Historic CO2 levels - the emerging picture,
Ernst Beck's full paper has now been published:
UPDATE - Downloadable summary at http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003901.html
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
Part 4 of projected monograph "History of CO 2 Gas Analysis of Air by Chemical Methods"
(uncorrected, unfinished, not authorized for publication, only for evaluation)
Basic database (>90 000 series, 143 averages over 150 years, >53 locations )
And a full set of other linked resources on the page. Go and dip in and wonder why the IPCC has dismissed this data. As he says:
..my paper "180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods" ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 2 2007 I want to give you access to a supplementing webpage with most important historic resources.
Because of explosive content of my paper let me give you some further comments.
It´s clear that it is not possible to reconstruct 150 years of scientific evolution concerning one subject thoroughly in 20 pages. This is the main difference to other papers concerning one single problem. I had to sample, evaluate and select hundreds of problems. Therefore my selection out of available data can always be critisized with all possible arguments.
For this reason the online support should serve as a first help before projected publication of the monograph with all inspected sources.
So perhaps you realize that my paper is only a first sign of pointing to those "forgotten data". Your work will start right here.
Probably you also agree that my paper is not in first place a climate paper, it´s a chemical paper, because most historic resources are written by chemists.
As a biochemist I feel much more connected to CO2 as a climate scientist because of CO2 beeing an essential substance for all living things.
Modern propagated image of carbon dioxide as a climate killer contradicts natural importance ( biology, chemistry, medicine, nutrition science) in total.
Looking at history of modern natural science and measuring CO2 we see a timeline of two lines of arguments:
1. a 200 hundred year of consecutive evolving natural science establishing most modern knowledge and laws of nature ( honoured by dozens of NOBEL awards in 20th century)
2. a 60 year of climate science in parallel to (1) establishing a different, contradicting view of CO2 in nature with no real knowledge but most hypothesis and speculations.
Viewing from point 2 my paper is junk science.
Viewing from scientific point we have to evaluate verify and falsify both lines and join them together without excluding one or both a priori at the base of laws of nature.
In that sense I appreciate your comments and critics and your contribution to establish real truth.
Thank you for your help.
StD Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. 2006/2007
More details at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001971.html