Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The great CO2 swindle?

  1. Apr 3, 2007 #1
    Ernst Beck has published a highly controversial paper about the chemical measurements of CO2 is the past two centuries with chemical measurements and the problems thereof:

    Beck, E-G, 2007; 180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods; Energy & Environment, Vol 18 No. 2, 2007

    I have a copy of the PDF here.

    I hinted to Ernst that he should scan in all the reference papers and make sure that it's all available for everybody to see how the data mining happened and what a completely different picture the CO2 concentration is in the last two centuries.

    Ernst has now made all his data and sources available:

    Last edited: Apr 3, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2007 #2
    Paleoclimatic Support for CO2 Forcing?

    Hi Andre,

    The paper you provide a link to is very interesting (paper states that there have been multiple periods in the last 200 years when the atmospheric CO2 was higher than 400 ppm with no corresponding change in temperature.)

    I think most people are unaware that there is very strong scientific evidence that shows that the majority of the 20th century warming was not due to the 20th century increase in CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but a relatively small amount is required to reach the saturation point where additional CO2 results in proportionally less and less warming.

    It appears more and more likely that the CO2 hypothesis and its promotion will be viewed as a scandal. 20th century warming was due to the 20th century solar activity increases that are the highest in 8000 years. Ironically, the Sun appears to be abruptly moving to a Maunder minimum. If it does and the earth abruptly cools, with of course dire consequences, then everyone will be looking for scapegoats. How could 2500 scientists have ignored the evidence?

    I am watching the scandal unfold with interest.

    Anyway, back to the scientific data.

    There is paleo data that shows there have been periods when the planet was warm when CO2 levels were low and periods when the planet was cold when CO2 levels were high. I include examples below in a quote from Kump's paper "Reducing the Uncertainty of CO2 level and Climatic Change". Kump acknowledges his paper that the paleo data directly questions the foundation of the CO2 hypothesis and then states that CO2 levels should be reduced anyway, as it is better to be safe than sorry.

    http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~kump/KumpCommentary.pdf [Broken]

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  4. Apr 6, 2007 #3
    Perhaps it's also appropriate to draw the attention to my small contribution here:


    which include a sort of translating/interpretation of this paper:

    it's a bit big, a zip of the individual pages as jpgs, but very comprehensive and very interesting, showing that science in those days was well aware of complexities in the CO2 cycle.

    I also made this graph of the combined monthly average measurements of all the material in the middle of the former century.

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/fortiespike.GIF [Broken]

    There is a lot to explain here, not it the least of course the trustworthiness of the methods and data:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  5. Apr 6, 2007 #4
    The carbon dioxide contribution to the increase in global temperature may be controversial and lack thorough investigation. However, the affect on acidity in the oceans are not.

    Shouldn't that alone make us consider a serious attempt at alternative fuels and invest more money into, let's say, nuclear fusion? Never mind the climate, isn't this by its own a reason to limit carbon dioxide emissions?
  6. Apr 6, 2007 #5
    I would tend to agree. However, seeing how the bias of several global warming studies has been exposed in the eagerness to accomplish all kind of political objectives, I would certainly demand a thorough objective review of the matter. As I remember that there have also been counterdicting studies, (I'll try to dig one up later), I think science need to do it's self correcting business first.
  7. Apr 8, 2007 #6
  8. Apr 9, 2007 #7
    I'd say that making hockeysticks is messing with science rather than attempting to breach the persistency of the positive feedback loop of production of scare raising the demand of scare.
  9. May 3, 2007 #8
    Now you may want to take note of Georg Hoffmann's take on Beck's paper:


    I'd wonder if anybody can find a serious scientifically sound refutal of Beck between all those fallacies?

    Take for instance the discussion around Callendar.

    That 1958 paper is here:


    See "1 rejection of inaccurate values"

    Hence Callendar rejected these http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/fortiespike.GIF [Broken] without even raising an eye brow how it was possible that ALL those result showed a higher than expected result.

    Now it is a little far fetched to assume that all those samples were all wrong simultaneously, whereas before and after that period it appeared possible to measure values concurrent with expectations.

    So the higher levels of the early forties should have become the standard instead of the preconceptual values of Callendar with the intention to proof that experiment.

    If everybody measures the same oddity using different techniques at different places, isn't it even remotely possible that not all are wrong?

    Notice also this allegation of Hoffmann:

    It may be noted that Ernst Beck merely investigated in detail ALL the known CO2 in atmosphere studies and wondered why careful and concious work like that of Kreutz for instance or Misra was rejected with tens of thousands samples under all possible conditions.

    So if it is clear that work like that should not be ignored merely because the outcome did not satisfy the expected result, one could wonder if the expected result equaled the desired result. This becomes clear when one reads the introduction. Callender had the objective to demonstrate the extend of the "climate experiment" with burning fossil fuels and Kreutz and Misra did not fit in that picture.

    So...exposing a possible bias after the clear faux pas is translated as:

    This kind of ridiculing strawman fallacies is very typical for the alarmists, the underlying message is clear: sceptics are mankinds worst enemy. Everybody listen to us; follow the leaders; and do not dare to doubt our work.

    There will be a time when the partisan behavior in realclimate will be stored in history next to the pre war propaganda of the big revolutions and the last world war.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Jun 21, 2007 #9
    >> political objectives are tainting scientific reports. >>

    Indeed !

    The carbon dioxide swindle is rather unique, in that the Earth is in severe trouble, and the cause is well know in some circles, and yet the blame is being placed upon proxies, anywhere but on BigOil.

    This world is going into a deep freeze... a snowball Earth is a distinct possibility. WHY ?

    because the ubiquitous micro-layer of petroleum oil that exists on the oceans of the world, is stopping/retarding the evaporation of water vapour into the atmosphere.

    Drought, and soon total cold will be the result. The Death of Clouds.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2007
  11. Jun 23, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That was a pretty weird assessment, john. Many alternative explanations remain viable. While human generated C02 emissions are clear contributors to the atmosphere, a single volcanic eruption can greatly distort the data in any given year. It is more reasonable to continue monitoring salinity of sea water and the flow of oceanic currents. The seas contribute far more to climatic changes than the relatively paltry human contributions.
  12. Jun 23, 2007 #11
    >>. That was a pretty weird assessment

    not weird, just suppressed

    OIL on the sea surface is destroying the hydrology cycle -----> drought
    and further consequences far worse, much much worse... eventual extinction.

    The overpressure of CO2 is a symptom of the above.... and really totally innocuous.

    Politics has usurped science and LIFE on Earth is at grave risk.

    Some people wish to live their lifestyle until they die, and THEN life on Earth can go to HELL. nice people, AKA Big Oil.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2007
  13. Jun 23, 2007 #12
    Biggest problem with Becks argument is how co2 levels are all over the place early 20th century, but as soon as we start measuring them properly it goes into a nice smooth curve with no year differing more than 3ppm from the last. The previous measuring methods were clearly far less reliable.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2007
  14. Jun 23, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't see how someone who teaches biotechnology and nutrition at a vocational high school (his degree in biology caught my attention when looking at that and led me on a query into his qualifications), which is what Merian-Schule in Freidburg is, is in any way qualified to refute the experts on climatology. I have been unable to verify if the Energy & Environment journal is peer-reviewed (there is no mention of a review process on their website or instructions to authors), so will not delete this thread, but will lock it at this point.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook