Sceptic Links Discussion

[Admiral_Bobski]

If I might interject something slightly off-topic here with regards to this comment:

You post something by Dr Z...that accuses a long dead pioneering scientist of 'bias' (a very serious charge)...

You keep on saying how "serious" it is to "charge" someone with bias, but I disagree. Human beings are, by their very nature, biased in all things. This is why people keep on suggesting that we discuss the science (as opposed to the conclusions).

You can argue that the data used in individual studies are "cherry-picked", but it should be possible to clarify the situation by looking at a variety of studies rather than just one, or finding the original source data, or whatever.

Bias is a natural human trait - the elimination of bias is essential to science. In a field such as medicine, where people's lives potentially hang in the balance, they perform "double-blind" studies to eliminate bias. In fact, in most scientific disciplines there is a variation on the "double-blind" principle. Climatology seems to be sadly lacking in this area.

Bigotry is a serious charge - bias is not actually anything like as serious...

CB

[Devonian]

If I might interject something slightly off-topic here with regards to this comment:

You keep on saying how "serious" it is to "charge" someone with bias, but I disagree. Human beings are, by their very nature, biased in all things. This is why people keep on suggesting that we discuss the science (as opposed to the conclusions).

You can argue that the data used in individual studies are "cherry-picked", but it should be possible to clarify the situation by looking at a variety of studies rather than just one, or finding the original source data, or whatever.

Bias is a natural human trait - the elimination of bias is essential to science. In a field such as medicine, where people's lives potentially hang in the balance, they perform "double-blind" studies to eliminate bias. In fact, in most scientific disciplines there is a variation on the "double-blind" principle. Climatology seems to be sadly lacking in this area.

Bigotry is a serious charge - bias is not actually anything like as serious...

CB

It is serious - scientifically - not least because of what you say in your penultimate paragraph. The last sentence of that paragraph is you finding climatology guilty as charged I think?

[jethro]

To further clarify whether or not those papers are valid, I've done some searching around and found these:

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

This is a comprehensive list of sources for all the science used in E G Beck's paper, I believe these sources and conclusions are without criticism in the scientific community.

I also found this, straight from the horses mouth:

Dear all,

additionally to 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.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm.

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 dozends 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 thruth.

Thank you for your help.

best regards

Ernst Beck

Merian-Schule Freiburg

Dep. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science

79104 Freiburg

Rheinstr. 3

Germany

And although this couldn't be called gleaning stuff from a reliable source, it is interesting(I'll check it out further if I get time later).

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/004001.html

[Admiral_Bobski]

It is serious - scientifically - not least because of what you say in your penultimate paragraph. The last sentence of that paragraph is you finding climatology guilty as charged I think?

There you go again putting words in my mouth - you're getting rather good at it, and it's starting to break through my irritation threshold.

I would argue that this area of climatology suffers from a lack of objectivity. Which is precisely the reason why several people on here insist on discussing the science rather than the conclusions of scientific papers. The conclusions are often far more subjective than the information in the actual study.

If the science is discussed then we are talking about facts. If the conclusions, and only the conclusions, are discussed then we are talking about opinions.

CB

[Devonian]

There you go again putting words in my mouth - you're getting rather good at it, and it's starting to break through my irritation threshold.

I asked a question, hence the '...I think?' - that's not putting words into you mouth it's to ask you a question. Blimey, I can't even ask a question now

I would argue that this area of climatology suffers from a lack of objectivity. Which is precisely the reason why several people on here insist on discussing the science rather than the conclusions of scientific papers. The conclusions are often far more subjective than the information in the actual study.

If the science is discussed then we are talking about facts. If the conclusions, and only the conclusions, are discussed then we are talking about opinions.

CB

What is the science of Dr Z. and E.G. Beck?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

There you go again putting words in my mouth - you're getting rather good at it, and it's starting to break through my irritation threshold.

And my threshold is under some strain too. If he's not allowed to make reference to your penultimate paragraph, and perhaps interpret it as he sees fit, then what is the point in this thread?

[jethro]

What is the science of Dr Z. and E.G. Beck?

[Devonian]

What is the science of Dr Z. and E.G. Beck?

