Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

[Pierz]

Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian 
is preserved (doesn't change), the hamiltonian being the measure of energy 
in a system. This has led me to understand energy as a measure of change 
over time in a physical system. That might be obvious, except I've never 
heard anybody say it quite like that - with the result that many people 
tend to reify energy as some kind of physical "thing". The fact that energy 
and matter are interconvertible has led me to the summary that change 
across space is matter, change across time is energy. The only problem in 
this picture is potential energy, which you could simply call "deferred 
change", but that does beg the question as to how it is deferred. I'm 
trying to think about this in relation to chemical energy - the potential 
energy held in chemical bonds. When I studied chemistry I was simply told 
that certain bonds are more stable and have lower energy than other bonds 
which are less stable and have higher energy. So energy is released when a 
molecule reacts with another to form a more stable compound. The reason for 
and nature of the stability wasn't explained. So I'm wondering, is the 
"potential energy" in the chemical bond actually a kind of very localised 
motion, with more motion occurring in high energy bonds than in lower 
energy ones? In other words, the energy (motion/change) is temporarily 
contained in the small area of the bond, thus hiding the energy it as it 
were from the environment? If so, then this form of potential energy is not 
really different in kind from other types of energy, it's just relatively 
isolated. If this is valid, perhaps a similar analysis of other forms of 
potential energy such as gravitational potential might be possible too? Can 
a physicist/physical chemist perhaps shed light on whether my speculation 
here regarding chemical energy is valid? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 11:33:57 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Lawrence, hi John, 
>
>
> Sorry for the delay. I comment some answers in the same post. 
>
> Lawrence, you say 
>
> << 
> Hard emergence is either something really miraculous and thus not really 
> in the domain of physics, or it is something we might call a miracle 
> because we really do not understand it. 
> >> 
>
> So we agree. Ah, I see you did find an example. See below. 
>
> John, you say 
>
> << 
> ​> ​Bruno: You might try to give at least one example of hard emergence 
>
> ​One molecule of water can't be wet but 6.02*10^ 23 molecules can be. And 
> H2O at 31 degrees F has none of the properties of a liquid but at 33 
> degrees F those same molecules have all the properties of a liquid; 
> although usually emergent properties don't appear as​ ​suddenly as that, it 
> is more smooth and continuous. Day is very different from night but there 
> isn't an exact point where one turns into the other. There is nothing 
> mysterious ​or​ miraculous going on its just that human language puts 
> concepts into groups called "words" but the real world is messy​ ​so​ 
> ​there are often intermediate​ ​cases where its not clear what the correct 
> word should be; an​ ​80 pound man is clearly thin​​ and a 800 pound man is 
> clearly fat but there are values between those extremes where reasonable 
> people can differ on what the correct word should be. 
> >> 
>
> I don’t see the exemple of hard emergence. 
>
> I think that “hard emergence” is a spurious concept like the one used to 
> hide the mind-body problem. In that case it reflects at least the 
> understanding that mind does not come out of the brain like wetness comes 
> out from the many water molecules. In the second case we stay in the third 
> person discourse, but in the first, we must explain a relationship between 
> two types of points of view (and with mechanism, it cannot be a one-one 
> relation, but a modality related to self-reference). 
>
> Lawrence: 
>
> << 
> It occurred to me a case of hard emergence. The outcome of a quantum 
> measurement is such. I have iterated how I think this is connected to 
> self-reference, ] 
>
> Nice! Is it related to the self-duplication? With the MW formulation of 
> QM,, and simplifying a little bit to avoid being too much technical, when 
> you look at schroedinger cat, you duplicate yourself, as the duplication of 
> the cat is linearly inherited by you when observing the cat, and is, in 
> relevance with computationalism, an example of self-duplication. A 
> classical self-duplication, via artificial brain or bi-teleportation gives 
> the same “miracle”, or 1p-account of “miracle”. Of course there is no 
> miracle at all, and then “hard emergence” is again relegate to the “hard 
> problem” of relating first person experience and third person description 
> (see my paper to get the point that with Mechanism, this cannot be 
> one-one). 
>
>
> … [so I will not repeat that here. However, the outcome is completely 
> random and has no causal basis. ]... 
>
>
> I agree that the outcome is completely random, but the randomness itself 
> as a causal base: the numerical identity of the “copies” in front of 
> different inputs. That exists a lot in arithmetic which emulates all 
> computations with a non trivial redundancy. That happens in the biological 
> reality too, in many variate ways. 
>
>
> … It emerges for no particular reason, such as initial conditions, and is 
> as I see it a complete hard emergence. 
>
> >> 
>
> It is hard in the 3p sense that it is absolutely indeterminate. Exactly 
> like in the case of the amoeba, or the digital duplication of oneself made 
> possible in the Digital Mechanist frame and/or in Arithmetic. 
>
> That is not "hard emergence", it is rather simple to explain by our first 
> person indeterminacy, that is the fact that a universal machine cannot know 
> which computations support them. 
>
> “Hard emergence” would be like adding the conscious attribute of a person 
> “living” that randomness, but then “hard” just refers to the hardness of 
> the mind-body problem. 
>
> Best, 
>
> Bruno 
>

