[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
Jerry Harris
jerryharri at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 14:38:40 PDT 2022
Shelly,
This other site seems to be an aggregator for Lomborg et al., supporting a
cottage industry of climate change deniers who use clickbait and misleading
data to earn their living.
Jerry
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:29 PM Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jerry - Heartland is a publisher. Do you have bones to pick with Anthony
> Watts? He has his own site: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
>
> I was hoping that everyone had a chance to see all the photos and come to
> the understanding of UHI - Urban Heat Island Effect. You don’t even need to
> read the document - just look at the pictures. UHI is a real thing. In fact
> those awfully placed sensors track temperature rise at twice the rate of
> the reference group of sensors. Concrete and asphalt make cities hotter -
> mostly at night. Thank goodness for electricity (as long as it lasts) and
> AC! BTW - Eversource pays me $40 per summer to control my thermostat in
> Lexington. I let them because I’m usually not there!
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
> On Jul 28, 2022, at 4:38 PM, Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bob, thanks for sharing government data. Anything out of heartland.org
> will be skewed towards an ideological belief.
>
> Shelly, I'm going to disengage from this conversation with you. You share
> biased and skewed information and casually dismiss any corrections
> provided.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:05 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]
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/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/be363ab3/attachment-0010.png>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list