Presumably you mean how did they reach their conclusions? In case you missed the link above, here it is again, Beck is quite clear about where he drew his data from.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

Arrgghh. I reply to CB, he says conclusions aren't science: "Which is precisely the reason why several people on here insist on discussing the science rather than the conclusions of scientific papers". I wish you sceptic would make your minds up

[jethro]

Arrgghh. I reply to CB, he says conclusions aren't science: "Which is precisely the reason why several people on here insist on discussing the science rather than the conclusions of scientific papers". I wish you sceptic would make your minds up

Ok, I'll rephrase - these are the sources from which he drew his data from. I think my posting these this morning has thus far generated nearly a page in the thread, yet achieved sweet fanny adams in the "furthering the understanding and debate of climate change". We all know we can all be touchy/picky/pedantic for the sake of it, but does it have to happen with each and every piece of info posted? I'm rapidly loosing the will to live here.

[Devonian]

Ok, I'll rephrase - these are the sources from which he drew his data from. I think my posting these this morning has thus far generated nearly a page in the thread, yet achieved sweet fanny adams in the "furthering the understanding and debate of climate change". We all know we can all be touchy/picky/pedantic for the sake of it, but does it have to happen with each and every piece of info posted? I'm rapidly loosing the will to live here.

Right.

The methods for obtaining CO2 measurements have improved. There were problems with older measurement methods (highlighted in another blog - I wont bother to link, you'll not accept it ) and there are problems with these measurements due to the influence of anthro sources. Remember, were trying to get a well mixed sample to get a figure for the background change, not a series of local figures (near industrial town CO2 can be much higher than the background) - and that can only be done by using remote places like islands or the Antarctic. The figure Beck uses are simply seriously suspect, because of local sources of CO2 and sampling method. Callendar knew this.

Now, Beck claim Callendar was biased in selecting those data point he did. I ask why - no answer yet.

Further, it's clear that if Bcek is right CO2 has fluctuated wildly. As I understand it this simply isn't physically possible. You can't shove the god knows how many GT of CO2 that the 100ppm+ rise Beck claims for the forties (see your link for the graph) into the atmosphere for that 100ppm simply to vanish a few years later. It simply can't have happened!

Given that, give Callendar's work, given the Keeling work, given the ice core data and given the modern trends I have to reject what Beck is claiming as wrong.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

I have to agree with Dev here, local variations in CO2 ppm occur all the time, but we need to look at it from a global POV so you have to discount contamination, also remember we can look at the signature of the CO2 to determine it's source.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I asked a question, hence the '...I think?' - that's not putting words into you mouth it's to ask you a question. Blimey, I can't even ask a question now

Saying "I think" and ending with a question mark doesn't actually make it a question. A question would have the format: "Are you saying that climatology is guilty of bias?" To which I would say "Yes. All science is guilty of bias - it's how that bias is dealt with which is important. I do not believe that this area of climatology deals with bias particularly well."

You may ask questions, of course, but I would ask that they are both relevant and phrased correctly, please. (By phrased correctly I mean written in the form of a question rather than, as with your last "question", phrased rhetorically.)

What is the science of Dr Z. and E.G. Beck?

I have not yet read these papers. I shall do so later on - I would suggest that you do the same.

To OON, and with the greatest respect intended:

And my threshold is under some strain too. If he's not allowed to make reference to your penultimate paragraph, and perhaps interpret it as he sees fit, then what is the point in this thread?

If we members are to have an intelligent, rational discussion then it is essential that we focus on the relevant details. Badly phrased questions (such as that discussed above), accusations (that accuses a long dead pioneering scientist of 'bias' (a very serious charge)...) and slurs (My advice to sceptics, not that anyone will listen I guess...) have no place in such a discussion.

I, and others, am becoming increasingly annoyed at the way the potentially interesting debates are invariably becoming reduced to arguments about semantics, irrelevancies and abuse (regardless of how well-disguised that abuse may be). I have been attempting to disarm such detractions all through this thread by posting comments highlighting the "offences" in the hope that those responsible will take note and restrain themselves in future, but to no avail.

I am a little surprised that you singled me out for my comments rather than other notable posters (not naming names!) who have been consistently obstructing serious discussion.

Forgive me if I am out of line, but I do seriously want to have a sensible discussion about climate change - if I didn't then I wouldn't be here...

CB

Edited July 18, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

Here here! It's about time this was said. There used to be a member called Dawlish, he was equally and similarly as disruptive and was dealt with accordingly. We've already lost fantastic posters from both sides of the AGW fence notably Mondy and P3, I'd hate to see any more go.

Edited July 18, 2007 by jethro

[Osbourne One-Nil]

If we members are to have an intelligent, rational discussion then it is essential that we focus on the relevant details. Badly phrased questions (such as that discussed above), accusations (that accuses a long dead pioneering scientist of 'bias' (a very serious charge)...) and slurs (My advice to sceptics, not that anyone will listen I guess...) have no place in such a discussion.