You have pretty well captured what I was trying to illuminate here. I think 
there may well be hard emergence. Quantum collapse as a phenomenology is a 
case where in order to understand it, or to encode it, we would need to be 
able to data compress a vast number of sequences of such measurements. You 
can be sure this will not compress much, and the Chaitan halting 
probability would be low. This means in effect Kolmogoroff entropy or 
complexity has no complete computable measure. Fundamentally randomness is 
not defined by a computing system.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send 

Re: Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 2:54:32 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:36 AM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>>
>> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/satellites-show-sea-level-rise-is-accelerating/
>>  
>> 
>>
>> Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG
>>
>
> OK
> ​ 
> lets compare, it says what we now for sure is that has been "3 inches of 
> sea level rise in the past quarter century". They made a guess that it 
> would accelerate so sea level would be "2 feet higher by the end of the 
> century", well maybe so, but that would still make for a pretty dull 
> disaster movie. Sure 
> ​it​
>  might cause difficulties but on a list of world problems it wouldn't 
> even make the top ten
> ​.​
>

What are the top ten, excluding global nuclear war? AG
 

> I mean its not as if this sort of thing was unprecedented, the sa has 
> risen 400 *FEET* since the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago
> ​ 
> and during that time the human race not only survived it thrived.  
>
>   ​John K Clark​
>

Probably by 10,000 BC the ocean had achieved its present level, that is, 
after the ice had receded. How many coastal cities were flooded from 20,000 
BC to 10,000 BC? Can you name one? AG 

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

['cdemorse...@yahoo.com' via Everything List]

   On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:36 AM,  wrote:


​> ​https://www.mercurynews.com/ 2018/02/12/satellites-show- sea-level-rise-is- 
accelerating/

Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG

OK​ lets compare, it says what we now for sure is that has been "3 inches of 
sea level rise in the past quarter century". They made a guess that it would 
accelerate so sea level would be "2 feet higher by the end of the century", 
well maybe so, but that would still make for a pretty dull disaster movie. Sure 
​it​ might cause difficulties but on a list of world problems it wouldn't even 
make the top ten​.​ I mean its not as if this sort of thing was unprecedented, 
the sea has risen 400 FEET since the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago​ 
and during that time the human race not only survived it thrived.  
      Ever wonder what a two foot rise in sea level would do to south Florida 
real estate values?
Would they go up... or go down. My guess is down, catastrophic flood damage 
tends to have that effect. What kind of dollar figure are we talking about. 
That would be astronomical! The value of just the Florida coastal real estate 
that would be impacted is off the charts.
But hey... don't worry, be happy.
-Chris

  ​John K Clark​
 
 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:36 AM,  wrote:

