« How to cure MRSA - shut the hospitals | Main | Cash For Honours - Details of Ruth Turner's Allegations Revealed »

Ernst-Georg Beck's paper 180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods

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) which argues that the IPCC reliance of Ice Core CO2 figures is wrong - It is only 10 pages long so I urge you to read it yourself and study such figures as:

CO2%20Trend%201880-present.jpg
Fig. 9 Comparing measured temperature in northern hemisphere (land) from 1850 (Jones (171),
Hansen (172), GHCN(170)) with CO2 fluctuation. (5 years difference by averaging corrected)
The temperature maximum around 1940 is not a result of exponential rise of CO2. It´s the
reverse, high temperature around 1940 had induced CO2 maximum.

Download complete pdf file

Comments

Thank you for giving advance publicity to Beck's paper. If his case is verified (and I hope it is) then he will deserve a Nobel prize for the untold savings in money and misery that he will have saved the world.

No scientist would deny that higher CO2 levels assist global warming. But are today's levels actually higher than early in the last century? And are ice-core measurements really a good proxy for atmospheric measurements? If so, are current levels predominantly man-made?

In my view a confirmed peak CO2 in 1940 of significantly higher than today must surely destroy the whole fraud. I am therefore surprised that the blosphere is not making this paper much more welcome..

Mmmm....Mauna Loa! The drive from Kona over to Hilo on the twisty little Saddle Road takes you up between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. It's really neat, and up at the summit surrounded by more lava is an ancient Hawaiian altar - we left Sheryl's wedding lei there as an offering to Pele. The road was built during the 2nd WW to transport fuel over to Kona. Can't wait to go back.

Oh yeh, if they're using Mauna Loa as a background identifier, then imagine what they could do with Krakatoa I and II as backgrounds - if they had the signature!

Beck's work is far more likely to earn him an ignobel prize than a Nobel one. It's just a collection of badly drawn graphs compiling dubious data. What is needs is the some physical explanation for the far higher variance of older data relative to the Mauna Loa data. Without this its junk.

What is dubious about the data? He doesn't have to provide any explanation for the variance. Others need to prove the data wrong. Why do the ice cores show steady CO2 concentrations in the past even when we know temperatures varied widely (even during the interglacial warm periods)? If the ice core values are correct, then CO2 levels have no effect on climate. It seems the defenders of ice core values have more to explain.

Beck's work is far more likely to earn him an ignobel prize than a Nobel one. What is needs is some physical explanation for the far higher variance of older data relative to the Mauna Loa data.

And here is some very good explanations:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Beck to the Future:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

I could hear Beck in his Berlin lecture, see the Photos. And have read the web pages against him. In Germany the Climatists are upset and here I can find the same.

Why?

A hge amount of "old" chemical based datas from Bunsen, Pettenkofer et al. point to the wrong actual database by failed "modern" measurements. That hurts. And you can hear the wounded cry ...

I especially recommend the sunspot correlation chart on page 8 of the report. I read an excellent book by Iben Browning, Climate and the Affairs of Men, written a while back, but one of the first publicly available books for the lay reader featuring lots of data about sunspots, ice core samples and so forth. He came to some overly controversial conclusions (more like inspired guesses) which played overmuch in the press, but the book itself is a great read. In it he debunks the entire notion of anthro-engendered global warming. One of his best examples (roughly): the eruption of Mount St Helens - which took place shortly before the book was published - spewed forth more stuff affecting the atmosphere than all the engines and cars in total since they were invented. Just one eruption, and not a huge one by any means.

He noticed a marked correlation between sunspot activity, temperatures and CO2 levels using the ice core methods, which is why the title includes 'and the Affairs of Men'. In the charts on the above report, note how the two peaks are around 1815 (end of Napoleonic War, the first true pan-European war in the modern era) and 1940 - as WW II lifted off. Note also how we are currently at a low point.

Yes, we can make the world a filthy place, so much so that we poison ourselves into extinction. But it is highly unlikely that we can dramatically effect the overall planetary system. It is simply our own hubris that enjoys imagining ourselves as being that powerful.

We have fished cod and other commercial species to virtual extinction in the past 100 years. That is a HUGE catastrophe that hardly anyone talks about with FAR GREATER ramifications. But fish are not sexy. Cold, slimy, heartless, without feeling and mainly invisible until manifest in sanitised fashion as nice clean fillets on the plate!

Let's give you a hint. Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm represents about 7 gigatons of CO2.

In one of his graphs, he has atmospheric CO2 dropping by 100ppm over a single year, and increasing in other places almost as fast. 100ppm represents about 700Gtons of CO2 -- if you are talking about the entire atmosphere. Since he claims his results are accurate to at worst 3%, he is proposing that there was some sort of CO2 sink that can absorb CO2 at that rate, but which has somehow magically switched off in the last century. And some sort of pre-industrial CO_2 source that was equally magical.

