[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
David Lees
joeoptics at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 19:45:31 PDT 2022
You might have a typo in the URL. Perhaps you meant this?
https://wottsupwiththat.com/
David Lees
>From Pixel 6 Pro
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 8:47 PM Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ok - you don’t like heartland because climate alarmists are afraid of
> them. Then click on this this link and read the report. Don’t need to read
> - open your eyes and look at the photos.
>
>
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/27/new-surface-stations-report-released-its-worse-than-we-thought/
>
> Shelly Lowenthal
>
> On Jul 28, 2022, at 7:17 PM, David Lees <joeoptics at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Heartland Institute. Hmmm. It does not appear to be a reliable source of
> information to put it mildly looking at a neutral bias measurement site:
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heartland-institute/
>
> And this somewhat dated look certainly makes the case to ignore it:
> https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Funding_base
>
>
> No point in further discussion for me.
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:37 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]
>>>
>>> ===============================================
>> ::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 joeoptics at gmail.com.
>> Set your list options:
>> http://lists.toku.us/options.cgi/lctg-toku.us/joeoptics@gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0010.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0011.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0012.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0013.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0014.png>
-------------- 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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0015.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0016.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0017.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0018.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0019.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0020.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0021.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0022.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0023.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0024.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0025.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0026.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0027.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0028.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0029.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0030.png>
-------------- 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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0031.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/20220728/2f8cfe3f/attachment-0032.png>
More information about the LCTG
mailing list