​> ​
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/satellites-show-sea-level-rise-is-
> accelerating/
> 
>
> Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG
>

OK
​
lets compare, it says what we now for sure is that has been "3 inches of
sea level rise in the past quarter century". They made a guess that it
would accelerate so sea level would be "2 feet higher by the end of the
century", well maybe so, but that would still make for a pretty dull
disaster movie. Sure
​it​
 might cause difficulties but on a list of world problems it wouldn't even
make the top ten
​.​
I mean its not as if this sort of thing was unprecedented, the sea has
risen 400 *FEET* since the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago
​
and during that time the human race not only survived it thrived.

  ​John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:51:17 AM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:36:36 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 11:18:37 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:58 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ​> ​
 *If IGUS or ETI exist elsewhere, I would argue that probably there are 
 scaling limits to the powers such beings are able to control. The universe 
 has matter in it, but it has an average density of 10^{-29}g/cm^3,*

>>>
>>> ​
>>> Yes, if you picked an average cubic meter of space in the universe it 
>>> would only have about one hydrogen atom in it, but that's irrelevant 
>>> because the space near stars is very very far from average.
>>> ​ ​
>>> Jupiter alone has enough matter to make a Dyson Sphere, especially if 
>>> the sphere's radius was considerably less than the Earth's orbital radius, 
>>> and ET would probably pick that design. The efficiency of solar cells 
>>> increases in more intense sunlight,  some existing solar photovoltaic 
>>> installations use a mirror or a Fresnel lens
>>> ​ ​
>>> to concentrate sunlight to up to 900 times normal earth intensity and 
>>> aim it at a solar cell. One Dyson Sphere would produce 33 trillion times 
>>> more energy than the entire human race uses now, and it would keep 
>>> producing it for billions of years. And there is no reason ET couldn't make 
>>> billions of Dyson Spheres in a very short amount of time, astronomically 
>>> speaking. And yet we see nothing.
>>>  
>>>
 *​> ​and the overwhelming percentage of matter in dense configurations 
 is in stars that are hot and hard to access.*

>>>
>>> ​ET wouldn't even want to access the matter in stars because that's the 
>>> source of the very power  they're ​trying to get at. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
 ​> 
 *Even tearing up planets for materials is hard and energy intensive.*

>>>
>>> ​
>>> Energy is not a problem, there is plenty of energy available near stars 
>>> but you're right it's hard, at least its hard to do right now because we 
>>> don't have Drexler style Nanotechnology, but we don't have it because some 
>>> law of physics forbids it, we don't have it simply because of lack of 
>>> engineering skill. But new skills can be acquired.  Brain surgery isn't 
>>> hard if you know how and once we have Nanotechnology
>>> ​ ​
>>> building a Dyson Sphere will no longer be hard.
>>>  
>>>
 ​> 
 *I would argue there are simply scaling limits to the control or 
 abilities of intelligent beings.*

>>>
>>> ​You haven't argued it you've simply stated it.
>>>
>>> John K Clark​
>>>  
>>>
>>
>> I am simply proposing it. I have no particular proof. At some point 
>> though any ETI/IGUS that attempts to do these things might be akin to a 
>> flea climbing an elephant's butt with rape on its mind.  
>>
>> We are faced with a number of prospects. The first is there is some limit 
>> to complexity that any intelligent being can manage. In this scenario there 
>> would be intelligent life elsewhere, but they are unable to push into these 
>> extreme hyper-tech areas. The second is that intelligent life is extremely 
>> rare or maybe we are the only ones. This seems to go against some general 
>> Copernican principle. The third is the biology itself is some sort of 
>> spectacular fluke, maybe as a hard emergent process, that Earth is the only 
>> biologically active planet in the entire universe.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *Another possibility is that ET's exist, but for whatever reasons have no 
> motivation to build Dyson Spheres. In this scenario they could be plentiful 
> or rare, but without interest in such a project or others which are 
> comparable in scope. AG*
>

*I may lack in imagination, but what would be the motivation for a galactic 
empire? AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[John Clark]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> mind does not come out of the brain


​Then why does changing the brain change the mind and changing the mind
change the brain?