A more rational interpretation of his data is that early measures had gross experimental errors. For example, we are exhaling CO2; if you are measuring in parts per million, it is extremely easy to contaminate the data.

As for volcanic output of CO2, I prefer to believe sources who are working in the field, e.g., http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html and http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-212/Derived/report.html. The maximum daily output from Mt St Helens was about 23ktons. Contrast this with 10-billion tons of CO2 produced by power stations worldwide annually (about 27-million tons a day) and you have to conclude that someone is talking nonsense.

(I suspect there is some mixing in the various reports of metric and old fashioned tons but the difference is insignificant on the scales we are talking about here.)

I think you may find that this is discussed informatively here,
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
(see Sunsettommy's question and PhD J. A. Glassman's reply dated 26th November)

Oh, and if you've not heard of the Solubility pump, here is a good read,
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

Hope that helps.
And, here is a link to some "blasting of Gore the Bogusmonger"...
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8
I prefer science a bit more empiracal than the IPCC can seem to muster..
As J. A. Glassman so aptly put it in one of his replies,
Exert,
"So why are the graphs so unscientifically pat? One reason is provided by the IPCC:

The longitudinal variations in CO2 concentration reflecting net surface sources and sinks are on annual average typically calibration procedures within and between monitoring networks (Keeling et al., 1989; Conway et al., 1994). Bold added, TAR, p. 211.

So what the Consensus has done is to "calibrate" the various records into agreement. And there can be no other meaning for "calibration procedures … between monitoring networks". It accounts for coincidence in simultaneous records and it accounts for continuity between adjacent records. The most interesting information in this procedure would be the exact amount of calibration necessary to achieve the objective of nearly flawless measuring with the modern record dominating. The IPCC's method is unacceptable in science. It is akin to the IPCC practice of making "flux adjustments" to make its various models agree. See TAR for 87 references to "flux adjustment", and see 4AR for its excuse, condemnation, and abandonment. 4AR p. 117. "
End of exert.

In other words the IPCC mix and match data at will to get their desired results - proven.
Anyone remember the Hockey stick graph.
That ain't science, however you view it, it's politics, disguised as science.

Solubility pump? I'm not terribly impressed by someone claiming to have a better theory then having excuses for not getting it published somewhere with peer review. In my experience the journals bend over backwards to publish what little credible research there is contradicting the consensus view, so as not to appear biased -- even when it's obviously flawed.

What makes you think that this is in any case in any way original? Solubility of CO_2 in water is part of the models.

Let me explain this to you from a nonspecialist perspective since I'm not a climate scientist.

If we don't put CO_2 into the air and the climate system is in equilibrium, the deep ocean CO_2 level will stabilize over some 800 years, the time it takes for a complete circulation of the whole system. The climate system has not varied enough over the last 800 years for there to be a significant difference in the deep ocean quantity of dissolved CO_2. Now, we double the atmospheric CO_2 level over a period of 200 years or so. Some of the excess CO_2 is dissolved, making the ocean more acidic. This extra solution must necessarily happen in the surface layers because that's what's in contact with the air. Over time, this extra CO_2 is mixed into the deeper ocean, so the sea absorbs some of the excess CO_2. However, because the cold water in which CO_2 is most soluble is in the deep ocean, any effect of the deep ocean being able to hold more CO_2 is a very long-term, slow effect. In the meantime, the greenhouse effect warms the surface layer, so the exchange of CO_2 between air and sea slows (i.e., more stays in the air). This is bad because there is a lot more CO_2 in the sea than in the air.

This is what's called a feedback: heating (for whatever cause, greenhouse gases, changes in the sun, changes in the earth's orbit) causes CO_2 from the sea to vent into the air, causing a greenhouse effect. This is the reason, in the past when people were not spewing billions of tons of CO_2 into the air annually, why CO_2 had a climate impact but only after warming started. One exception may be Permian–Triassic extinction event 251.4 million years ago, where an exceptionally massive volcanic eruption in which lava landed on a large coal field doubled atmospheric CO_2 in maybe as little as 10,000 years. This event probably caused global warming but it's hard to accurately date events that far back.

If you want a more informed discussion on this ask a polite question on realclimate.org -- I find "polite" usually works.

The IPCC data for Carbon Dioxide levels in the pre-industrial is nothing more than pure fraud. The Siple Ice Cores from Antarctica showed CO2 level at 328 ppm for ice deposited at 68 meters corresponding to 1890. The scientists involved solved the problem by making an inexplicable determination that the entrapped air in the ice at that level was 83 years younger than the ice itself. This conveniently made the CO2 level fit with actual CO2 measurements from 1973. How can anyone support a theory based on this type of hocus pocus? I guess I could check the ice in my icemaker and find out what the air composition will be in 2091!!

Post a comment