Thursday, July 3, 2008

Measuring CO2 concentrations

In August 2006, Georg Beck, a biologist at Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany, published a study that proved how CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is NOT caused by human industrial activities but it's a natural phenomenon that follows climate variations recurrent in the natural history of the planet. You can find the study's full text at It is written for the specialist, but there is a Summary at the end, which I transcribe here.180 years accurate CO2 air gas analysis by chemical methods (short version) Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing .SummaryAccurate chemical CO2 gas analyses of air over 180 years show a different trend comparedto 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, ..........or Scholander 1946 with accuracy of +/-0,0006 Vol% to under +/-0,0003 Vol% =~3 ppm (Lundegardh 1926)...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 variing 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 338 ppm.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 papers 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.

The scam of CO2 concentrations

Just a self serving play in 5 acts or a global tragedy?Try this for size:Act 1You just lost an election, you have no job outside of politics since that is all you or your daddy ever did, you got money to spend and people who believe you when you claim you invented the internet. Then you imagine a good strategy: find a cause and lead the parade; better yet, make it a real crusade. But how do you find a crusade?Act 2Go to Harvard and listen to some lectures on a subject you know nothing about, get excited, you find a crusade, select data that suits your arguments (and eventually admit the fraud in an interview - that's moxy), use your followers (the one who believed you invented the internet?) and those who like your name to fuel their own crusade - lead the charge.Act 3Some misguided souls follow your arguments ignoring some 3000 scientists that disagree. They buy your hocus pocus "science", you give it a clever name like "inconvenient truth" that smells of conspiracy and implies you are the only honest one to call a spade a spade. Create a crusade leveraging your notoriety on the United Nations, make a movie, become a guru, get a nobel prize (lower case is intentional).Act 4You get our crusade. The world may pay a high price for undertaking misguided efforts premised on untruth convenient just to you. Who cares, you are important, the leader, the guru, the nobel.Fantasy? No, you can do it too with the right resources and character. It has been done.Act 5 (and this is where I hope I can help)At first few, then more (3000+) scientists become incensed at the irrationaity of it all, they see the making of a modern day Inquisition (uncritical belief and fear - a state of fear), of a crusade usefull to some politico willing to "use" well intentioned environmentalists to reinvent themselves. This time it is far more dangerous than claiming to have invented the internet.Reports start circulating. Even young teenagers build web sites debunking the "convenient" hocus pocus (of course they are dismissed as young, ignorant and naive by the Grand Inquisitor). But, in fact there is still serious science out there and people willing to find it, willing to put it in terms we all can understand. Even the wizard admits in interviews having skewed the numbers to incite to action (somewhat like yelling "fire" in a theater?).I am not a scientist or subject matter expert, but I felt compelled to read about the sudden "crisis". In the process I easily found credible dissenting supported and peer-reviewed arguments.As a public service I am posting what seems to make common sense and ask for all to do so - submit a summaries of the argument that we all can quickly digest, and provide the full scientific reports and references linked or attached as back up. Come back and check out what we find, and bring what you find.Let's try to change the end to this play about a self serving monumental ego and fool before it becomes a tragedy of global proportions.