John K Clark​



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Lawrence, hi John,


Sorry for the delay. I comment some answers in the same post.

Lawrence, you say

<<
Hard emergence is either something really miraculous and thus not really in the 
domain of physics, or it is something we might call a miracle because we really 
do not understand it.
>>

So we agree. Ah, I see you did find an example. See below.

John, you say

<<
​> ​Bruno: You might try to give at least one example of hard emergence

​One molecule of water can't be wet but 6.02*10^ 23 molecules can be. And H2O 
at 31 degrees F has none of the properties of a liquid but at 33 degrees F 
those same molecules have all the properties of a liquid; although usually 
emergent properties don't appear as​ ​suddenly as that, it is more smooth and 
continuous. Day is very different from night but there isn't an exact point 
where one turns into the other. There is nothing mysterious ​or​ miraculous 
going on its just that human language puts concepts into groups called "words" 
but the real world is messy​ ​so​ ​there are often intermediate​ ​cases where 
its not clear what the correct word should be; an​ ​80 pound man is clearly 
thin​​ and a 800 pound man is clearly fat but there are values between those 
extremes where reasonable people can differ on what the correct word should be. 
>>

I don’t see the exemple of hard emergence.

I think that “hard emergence” is a spurious concept like the one used to hide 
the mind-body problem. In that case it reflects at least the understanding that 
mind does not come out of the brain like wetness comes out from the many water 
molecules. In the second case we stay in the third person discourse, but in the 
first, we must explain a relationship between two types of points of view (and 
with mechanism, it cannot be a one-one relation, but a modality related to 
self-reference).

Lawrence: 

<<
It occurred to me a case of hard emergence. The outcome of a quantum 
measurement is such. I have iterated how I think this is connected to 
self-reference, ]

Nice! Is it related to the self-duplication? With the MW formulation of QM,, 
and simplifying a little bit to avoid being too much technical, when you look 
at schroedinger cat, you duplicate yourself, as the duplication of the cat is 
linearly inherited by you when observing the cat, and is, in relevance with 
computationalism, an example of self-duplication. A classical self-duplication, 
via artificial brain or bi-teleportation gives the same “miracle”, or 
1p-account of “miracle”. Of course there is no miracle at all, and then “hard 
emergence” is again relegate to the “hard problem” of relating first person 
experience and third person description (see my paper to get the point that 
with Mechanism, this cannot be one-one).


… [so I will not repeat that here. However, the outcome is completely random 
and has no causal basis. ]...


I agree that the outcome is completely random, but the randomness itself as a 
causal base: the numerical identity of the “copies” in front of different 
inputs. That exists a lot in arithmetic which emulates all computations with a 
non trivial redundancy. That happens in the biological reality too, in many 
variate ways.


… It emerges for no particular reason, such as initial conditions, and is as I 
see it a complete hard emergence.

>>

It is hard in the 3p sense that it is absolutely indeterminate. Exactly like in 
the case of the amoeba, or the digital duplication of oneself made possible in 
the Digital Mechanist frame and/or in Arithmetic.

That is not "hard emergence", it is rather simple to explain by our first 
person indeterminacy, that is the fact that a universal machine cannot know 
which computations support them.

“Hard emergence” would be like adding the conscious attribute of a person 
“living” that randomness, but then “hard” just refers to the hardness of the 
mind-body problem.

Best,

Bruno









-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why Alien Life Would be our Doom - The Great Filter

[John Clark]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*​> ​Even if you have a mole of nanobots doing things, who is keeping track
> of them to make sure they are doing what you want? *


​
You were
​ ​
constructed
​ ​
by a huge number of nanobots (also called proteins) in just 9 months. And
those nanobots were themselves constructed by other nanobots using
information in DNA. There was no understanding involved in any of this,
nobody was keeping
​ ​
track
​ ​
of it all and yet it worked. You are far more complex than a Dyson Sphere
so if something like DNA and proteins, which are dumb as dirt, can make
something as complex as you I don't see why a super intelligence would be
unable to make a simple Dyson Sphere.

