Comments for Paul Gilding http://paulgilding.com Personal website of Paul Gilding Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:20:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Keith Reeves http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6420 Keith Reeves Sun, 05 Sep 2010 20:20:09 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6420 "I would also note that the readings agree with other CO2 monitoring stations scattered across the globe". Yes , I would hope that if Mauna Loa is being used that the data it is strictly monitored. If it tracks that from Tasmania, which is unlikely to be contaminated, then you can compare changes from both sites but not absolutes. “I would also note that the readings agree with other CO2 monitoring stations scattered across the globe”. Yes , I would hope that if Mauna Loa is being used that the data it is strictly monitored. If it tracks that from Tasmania, which is unlikely to be contaminated, then you can compare changes from both sites but not absolutes.

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Adam http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6411 Adam Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:43:47 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6411 Hi Keith, I understand the unpleasant association with politicians and bankers! Your concern about the Mauna Loa volcanic influence is a good one. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html suggests that they exclude the readings where volcanic influence may be occurring.. "The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records... ." I would also note that the readings agree with other CO2 monitoring stations scattered across the globe. Hi Keith, I understand the unpleasant association with politicians and bankers!
Your concern about the Mauna Loa volcanic influence is a good one.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html suggests that they exclude the readings where volcanic influence may be occurring..

“The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records… .”

I would also note that the readings agree with other CO2 monitoring stations scattered across the globe.

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Keith Reeves http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6410 Keith Reeves Sun, 05 Sep 2010 12:20:26 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6410 Sorry you guys for being so apparently unpleasant but this topic carries with it a strong association with politicians and bankers to whom I have an aversion. I have a natural appreciation for people who try to unravel sciences mysterys at the most fundamental level but continue to be put off by the climate debate which instructs me not to query my betters. As an example of scholarship I was referred to there is this "http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1" which is part of the IPCC report. At the surface it appears to be coherent but exists on the basis of reference to many papers and anecdotes which are themselves based on Ifs, Buts and Maybes. Layer on layer of loose connections. Some of the measurements used are far from reliable and certainly not lab standard. A case in point is a measuring station on the island of Hawaii, which I have visited. It measures CO2 levels. Are they joking?? This island is an active volcano. I have seen molten lava boiling the water and pumping out CO2 from the ocean. The entire island chain has sub surface gaseous exchange from the magma to the ocean and the to atmosphere. They place a CO2 measuring device on a volcano. Are they joking??? As Sam says: "scientific papers are supposed to be about a very specific topic, not a rambling treatise on life" but just have a look at the rambling IPCC paper. If you can connect all the dots in that one you are doing well. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1 Sorry you guys for being so apparently unpleasant but this topic carries with it a strong association with politicians and bankers to whom I have an aversion. I have a natural appreciation for people who try to unravel sciences mysterys at the most fundamental level but continue to be put off by the climate debate which instructs me not to query my betters.
As an example of scholarship I was referred to there is this “http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1″ which is part of the IPCC report. At the surface it appears to be coherent but exists on the basis of reference to many papers and anecdotes which are themselves based on Ifs, Buts and Maybes. Layer on layer of loose connections. Some of the measurements used are far from reliable and certainly not lab standard. A case in point is a measuring station on the island of Hawaii, which I have visited. It measures CO2 levels. Are they joking?? This island is an active volcano. I have seen molten lava boiling the water and pumping out CO2 from the ocean. The entire island chain has sub surface gaseous exchange from the magma to the ocean and the to atmosphere. They place a CO2 measuring device on a volcano. Are they joking???
As Sam says: “scientific papers are supposed to be about a very specific topic, not a rambling treatise on life” but just have a look at the rambling IPCC paper. If you can connect all the dots in that one you are doing well.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Sam Stainsby http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6406 Sam Stainsby Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:57:25 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6406 By the way, scientific papers are supposed to be about a very specific topic, not a rambling treatise on life, the universe, and everything. For you information, Keith, quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons, the building blocks of all atomic nuclei, and hence (almost) all matter. This paper intended to add insight to our fundamental understanding of the world we live in. I only quoted the paper to show that your another of your assumptions - that we were lying about being scientists - was a false. By the way, scientific papers are supposed to be about a very specific topic, not a rambling treatise on life, the universe, and everything. For you information, Keith, quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons, the building blocks of all atomic nuclei, and hence (almost) all matter. This paper intended to add insight to our fundamental understanding of the world we live in. I only quoted the paper to show that your another of your assumptions – that we were lying about being scientists – was a false.

