Mr. Eli Rabett, nice reading, your lines for persons who like personal affronts with poor scientifical content. You do not know me, you have not read my paper in E&E nor my monograph " History of CO2 gas analysis" which is the basis of the E&E paper but you continue to prove in several blogs that I am an amateur and I am totally wrong and I am writing bullonions. The applause of your fans is considerable. I notice that you have severe deficits in basic chemistry. So lets help you with some facts. Here you will find the most important sources of my work:( but pay attention, it´s the devils work and it could NOT be) http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm I am sorry that you have to read a lot of German papers, several French and only some in English. History of gas analysis is mainly a european history, especially a German. here you will find my latest presentations at Berlin and Leiden (Netherlands) with facts not included in my E&E paper : http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/ber...07/berlin1e.htm http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/lei...07/leiden1e.htm. Eating your lines here: "There are a huge number of problems with atmospheric CO2 measurements between 1850 and ~1960 when Keeling introduced IR absorption based instrumentation. They can be summarized as not paying attention to detail. Paying attention to detail was Keeling's strength." I agree with firtst line but they measured throughout the world since 1812 (Thenard ) and the problems were solved by mainly french and german scientists. Still Theodore de Saussure in 1820 knew about all important characteristics of CO2 in air: diurnal and seasonal variation, absorption by humidity, influences by vegetation, soil respiration, combustion and lower level on higher mountains. Keeling stated erroneously in his 19th century evaluation paper in 1986 that nobody before him has measured these characteristics properly. You wrote: "Let's start from the beginning. You first have to understand and thoroughly characterize the location where you are making the measurements. This involves taking measurements at all times of day and year and correlating with winds, vegatation and many other things. " I agree, therfor I have investigated in detail (in my monograph) locations, data, persons, errors and you forgot: methods! So I have gathered this information in special detail for more than 60 data sets. From more than 390 papers I selected 138 datasets as OK and dozends as inacceptable. Dozends show regular, daily sampling with carefully calibration and recording conditions. You wrote: "Keeling, for example, found that when the winds blew from LA to La Jolla, his measurements were higher. He also found effects from the respiration of the vegatation at different times of day. There are some areas which are totally inappropriate. Paris is one, Essen another. One of my posts links to a CO2 measurement done while moving through the Ruhr. You can easily get high measurements." These things are known for 180 years. My 138 selected, evaluated data sets include only 2-3 measurements in towns because of their controlled and excellent calibration and completness of records. Your next lines describe the very complicated physical IR method reinvented by Keeling and first used by Heine a coworker of Konrad Roentgen in 1882. The wet chemical methods which was 100 years standard in natural science were much faster and not such complicated than the Keeling method. In the 50s Keeling had an error of about 1-4% up to 1970 that was worse than the best chemical analysers in 1920 used by Lundegardh having 1% error. These calibration gas and pump errors are confirmed in literature.Today the NDIR method is about 5-10 times more accurate as the old wet chemical methods. "Then, of course, you have to sample the air. The IR method allows you to continuously sample, but before that you had to grab a sample by sucking it into something. This is very tricky, and of course there are any number of dumb ways of doing this of which Mr. Roland Ploennige's playing the Fronselius trombone has to be the worst. Compare this with the careful way that Keeling describes how the gathered grab samples at the same link. Preparation of the sample volumes and their storage is also vital. For example, Keeling found that exposure of the glass bulbs he used was using to light for a couple of weeks produced an artifact. Of course, you want the largest possible volume to minimize surface effects and give you material to work with." You next lines reveal your chemical skills: "Then you need a method. Beck is delusional about the wet chemistry methods. At best they are a few percent in the hands of an expert, but they easily can give bad readings if not done perfectly. The IR method has all the advantages of an instrumental measurement. Since readings can be taken frequently, it is easy to build a statistical distribution that characterizes each sample. The titrations take a long time and require much more sampled material so one cannot get nearly the number of measurements from a single grab sample." Now you out yourself as a chemical amateur. Titration was part of the Pettenkofer method which was standard for 100 years from 1857 to 1960. all CO2 relevant nobel awards and scientific knowledge was done with this gas analyser. Every educated person round the world has learned facts of photosynthesis, respiration or nutrition scienece at schools and universities. The Basics of BMR or room hygiene (Pettenkofer number is still valid today, measured in 1857!) Now you out yourself as a chemical amateur. Titration was part of the Pettenkofer method which was standard for 100 years from 1857 to 1960. all CO2 relevant nobel awards and scientific knowledge was done with this gas analyser. Every educated person round the world has learned facts of photosynthesis, respiration or nutrition scienece at schools and universities. The Basics of BMR or room hygiene (Pettenkofer number) is still valid today, measured in 1857 and 1910!) Every analytical laboratory uses titration as a accurate and fast method. Now to the Scandinavian network in the 50s. They measured with the Pettenkofer variant of the Nobel Awardist A. Krogh 1920. Sampling irregulary on different hours, days or weeks by different persons they sent the samples from 19 stations to 2 laboratories resulting in horrible seasonal variations. The gas analyser was Ok with 2-3% accuracy but the methodical errors and such by transport are large. You write: "Calibration is, of course the key. Several of Beck's cited references do not mention how they calibrated their measurements. To make matters worse, you want to calibrate with mixtures that you know the concentration of the CO2 in as exactly as possible and making such mixtures at the ppm level, and maintaining them is a magical art as anyone who has tried it knows. In the instrumental system, calibrations are done interleaved with the measurements, think about how you would do this with a titration." I agree with your first line. Therfor I selected out of 270 papers 138 series with acceptable calibration. Since 1857 all measurements are inter-calibrated until 1961. So we come to the end: Despite all your arguments against my work, please give an explanation to the following graph. It shows the temperatuer fluctuation in Antarctica out of high precision ice core records (Schneider et al. 2006) not used by the IPCC. Now we come to the end: Despite all your arguments against my work, please give an explanation to the following graph. It shows the temperatuer fluctuation in Antarctica out of high precision ice core records (Schneider et al. 2006) not used by the IPCC. http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/icecore_200-rA4.gif I am awaiting your comments, why my CO2 reconstructions fits and IPCCs (keelings) not! Ernst Beck Merian-Schule Freiburg Dep. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science Germany