* ​> ​In fact this becomes Turing's thesis on the impossibility of a
> Universal Turing Machine on steroids.*


​Turing prove there are some functions that a computer can't evaluate and
some real numbers (most of them actually) that can't even be approximated.
But computers aren't the only thing that has this limitation, humans can't
do any of those things either and in fact
no physical process has ever been found that can figure out what a Turing
Machine can't; and yet enormously complex things still exist in the
universe.

And Turing also proved that in general if you want to know what a computer
will do next all you can do is watch it and see; and long before Turing it
was known that in general you can't know for sure what you are going to do
next until you actually do it. ​



​*> ​**even if you have that massive computing system who is keeping track
> of the algorithms to make sure it is doing what you want and so forth.*


​
Computers will always make mistakes
​and​
 humans make mistakes too but that doesn't prevent them from getting things
done.
​ ​
​By the way, you indicated you were a fan of t
he
​
Copernican principle
​ but now you seem to be saying humans are special after all because they
are as smart as things can get, if something is too complex for humans to
use it will forever be too complex for anything to use. And I still don't
understand what's so complex about a Dyson Sphere.
After all, spheres are symmetrical so if you know how to make one small
part of it you know how to make the entire thing, now you just need to put
in the effort and actually do it. And if you have 6.02*10^23 hands you can
complete it in a reasonable amount of time.


> *​> ​Already we are getting some problematic news with self-driving cars.​
> ​Remember a test driver. or in a way un-driver, was killed not long ago
> because the algorithm failed to react properly to certain conditions.*
>

​That was 2 years ago and since then 2.6 million people were killed by
human drivers worldwide. And the incident you refer to didn't happen in a
driverless car, the Tesla just had a autopilot, a sort of super duper
cruise control, and it was never intended to be used without human
oversight, although the "driver" apparently treated it as if it was and was
not paying attention and died as a result. True driverless cars have a
superb driving record and have never killed anyone, Google's driverless
cars have driven 1.8 million real world miles and only had 13 accidents,
all of them fender benders and all of them caused by other cars with human
drivers.


> ​>* ​*
> *Complexity explodes enormously and the designers become unable to
> understand or control their systems.*
>

​
Humans understand the complex things they make one hell of a lot better
than DNA and proteins
​ ​
understand the complex things
they ​
make.


> ​>* ​*
> *there are a lot of humans who are completely insane, and frankly we have
> put one in the White House.*
>

You'll get no argument from me about that! ​T
rump is not only insane he's stupid.​ Maybe that's why we can't find ET,
sooner or later every civilization gets the equivalent of Mr. Donald (my
nuclear button is bigger than yours) Trump.

* ​> ​This may then be one reason there are no massive astrophysical
> engineered objects out there; the amount of information necessary to build
> and control such things is far beyond any tractable computing system.*
>

​That is just not true. ​
In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4
bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that
comes out to 750 meg. Just 750 meg, that's about the same amount of
information as a old CD disk could hold
​
when they first came out
​ ​
35 years ago! And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a
ridiculous amount of redundancy in the human genome.
​ And yet that
tiny
​ amount of information was enough to reshape the surface of a planet. And
there is more to come, I think that information could grow and reshape the
entire galaxy, if it doesn't stagnate or destroy itself first.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from 

Re: Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

[Samiya Illias]

According to The Quran, the seas are expected to get warmer. Please see: When
the Seas Boil


On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:36 AM,  wrote:

> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/satellites-show-sea-level-rise-is-
> accelerating/
>
> Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Satellites show sea level rise is accelerating

[agrayson2000]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/satellites-show-sea-level-rise-is-accelerating/

Compare with John Clark's claim of rise of one inch per decade. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.