the spring while brown bears stuff themselves with salmon and berries in the fall. Susan Crockford is the expert on polar bears.
>
>
>
>
> I hope this helps. Please check out this site if you have other questions for the bigger/longer picture.
>
> https://climateataglance.com/
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2022, at 12:29 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Shelly,
> Good points. Thanks for sharing your source. However, if you'd read further the PolarPortal tweets, you'd see a longer-term graph showing massive gigaton loss on Greenland:
> "Today 20 years ago, the joint @NASA and @DLR_de #GRACE satellites "Tom and Jerry" were launched. They measure the mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet. From April 2002 to August 2021, Greenland has lost almost 4700 gigatons, enough to cover the entire U.S. with 48 cm of water."
>
>
> To which someone responded with this denialistic anecdotal data:
>
> "Another alarmist headline without any foundation in reality🤮
> Sooo Greenland is melting, yet we observe:
> -NO global sea level rise, in fact beaches are globally getting bigger!
> -No lack of ice on Greenland, ice is steadily increasing
> -Polar bears and all life are thriving"
>
> I don't know...I suppose if the Greenland ice sheet had infinite mass, it could be in a continual downward trend since the beginning of time. And beaches getting bigger is certainly a sign the sea levels aren't rising!
>
> Regards,
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:40 AM Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is summer, after all. In Greenland. Are you all shocked the same way when Greenland adds 10Gigatons of snow in one day? Source:
>
> http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
>
>
>
> Yes it’s weather. Check NH snow levels this past year - certainly not ordinary. SH is getting hit now as we bask in our summer warmth.
>
>
>
>
> After all. We’re in a low Sun Spot cycle and the jet stream does not flow straight. Hot and cold where it normally isn’t. Cold Maunder Minimum had almost no sun spots. Humans did not do well.
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2022, at 9:48 AM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ted,
> > why do we feel so certain {"the science is settled"} that we can use human activity to explain everything which has happened in the modern Satellite era.
>
> I don't think anyone feels "certain" (we've already covered how certainty in science is hardly ever 100% possible in real life scenarios), but I do think there's evidence to strongly support the theory that the global warming trends are real and predominantly influenced by human activity, namely the period after the industrial revolution. I realize the use of absolutist language is relatively common on both sides, most scientists involved understand the uncertainty implicit in their datasets and models. (Perhaps except Dr. Roy, a legitimate expert in satellite temp data, he believes the Earth has an infinite sink to suck away excess CO2: "And it seem like it doesn’t matter how much MORE we put in each year…nature still takes out an average of 50% of that amount.")
>
> As for man's influence, I think the correlation of CO2 and temperature rises with the start of humanity burning fossil fuels is pretty strong. The temperature graph below highlights the Little Ice Age period swings in temperature compared to what we're seeing now. (see graphs below)
>
> And, lastly, what if you and millions others are making a mistake pushing against taking any action? Greenland's ice pack shed 18 tons of water in the past 3 days. I realize this may label me one of those merely interested in the "psychological terror of the populace", but what are the consequences if we're more right and you're more wrong?
>
> One of my favorite science fiction series is The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu. In it, humanity is faced with an existential threat by intergalactic aliens. But the aliens won't arrive on Earth for another 200-ish years. I don't want to spoil anything since it's a great set of books if you haven't already read it. Humanity bands together to prepare for the impending attack. This is a common enough trope that if we were ever confronted with an external threat from space, that we'd all unite and work together like countries do when attacked by other countries.
>
> However, with the social media-amplified rise of conspiracy theories and disinformation, the fundamental re-defining of previous common facts and derived meaning, the shifting explanations from climate deniers to justify non-action, and with other examples, I no longer have this faith in our ability to unite to tackle long-term threats. Our brains are simple pattern-matching machines and too prone to re-programming by repetition and appeals to fear and greed. We're just not equipped to deal with threats much more complex and less immediate than a snake jumping out of the grass. Perhaps this is why some attempt "psychological terror" to trigger fight or flight, while others urge us to freeze.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 5:06 PM Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> Its not as simple as:
> branch -- the climate is constant
> or branch humans are changing the climate
>
> The climate is always changing, which is why the weather folks use a 30 year sliding average to define [the average high, average low or the average] for a given location and a given calendar date.
