[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Ted Kochanski
tedpkphd at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 12:26:03 PDT 2022
Shell, et al
Perhaps relevant to our discussion
The following is from a daily newsletter by the editors of Nature:
Fossil-fuel emissions hamper carbon dating*1
The burning of fossil fuels has officially shifted the composition of
carbon isotopes in the air of the Northern Hemisphere enough to cancel out
a useful signal from nuclear-weapons testing*1
The matter which has conveniently been omitted --that it is impossible to
separate CO2 released from burning fossil fuels from that emitted by
volcanism
both essentially have 0.0% C-14 since even a fresh forest filled with
atmospheric C-14 [Cosmic Rays produced] after being subducted will take
many hundreds of C-14 half lives to appear in the magma erupted from a
near-by volcano or just vented from a quiescent volcano [on land or under
the sea]
*1
spike circa 1950 in atmospheric C-14 over the background cosmic ray
produced amounts due to atmospheric nuclear testing which
essentially lasted 10 years
the C-14 introduced into the atmosphere will persist for thousands of years
[5,730 year half life]
Ted
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:07 PM Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Love these. First link expects a 1-6 foot sea level rise. This is a wild
> and unproven prediction. Second link shows what happens if sea level rises
> 2-3 feet. But we know that’s not the case. 3mm/year is 300mm in 2122 or
> less than a foot in 2100. Plus we know that not all that is caused by us or
> CO2. Much of CO2 is released when Oceans warm and get sucked back in when
> the Ocean’s cool. Sea level rises when the ocean warms as well, not just
> from melting ice. (
> https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/learn/project/how-warming-water-causes-sea-level-rise/
> ). You can actually see this effect from lower tide readings in the 70s
> when the earth cooled.
>
> I wanted to share with you how our government measures land temperature.
> Report just came out and there are too many pictures in it so it’s too
> large to be an attachment. I hope you all enjoy this quick read with lots
> of photos. There is a chart of US temperature from the reference network of
> good sites from 2005 to present. Enjoy.
>
>
> https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
> On Jul 28, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Robert Primak <bobprimak at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Massachusetts Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Viewer
> Find interactive maps of potential coastal flooding of public facilities
> and infrastructure developed by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
> Management (CZM) StormSmart Coasts Program.
>
>
> https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-sea-level-rise-and-coastal-flooding-viewer
>
> Climate change and coastal flooding in Metro
> Boston: impacts and adaptation strategies
>
>
> https://www.cityofboston.gov/images_documents/Coastal%20Flooding%20Metro%20Boston_tcm3-31975.pdf
>
>
> The Seaport Cost Billions To Build. What Will It Take To Save It?
>
>
> https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/06/16/boston-seaport-fort-point-climate-change-sea-level
>
> There will be and have already been serious economic impacts on coastal
> Massachusetts due to rising high tides and storm surges. This has been a
> trend in built-up areas like Boston's seaport, as well as areas where there
> has been little or no building, such as the North Shore and Cape Ann areas.
> Cape Cod has been losing beaches not due to coastal subsidence, but due to
> increasingly severe storm surges and increasingly high "King Tides".
>
> If you actually live in these coastal communities, you know only too well
> what is happening. And you know it is unprecedented in MA history, going
> back to the 1600's. When your house starts going into the Atlantic, you
> quickly become a believer in sea level rise due to climate change.
>
> I deliberately chose government reports, as these contain lots of
> references to data sets used.
>
> -- Bob Primak
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 11:39:46 AM EDT, Shelly Lowenthal <
> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Please tell us what the big impacts are specifically. Also for each,
> please tell us if issues are due to subsidence (for example, too much water
> extracted) vs rising tides or other human/policy changes (building in
> historical floods plains) outside rising tides.
>
> I can’t imagine destroying an economy or making people poor over 44mm (1.7
> inches) over 100 years.
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
> On Jul 28, 2022, at 11:00 AM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Shelly,
> A couple of quick thoughts. Sorry for the brevity of my message.
> 1. The graph showing ice loss on Greenland (left one) is wrong. It used
> the wrong data from the spreadsheet. The real # is double:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> 2. The right-hand graph showing the total mass is pointless. (It's also
> data not derived from the imbie.org dataset; they should tell where they
> got it.)
> 3. "At this rate it will take 1-2000 years for Greenland to melt" - do you
> realize this isn't the point at which melting ice impacts humans?
> 4. The IMBIE study estimates that the ice melt between 1992-2018 has
> resulted in mean sea level rise of 10.8 ± 0.9 millimetres.
>
> That may seem small to you, but it's a trend that's increasing and a small
> increase has a big impact at different locations around the world.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:11 PM Shelly Lowenthal <
> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> [image: image001.png]
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> [image: image002.png]
>
>
>
> To be fair - global tides might be growing a little faster and we can now
> also measure it by satellite radar.
>
>
>
> [image: image003.png]
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: image004.png]
>
> 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."
>
>
>
> [image: image005.png]
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> [image: image006.png]
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> [image: image007.png]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://www.axios.com/2022/07/25/greenland-ice-melt-peak-season>. 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
>
>
> [image: image008.png]
>
>
>
> [image: image009.png]
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> [image: image010.png]
>
>
>
> 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
> <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
>
> ===============================================
> ::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
>
> ===============================================
> ::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 bobprimak at yahoo.com.
> Set your list options:
> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/bobprimak@yahoo.com
> [image: image004.png][image: image005.png][image: image006.png][image:
> image007.png][image: image.png][image: image001.png][image: image002.png][image:
> image003.png][image: image010.png][image: image009.png][image:
> image008.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 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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/5754bd16/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0001.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0002.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0003.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0004.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0005.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0006.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0007.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0008.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0009.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/20220728/5754bd16/attachment-0010.png>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list