Measuring Atmospheric C02: Paul Williams Reviews the Controversial New Paper by Ernest-Georg Beck
Posted by jennifer, April 1st, 2007 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Hi Jennifer,
The recent paper by Ernst-Georg Beck, ’180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods’
and his supporting data has been discussed here. Briefly, Beck looks at historical records of atmospheric CO2 measurements since 1812, and finds that many scientists recorded measurements much greater than the 290 parts per million (ppm) which has been accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as being the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2, before the increasing usage of fossil fuels began to raise atmospheric CO2.
This raises a number of questions. How accurate are the old measurements? Were they contaminated by nearby sources of CO2 emissions? How did the IPCC come to accept 290 ppm as the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level?
On the question of accuracy, Beck mentions three methods of measuring CO2, and explains that the apparatus used was calibrated against gas with a known CO2 content, and scientists also calibrated their apparatus against the equipment of other scientists. The accuracy of the most common technique, the Pettenkofer process, is +/- 3%. Obviously this is much less accurate than modern methods, but still enough to be confident that the results are not wildly inaccurate by tens or hundreds of parts per million.
Could the samples have been contaminated, such as by war activity, industrial processes, or other local sources of CO2? It is certainly possible. For example, a series of 25,000 measurements taken at Giessen, Germany, between 1939 and 1941, averaged 438.5 ppm. The influence of a city is estimated to be between 10 and 70 ppm increase in CO2 levels. Even allowing a 70 ppm increase for the proximity of the city gives a background level of about 370ppm, comparable to present day levels, but much higher than is generally thought to have occurred at that time.
Other sites are unlikely to have been contaminated. Lockhart and Court found CO2 levels in Antarctica between 200 and 1700 ppm, in 1940 and 1941. Hock, et al found CO2 levels averaging 400 ppm between 1947 and 1949 at Point Barrow in northern Alaska. Once again, these are much higher than the generally accepted values of that time.
So how did the pre-industrial figure come to be accepted as 290 ppm? As mentioned in Beck’s paper, Guy Callendar, a British engineer and scientist, was influential. He examined 19th and 20th century CO2 measurements and rejected those he considered inaccurate, the ones he selected leading him to conclude that the pre-industrial CO2 level was about 290 ppm (G. S. Callendar, “The Composition of the Atmosphere through the Ages,” The Meteorological Magazine,vol. 74, No. 878, March 1939, pp. 33-39.). Callendar was a proponent of the theory that CO2 emissions from industrial activity would raise global temperatures, and had written a paper to that effect in 1938, at a time when Europe had just experienced five warm years.
Among the criteria that Callendar used to reject measurements, were any that deviated by 10% or more from the average of the region, and any taken for special purposes such as such as “biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution”. The first criteria is a rather circular argument, while the second seems to ignore the accuracy of the results. Whatever the validity of these exclusions, it turned out that the mean of 19th century samples he included was 292 ppm. The mean of the samples he had available to include was 335 ppm.
Not everyone agreed with Callendar. Giles Slocum pointed out in 1955 that Callendar’s exclusions from the 19th century data were mostly higher than the ones he included, while those from the 20th century that he excluded were lower than the ones he included, in line with his theory that CO2 levels had risen and were causing increased temperatures. As Slocum diplomatically put it ” Much seems to depend on the objectivity of Callendar’s decisions as to which data to keep.”
The other official source of pre-industrial CO2 levels is, of course, ice core readings. Not everyone is happy with those either, as I will show in a later post.
Beck shows, in figure 14, that CO2 levels and temperature are correlated, if the historical CO2 measurements are used instead of the IPCC approved figures. This figure also shows that the chemical measurement of CO2, which ended about 1957, matches well with the Mauna Loa measurements, which began in 1958, with readings of about 315 ppm.
So were pre-industrial CO2 levels stable until Industrial Man disturbed the balance, or has there always been an ebb and flow? Beck’s paper certainly raises some interesting questions.
Regards,
Paul Williams
Adelaide, South Australia
David
what it is called ‘heavier’, I think that is just a simple explanation. It is in practice no heavier because the isotope that is heavier is only present in minute quantities. It can be measured with sensitive scientific instruments, but that is all.
Yes David Wozney – all very interesting about Mauna Loa – but the other SIO stations down to the South Pole are quite consistent.
So now Luke has stooped to suggesting that I am claiming that all the increase in CO2 is natural. Nevermind the fact that I have made repeated reference to the 7Gt of anthropogenic emissions, and the fact that thisd whole discussion has been on the issue of WHAT PORTION of the increase is anthropogenic and what portion is not.
Just keep it up fellas, there must be one reader of this blog who is dumb enough to believe what you say. Spivanthropus Climatensis desperately seeking Manbearpig.
Not talking – Manbearpig was really mean – I’m crying and needing counselling. You have hurt my feelings. Hope Easter Bunny brings you no choccies you meanie.
Q((((Technology News
April 3, 2007, 11:52PM
Top experts predict heavier activity this hurricane season
With El Niño gone, they see the Atlantic spawning 17 named storms
By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
The leading forecasters of Atlantic hurricane activity have significantly ratcheted up their predictions for storms this year, saying it will be a “much more active” storm season.
The newest forecast, released Tuesday by William Gray and Phil Klotzbach of Colorado State University, calls for 17 named storms this year. Their earlier forecast, issued in December, called for 14 tropical storms and hurricanes.
The annual hurricane season starts June 1.