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Sam Stainsby http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6405 Sam Stainsby Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:50:43 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6405 "Why do climate models not include CO2 produced by microbial content of the top half meter of soil world wide?" Why do you keep making statements that provide and increasing body of evidence that you don't even read the climate science journals, or perhaps don't understand them, or that you can't even operate Google? “Why do climate models not include CO2 produced by microbial content of the top half meter of soil world wide?”

Why do you keep making statements that provide and increasing body of evidence that you don’t even read the climate science journals, or perhaps don’t understand them, or that you can’t even operate Google?

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Keith Reeves http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6402 Keith Reeves Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:50:16 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6402 Two quark propagators with different analytic structure are employed in Bethe-Salpeter type equations for the pion and scalar diquark form factors. One of the quark propagators has been calculated with the inclusion of a trivial (bare) quark-gluon vertex and, as a consequence, contains a complex conjugate pair of logarithmic branch points. The other quark propagator is obtained using a non-trivial (dressed) vertex ansatz and is entire, with an essential singularity at infinity. The effects of these different quark propagators on the BSE solutions are compared. Refer back to post 35, lines 2 and 3. Why do climate models not include CO2 produced by microbial content of the top half meter of soil world wide?? This is a massive factor in CO2 input to the model and its omission negates any legitimacy for the models. Two quark propagators with different analytic structure are employed in Bethe-Salpeter type equations for the pion and scalar diquark form factors. One of the quark propagators has been calculated with the inclusion of a trivial (bare) quark-gluon vertex and, as a consequence, contains a complex conjugate pair of logarithmic branch points. The other quark propagator is obtained using a non-trivial (dressed) vertex ansatz and is entire, with an essential singularity at infinity. The effects of these different quark propagators on the BSE solutions are compared.

Refer back to post 35, lines 2 and 3.

Why do climate models not include CO2 produced by microbial content of the top half meter of soil world wide?? This is a massive factor in CO2 input to the model and its omission negates any legitimacy for the models.

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Sam Stainsby http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6399 Sam Stainsby Sun, 05 Sep 2010 02:32:54 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6399 So no publications then. Keith: "None of you have tried to argue the basic science I have put so far." This is not the place. If you feel you have something concrete, get it published in an appropriate journal and let climate scientists pick it apart. I find that trying to argue the science with purveyors specious tripe is not productive here or anywhere. With deniers, it only leads to one of two strategies: mindless repetition even when faced contra-positive proof, or simply moving onto to a steaming fresh pile of specious tripe. "My suspicion is that none of you are scientists, just greenies." http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9306313 Quark-gluon vertex and structure of mesons and diquarks Samuel J. Stainsby, Reginald T. Cahill etc. So no publications then.

Keith: “None of you have tried to argue the basic science I have put so far.”

This is not the place. If you feel you have something concrete, get it published in an appropriate journal and let climate scientists pick it apart. I find that trying to argue the science with purveyors specious tripe is not productive here or anywhere. With deniers, it only leads to one of two strategies: mindless repetition even when faced contra-positive proof, or simply moving onto to a steaming fresh pile of specious tripe.

“My suspicion is that none of you are scientists, just greenies.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9306313
Quark-gluon vertex and structure of mesons and diquarks
Samuel J. Stainsby, Reginald T. Cahill
etc.