I, and others, am becoming increasingly annoyed at the way the potentially interesting debates are invariably becoming reduced to arguments about semantics, irrelevancies and abuse (regardless of how well-disguised that abuse may be). I have been attempting to disarm such detractions all through this thread by posting comments highlighting the "offences" in the hope that those responsible will take note and restrain themselves in future, but to no avail.

I am a little surprised that you singled me out for my comments rather than other notable posters (not naming names!) who have been consistently obstructing serious discussion.

I wasn't particularly picking up on your post, but just borrowing a quote of yours which happened to fit quite well. As for having debate, that's fine by me, but as I tell my kids all the time, it takes two to argue, so perhaps everyone is equally guilty?

As for Mondy, I'm sure he'd like to contribute, but unfortunately isn't currently able to. P3 is certainly welcome to contribute further.

[jethro]

I wasn't particularly picking up on your post, but just borrowing a quote of yours which happened to fit quite well. As for having debate, that's fine by me, but as I tell my kids all the time, it takes two to argue, so perhaps everyone is equally guilty?

As for Mondy, I'm sure he'd like to contribute, but unfortunately isn't currently able to. P3 is certainly welcome to contribute further.

Thank you for replying Oon. Perhaps the Mods could step in more often as they do on other threads, when the thread goes off topic.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

To be fair, it's very very hard to detect when the thread has gone off topic. I only went to polytechnic you know.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I wasn't particularly picking up on your post, but just borrowing a quote of yours which happened to fit quite well. As for having debate, that's fine by me, but as I tell my kids all the time, it takes two to argue, so perhaps everyone is equally guilty?

As for Mondy, I'm sure he'd like to contribute, but unfortunately isn't currently able to. P3 is certainly welcome to contribute further.

Thanks for that OON

I take your point - I don't mind arguing, honestly...it's what the argument is about that bugs me! Ah well, onwards and upwards as they say...

Cheers

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay, getting back on-topic, I've now read the complete Beck paper.

The methods for obtaining CO2 measurements have improved. There were problems with older measurement methods (highlighted in another blog - I wont bother to link, you'll not accept it ) and there are problems with these measurements due to the influence of anthro sources.

Beck argues that, with a few exceptions, the old chemical data was quite satisfactory and he explains his reasons for this (which seem acceptable), so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that methods have changed (modern methods are easier to perform than the old methods, and less time-consuming).

Similarly, he argues that anthropogenic sources can be taken adequately into account and still leave a significant discrepancy from the accepted figures. (He suggests that anthropogenic sources are estimated to account for as much as a 70ppm excess, and adds citations to back up this assertion.)

Remember, were trying to get a well mixed sample to get a figure for the background change, not a series of local figures (near industrial town CO2 can be much higher than the background) - and that can only be done by using remote places like islands or the Antarctic. The figure Beck uses are simply seriously suspect, because of local sources of CO2 and sampling method. Callendar knew this.

Local sources of CO₂ appear to have been accounted for (as above), and the sampling method seems legitimate. The question of whether or not measurements from a single location can be valid is an important one - Beck makes a case for the legitimacy of the data, but I want to go back over the paper again before stating my agreement (or disagreement) with him on this one.

Now, Beck claim Callendar was biased in selecting those data point he did. I ask why - no answer yet.

Beck's claim of Callendar's bias is explained in the paper quite clearly - he suggests that Callendar selected only the data which fell within his (Callendar's) presupposed range - anything in excess of Callendar's preconceptions was ignored. Again, this is something I want to double-check before saying anything further, but at least it's an answer to your question.

Further, it's clear that if Bcek is right CO2 has fluctuated wildly. As I understand it this simply isn't physically possible. You can't shove the god knows how many GT of CO2 that the 100ppm+ rise Beck claims for the forties (see your link for the graph) into the atmosphere for that 100ppm simply to vanish a few years later. It simply can't have happened!

"Can't" is a strong word - it may seem unlikely, but perhaps it is possible. This is yet another aspect that I want to have a look at in the near future.

Given that, give Callendar's work, given the Keeling work, given the ice core data and given the modern trends I have to reject what Beck is claiming as wrong.

Beck's claims are based largely on the premise that Callendar and Keeling are wrong - perhaps Callendar and Keeling can be vindicated by other studies and more recent collections of data, but since Beck suggests that both Callendar and Keeling are wrong then it is something of a circular argument to say that Beck is wrong because of Callendar and Keeling's work. The Ice Core data seem to be fairly contentious at the moment as well, as there are papers suggesting that CO₂ measurements from Ice Core bubbles may be inaccurate (perhaps even wildly inaccurate). Additionally, the Ice Cores suggest rapid swings in both temperature and CO₂ concentrations over the past 400,000 years or so, and (as I have discussed before on these pages) there is nothing to suggest that the current trends are unprecedented in the Ice Core record.