“El Niño is officially dead, and that was one of our main reasons why we didn’t go higher in December,” said Klotzbach, who now serves as lead author of the forecasts.
El Niño is a periodic warming of equatorial sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean that tends to dampen hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
Forecasters generally agree that a strong El Niño during the latter half of the 2006 hurricane season held the total number of named storms, 10, below expectations.
The revised Klotzbach-Gray forecast also calls for nine hurricanes, up from seven, and five major hurricanes, up from three.
From 1950 to 2000 there were an average of 9.6 named storms per year, and 5.9 hurricanes.
Since about 1995, scientists agree, there has been an upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity, although there is disagreement over whether global warming or a cyclical warming of Northern Atlantic waters is to blame.
A forecast two months before hurricane season begins can be hit or miss. Of Klotzbach and Gray’s past six April forecasts, two have hit the mark, two others have been reasonably close, and two forecasts have been off by 50 percent or more.
Gray has issued forecasts since 1984. In recent years, with increasing interest surrounding hurricanes, other groups have begun making forecasts as well.
“The problem with that is these large-scale patterns which are used in the forecast are often not easy to predict so far into the future,” Chris Hebert, TropicsWatch supervisor for Houston-based forecasting service ImpactWeather, wrote via e-mail.
“In 2006, for example, no one had properly predicted the rapid onset of El Niño in late July. This caused strong wind shear (unfavorable winds aloft) across the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, sparing the U.S. from any major threat.
“Seasonal forecasters like Dr. Gray and his student, Phil Klotzbach, will be using these same predictors for the 2007 outlook, so the outlook will be only as good as the ability to predict general atmospheric and oceanic conditions 3-6 months into the future.”
The important message, Hebert said, is to be prepared.
A big hurricane might hit Houston this year, but the odds are against it. However, he wrote, it’s “almost certain” that a major hurricane will strike Houston in the next decade or two during the current active cycle.))))))UnQ
Isn’t it amazing how the Hurricane experts, models and all, cannot predict with any reliable accuracy, yet the InterPlanetary Council of Crooks would have the world believe their modellers can predict with the accuracy of “Robbing” Hood.
Sigh – the old can’t predict the weather so can’t predict the climate scam
And generalise from one bit of phenomena in one location to everywhere and everything.
nevket: Smart hey. Your comment on ipcc predictions is like a dirty shovel short off flying …ie empty!
These days anything to do with governments is purely about risk assessment.
Even your average Aussie gambler has two bob each way on a sure thing.
The “Smothers Brothers’ Gavin & Luke.
Predictable arrogant, dismissive replies. I presume you two will be able to take medicine from now on that a “concensus’ of medical researchers think might be safe, or even fly around your G8 brawls in new planes that a “concensus” of engineers think might be OK to use.
One thing for certain, you are not scientists.
Just political activists.
Good to see Luke Smothers admitting to the climate scam. To claim I generalised after what the EcoMarxists claimed after Katrina went through is typical of the Genre. The next season was a DUD. So much for Models. No lengthy time frame so you could not be taken to task eh lads???
“These days anything to do with governments is purely about risk assessment”
Why just “these days” Even the Ceasars evaluated risks. Risk Assessments are subject to the same manipulations as your shonky “start with the result we need” models.
Just be honest for a change and admit the whole scam is a political one. The environmental aspect is a convenient” one in all in” platform.
Do you support equal funding between Pro and Anti scam research??? Politicians or Scientists??
nevket240 – actually I’m far from political – but all the eco-marxist clap-trap from gimps like you shits me. What a load of rubbish in terms of the real debate. Show me any serious climate change paper that says there will be hurricanes every year like Katrina. However there is good analysis to show that peak storm intensity of hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons has risen in all ocean basins world-wide.
How do the models start with the result they need. Actually if you don’t combine solar + greenhouse + aerosols you don’t get the right result at all.
Frankly nevket you’re talking out of your arse and haven’t got a clue what the debate is about. In terms of politics you’re the one bringing it up ! So perhaps you’re some reactionary right wing denialist nitwit.
Stop parroting what you read on political blogs and try reading the science for a change.
I don’t support funding for anything that’s demonstratably crap. And 90% of your contrarian gibberish utter drivel is spread by shonks, con-artists, ex-tobacco apologists and ratbags. Science is not about just making you feel comfortable.
Nevertheless science can only inform policy and politicians. If you can convince enough to vote it down well don’t complain to any scientists down the track. Tosser!
nevket240 too is right into Jukebox jingles www style.
IMO IPCC models can be appreciated by the general public and pollies alike
In today’s news we had the Australian climate scientist commenting from Brussels on expected problems downunder. This guy represents teams of experienced researchers based in Australia. Nothing much will happen over Easter, hey what a great day we have here under this cloudless sky
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891863.htm
http://www.aussmc.org/IPCCWG2.php
Even out federal environment minister reckons it’s all old hat!
Australian CSIRO scientist Kevin Hennessy is part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Thanks to nevket for his comments. I was laughing for 20 minutes straight.
Why is it that the IPCC fans always sound so bitter. Like old men hating the young.
Bu-huh, they have no respect for my facts – it is so hard on me!
But then again, when you have predicted a global desert and a 6 m rise of the ocean( can these be combined?) then maybe there is nothing to laugh about?
By the way: How many of the people on the IPCC would you say are real top experts on their field?
I know the ones they sent out from my country- Denmark- are not even close!