« Bi-polar Bear Opinions | Main | Contemplate a tangled bank, »

Have we got the CO2 figures all wrong?

Interesting snippet here - via Greenie Watch.

German Prof Ernst-Georg Beck, thinks the IPCC has got the historic CO2 levels wrong, apparently they have just used air bubbles trapped in ice cores to get their figures (various scientists believe there may be problems with this method). But scientists have been measuring the composition of air for many years, admittedly mainly in Europe not worldwide. And pretty accurate results they got, we think. But the IPCC ignored them. He is doing the digging and getting a paper together which is being peer reviewed: a sneak preview was on the web at http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf but is no longer. However Google has an HTML cache of it. Remember this is a draft and is yet to be peer reviewed, but if it does stack up, WOW!

UPDATE: Thanks to a reader I now have a copy of Ernst-Georg Beck's paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short version)

Here is the Summary

Accurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend compared to the literature of IPCC climate change actually published. From 1829 the concentration of carbon dioxide of air in the northern hemisphere fell down from a value of e.g. 400 ppm up to 1900 to less than 300 ppm rising till 1942 to more than 400 ppm. After that maximum it fell down to e.g. 350 ppm and rose again till today, 2006 to 380 ppm.
Accurate measurements had been done amongst others by de Saussure 1826, Pettenkofer/v.Gilm 1857, Schulze 1864/71, Farsky 1874, Uffelmann 1886, Letts und Blake 1897, Krogh and Haldane 1904, Benedict 1912, Lundegardh 1920, van Slyke 1929, Dürst and Kreutz 1934 alternatively 1940, Misra 1942 or Scholander 1946 with measuring instruments through which from 1857 (Pettenkofer) an accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol% =3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926) was achieved. These pioneers of chemistry, biology, botany, medicine and physiology constituted the modern knowledge of metabolism, nutrition science, biochemistry and ecology. Modern climatology ignored their work till today even
though it is the basis of all textbooks of the mentioned faculties and was honoured with several Nobel prizes. In total over 90 000 measurements within nearly every year since 180 year gave the following results
:

1. There is no constant exponential rising CO2 -concentration since preindustrial times but a varying CO2-content of air following the climate. E.G. around 1940 there was a
maximum of CO2 of at least 420 ppm, before 1875 there was also a maximum.
2. Historical air analysis by chemical means do not prove a preindustrial CO2 -concentration of 285 ppm (IPCC),as modern climatology postulates. In contrast the average in the 19th century in northern hemisphere is 321 ppm and in the 20th century 338ppm.
3. Todays CO2 value of. 380 ppm, which is considered as threatening has been known several times in the last 200 years, in the 20 th century around 1942 and before 1870 in the 19th century. The maximum CO2 -concentration in the 20th century roses to over 420 pmm in 1942.
4. Accurate measurements of CO2 air gas contents had been done from 1857 by chemical methods with a systematical error of maximal 3%. These results were ignored reconstructing the CO2 concentration of air in modern warm period.
5. Callendar and Keeling were the most important founders of the modern greenhouse theory (IPCC) beside Arrhenius. Literature research confirmed that they ignored a big part of available technical papars and selected only a few values to get a validation of their hypothesis of fuel burning induced rise of CO2 in air. Furthermore these authors discussed and reproduced the few selected historic results by chemical methods in a faulty way and propagated an unfounded view of the quality of these methods, without having dealt with its chemical basis.
6. To reconstruct the modern CO2 concentration of air icecores from Antarctica had been used. The presented reconstructions are obviously not accurate enough to show the several variations of carbon dioxide in northern hemisphere

This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing

Comments

That Channel Four programme the other night was spot on. How the hell did it get broadcast!

Have we got the CO2 figures all wrong?
I shouldn't be in the least surprised.

I have the PDF on my forum...

http://forum.iservio.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=196

Post a comment