> The dynamics of weather forcast on a short-time scale [say up to 10 days] and forecasts for the upcoming season are not cleanly delineated
> and then you get meta-events such as a drought lasting a few months to a few years -- is that a climate or just weather event
>
> However, when you see prolonged instances of something such as the Extended Freezing weather in the 1300's through as late as the early 1800's in Europe, North America and beyond -- aka the Little Ice Age [LIA] -- that is clearly climate on a nearly global scale. Similarly the LIA is predated by the Medieval Optimum [MO] when much of coastal Greenland was ice-free. However, we have minimal instrumental data on the LIA [mostly the latter few decades] and none at all about the MO -- depending entirely on proxies of various fidelities and a scattering of documents relating to environmental conditions.
>
> Proxies from further back suggest that there were multiple LIA and MO like periods in the Holocene Epoch in the past approximately 11,650 cal years since the Last Glacial Period. There was also one extraordinary event known as the Younger Dryas aka Younger Dryas stadial [cool period between roughly 12,900 and 11,600 years ago that disrupted the prevailing warming trend occurring in the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the Last Glacial Period. Ice and other cores indicate that the onset of the cooling of the Younger Dryas was preceded by the Bølling-Allerød interstadial rapid warming [beginning approximately 14,700 years ago]. The Younger Dryas' return to near Glacial conditions lasted about 1300 hundred years and was followed by extremely rapid warming to near current conditions [Greenland ice-core samples suggest that local temperatures increased by up to 10 °C in just a few decades].
>
> if you want to try to put your finger on the human component of climate change -- you need to look to the past few decades when we have some fairly "good" data sets of direct measurements of temperatures [from satellites with their issues] and CO2 concentration and figure how to exclude the non-human induced variability of the fairly recent [past 120 to 50 years ago]. This post LIA era -- features substantial variability before the recent "Satellite Measurement Era" [SME] -- sufficient for both "Global Warming" [early 20th C] and "Global Cooling" with possible return to Glaciation [mid 20th C] to be popularized in major Magazine cover stories. If human activity didn't play a role in creating the MO or the LIA and is difficult to credibly associate with the ending of the LIA -- why do we feel so certain {"the science is settled"} that we can use human activity to explain everything which has happened in the modern Satellite era.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:13 PM Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Anyone who denies that there are legitimate scientific questions... is either un-read or not a true believer in what the process of science is all about who is just interested in psychological terror of the populace." (emphasis added)
>
> This seems to be a variant of Godwin's Law. (Although, am I pulling a Meta-Godwin by referencing Godwin? :-)
>
> Are we having a disagreement on whether climate change is human-caused or on the severity of the impact on Earth and humans? I thought we were past this stage of the discussion.
>
>
>
> Jerry
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:33 PM Ted Kochanski <tedpkphd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marvin,
>
> In addition to Lonborg who believes strongly in the human role in causing climate change on a global scale there are many imminent atmospheric scientists who question the dependence of the "Catastrophic wing of the Anthropogenic Climate Change argument] on models which are constantly tweaked [without actually modifying the underlying theoretical framework for the models nor actually testing them against the best of our measurements of things like vertical profiles] -- meanwhile the planet does its own thing with our and all of the other inputs.
>
> Anyone who denies that there are legitimate scientific questions leading to model parameters which are inadequately quantified [even in some cases to the sign of the term] to result in model output which is consistent with the best measurements -- is either un-read or not a true believer in what the process of science is all about who is just interested in psychological terror of the populace.
>
> I suggest reading Fred Singer -- just before his death he and several others updated his original 1997 book for the layman and others
> Hot Talk, Cold Science (2021)
> Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (Revised and Expanded Third Edition)
>
> S. Fred Singer (Author)
> David R. Legates (Author)
> Anthony R. Lupo (Author)
> Frederick Seitz (Foreword)
> William Happer (Foreword)
>
> Ted
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 10:56 AM Marvin Menzin <mmenzin at icloud.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Re the above , there are many rational people willing to accept some hardship to mitigate warming and the long term threat.. so it comes down to degree, what degree of pain is justified given the threat and the uncertainty of the timeline?
> i suggest reading Lomberg on the subject. .he is one of that tries to quantify the cost benefit ratios of our actions on climate.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2022, at 10:50 AM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> ===============================================
> ::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 mmenzin at icloud.com.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/mmenzin@icloud.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 shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com.
> Set your list options: http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/shelly.lowenthal@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 825159 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 314717 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 339932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 588254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 207480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 515558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 451164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25733 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 118345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220727/445da624/attachment-0009.png>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list