[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science

[Jerry Harris]

To add some data to this topic, here's a chart showing the source of
electricity between 2001 and today. We're currently sourcing 45% of our
electricity from nuclear and renewables.
[image: electricity-sources-percentage.png]
Source: Data from EIA.gov
<https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vvg&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.AOR-US-99.M&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.M~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.M&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.M&freq=M&start=200101&end=202205&chartindexed=0&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=>,
chart mine

Jerry

On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:32 AM Carl Lazarus <carllazarus at comcast.net>
wrote:

> I am in favor of building more nuclear power in addition to solar and wind.
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:07 PM Shelly Lowenthal <
> shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because our leader is at war with oil and gas - gas prices way high and
>> helping inflation cause people to chose between gas and food. Happening
>> here, UK, Germany. There is a gas shortage in Europe and fertilizer
>> companies are shutting down. Less fertilizer means less food and higher
>> prices. Inflation strikes poor people the hardest.
>>
>> You are 100% correct that we can handle things smartly. Build a bunch of
>> nuclear plants and then take down oil, coal, and gas electric generation.
>> That’s not what is happening.
>>
>> BTW - everything is made from oil/gas - fertilizer, drugs, clothing,
>> packaging, building material, all our daily conveniences. Oil/gas will
>> never go away.
>>
>> BTW, IPCC says that we’re not seeing more hurricanes and tornadoes.
>> You’re describing weather when you get drier or wetter conditions. Extreme
>> temperatures happened in the 1930s before we burned much carbon. These are
>> all indisputable facts.
>>
>> Shelly Lowenthal
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2022, at 8:51 PM, carllazarus at comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Why do you talk about destroying an economy or making people poor?
>> Presumably we could do de-carbonization stupidly, but we can also do it
>> smartly.  Also, there are many negatives to climate change other than sea
>> level rise:  extreme storms, some areas getting wetter, some drier, extreme
>> temperatures.  We are seeing all of those already, so let’s not focus on
>> sea level.
>>
>> -- Carl
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Shelly Lowenthal <shelly.lowenthal at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 28, 2022 11:39 AM
>> *To:* Jerry Harris <jerryharri at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* carllazarus at comcast.net; Lex Computer Group <lctg at lists.toku.us>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] science
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: image001.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: image002.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: image003.png]
>>
>>
>>
>> To be fair - global tides might be growing a little faster and we can now
>> also measure it by satellite radar.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: image004.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: image005.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: image006.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: image007.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: image008.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: image009.png]
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: image010.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: image011.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
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 515558 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 339932 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 825159 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 314717 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 207480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25733 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 588254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 118345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 451164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 386025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: electricity-sources-percentage.png
Type: image/png
Size: 71577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20220729/d98d6f65/attachment-0011.png>