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Keith Reeves http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6397 Keith Reeves Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:29:08 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6397 Debate the science guys, not the number of PhDs or MScs you claim to have. You might, possibly, have a more restricted area of interest and view as you go up the ladder and consequently a "higher" qualification may indicate less capacity to see the full picture. I have science qualifications adequate to assess the errors in what's being put to the world about CO2. My modeling courses at final year degree level allow me to clearly see what are either errors or deliberate fraud in climate models demonizing CO2. This is basic science. None of you have tried to argue the basic science I have put so far. My suspicion is that none of you are scientists, just greenies. "I should also point out that engineers are extremely suspicious of any correlated events" Is this statement rebutting my CO2 mass balance in post 33? Sounds like the IPCC. The climate brigade has totally misrepresented modeling and posted it as proof. Before I will believe any of the models I want all of the volcanic rents in the earths crust sealed off to isolate CO2 exhaust as a factor. Then I want all of the CO2 trapped for hundreds of years in deep ocean layers isolated as an input factor. Just what percentage of the atmosphere's CO2 does man put into the atmosphere? It is a puny input into a non existent effect. In the mean time we allow chemical pollution of the earth and the murderous extremes of human behaviour mentioned above in post 5. ??? Debate the science guys, not the number of PhDs or MScs you claim to have. You might, possibly, have a more restricted area of interest and view as you go up the ladder and consequently a “higher” qualification may indicate less capacity to see the full picture. I have science qualifications adequate to assess the errors in what’s being put to the world about CO2. My modeling courses at final year degree level allow me to clearly see what are either errors or deliberate fraud in climate models demonizing CO2. This is basic science. None of you have tried to argue the basic science I have put so far. My suspicion is that none of you are scientists, just greenies. “I should also point out that engineers are extremely suspicious of any correlated events” Is this statement rebutting my CO2 mass balance in post 33? Sounds like the IPCC. The climate brigade has totally misrepresented modeling and posted it as proof. Before I will believe any of the models I want all of the volcanic rents in the earths crust sealed off to isolate CO2 exhaust as a factor. Then I want all of the CO2 trapped for hundreds of years in deep ocean layers isolated as an input factor. Just what percentage of the atmosphere’s CO2 does man put into the atmosphere? It is a puny input into a non existent effect. In the mean time we allow chemical pollution of the earth and the murderous extremes of human behaviour mentioned above in post 5. ???

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Sam Stainsby http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6396 Sam Stainsby Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:39:27 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6396 The assertion that somehow engineers can understand climate science better than climate scientists in general is a logical non sequitur, and reveals a lack of understanding of what scientists actually do. Having been a scientist and then an engineer for a telco, it is clear that engineers, if anything, are more focused on their area of expertise and care less about the theoretical and fundamental underpinnings of the science that they apply. It takes good science, and thus good scientists, to forge a path into the complex realm of climate change. Keith, you keep claiming to be a scientist, yet you also say you only did science courses to second year level: can you show us your publications list please? The assertion that somehow engineers can understand climate science better than climate scientists in general is a logical non sequitur, and reveals a lack of understanding of what scientists actually do. Having been a scientist and then an engineer for a telco, it is clear that engineers, if anything, are more focused on their area of expertise and care less about the theoretical and fundamental underpinnings of the science that they apply. It takes good science, and thus good scientists, to forge a path into the complex realm of climate change.

Keith, you keep claiming to be a scientist, yet you also say you only did science courses to second year level: can you show us your publications list please?

]]> Comment on Why I don’t believe in the climate science by Keith Reeves http://paulgilding.com/cockatoo-chronicles/cc20100901beliefclimatescience.html/comment-page-1#comment-6393 Keith Reeves Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:01:51 +0000 http://paulgilding.com/?p=263#comment-6393 Exactly " learn in Engineering to account for all inputs and outputs". The failure of "Climate Scientists" to do this is exactly the problem. They want to run half a model with a CO2 balance that includes only man made CO2 plus the assumed steady state atmospheric CO2 prior to mans organic combustion of coal, oil, wood and petrol. You must include CO2 trapped in deep ocean layers which originates from core magma. This chemical balance is not done by the modelers. Why does it need to be pointed out to an engineer that such obvious failings as this one and failure to include solar output variations in the thermal balance are serious problems of credibility?? Exactly ” learn in Engineering to account for all inputs and outputs”. The failure of “Climate Scientists” to do this is exactly the problem. They want to run half a model with a CO2 balance that includes only man made CO2 plus the assumed steady state atmospheric CO2 prior to mans organic combustion of coal, oil, wood and petrol. You must include CO2 trapped in deep ocean layers which originates from core magma. This chemical balance is not done by the modelers. Why does it need to be pointed out to an engineer that such obvious failings as this one and failure to include solar output variations in the thermal balance are serious problems of credibility??

]]>