One other little thing I would like to add is with regards to this graph:

It seems fairly uncanny that there should be a step change in the rate of increase of CO₂ synchronised so nicely with the changeover from proxy data to actual measurements. Perhaps the proxy data is inaccurate, perhaps the modern measurements are skewed in some way, or maybe it is all a big coincidence; I certainly don't know the answer.

CB

[Devonian]

Okay, getting back on-topic, I've now read the complete Beck paper.

Beck argues that, with a few exceptions, the old chemical data was quite satisfactory and he explains his reasons for this (which seem acceptable), so perhaps it would be more accurate to say that methods have changed (modern methods are easier to perform than the old methods, and less time-consuming).

I find this convincing.

...

Beck's claim of Callendar's bias is explained in the paper quite clearly - he suggests that Callendar selected only the data which fell within his (Callendar's) presupposed range - anything in excess of Callendar's preconceptions was ignored. Again, this is something I want to double-check before saying anything further, but at least it's an answer to your question.

OK, when you're convinced either way let us know.

"Can't" is a strong word - it may seem unlikely, but perhaps it is possible. This is yet another aspect that I want to have a look at in the near future.

I stand by what I said. My understanding is it's not physically possible to see rises and falls of such magnitude in such a time, though it's clearly more then sequestration than the release (though 100pmm releases have to come form somewhere - and leave other signs). If 100ppm went in a decade in the forties why is CO2 rising now rather than our emission being similarly easily sequestrated?

Beck's claims are based largely on the premise that Callendar and Keeling are wrong - perhaps Callendar and Keeling can be vindicated by other studies and more recent collections of data, but since Beck suggests that both Callendar and Keeling are wrong then it is something of a circular argument to say that Beck is wrong because of Callendar and Keeling's work.

Or vice versa.

The Ice Core data seem to be fairly contentious at the moment as well, as there are papers suggesting that CO₂ measurements from Ice Core bubbles may be inaccurate (perhaps even wildly inaccurate). Additionally, the Ice Cores suggest rapid swings in both temperature and CO₂ concentrations over the past 400,000 years or so, and (as I have discussed before on these pages) there is nothing to suggest that the current trends are unprecedented in the Ice Core record.

I think there is, but show me a similar rise in a similar time to what is happening now according to the accepted record, let alone Beck's claim of a rise and fall of 100pmm in a decade.

One other little thing I would like to add is with regards to this graph:

It seems fairly uncanny that there should be a step change in the rate of increase of CO₂ synchronised so nicely with the changeover from proxy data to actual measurements. Perhaps the proxy data is inaccurate, perhaps the modern measurements are skewed in some way, or maybe it is all a big coincidence; I certainly don't know the answer.

CB

Source? whatever, I'd say check a graph of the rise of Co2 emissions.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I find this convincing.

I shall take a look presently.

OK, when you're convinced either way let us know.

Will do, though I'll keep people posted en route to a decision!

I stand by what I said. My understanding is it's not physically possible to see rises and falls of such magnitude in such a time, though it's clearly more then sequestration than the release (though 100pmm releases have to come form somewhere - and leave other signs). If 100ppm went in a decade in the forties why is CO2 rising now rather than our emission being similarly easily sequestrated?

A good question, and one that requires some looking into to be able to give an honest answer - this is, I confess, probably my biggest issue with the paper so I shall definitely be checking this out. (Bear in mind, though, the old adage that Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.)

Or vice versa.

Well, quite - which is precisely why I intend to see if there's anything to support Beck's claims.

I think there is, but show me a similar rise in a similar time to what is happening now according to the accepted record, let alone Beck's claim of a rise and fall of 100pmm in a decade.

I have referred to the Vostok Ice Core graph numerous times in the past - the graph is posted on the Skeptic Links pinned thread. If we ignore the large peaks on that graph and focus on the smaller ones in between the large peaks (the ones which swing rapidly back and forth over a range of between 3 and 5°C), and we look at the approximate time period over which those swings occurred we can conclude that those rates of change could easily be comparable with current trends. (I'll link to the relevant part of a thread discussing this a bit later on.)

As for Beck's claim, the Ice Core Record is not detailed enough on the decadal timescale to be able to either support or refute this claim. I'm not sure that there are any proxies that would help, which might make his claim fairly moot.

Source? whatever, I'd say check a graph of the rise of Co2 emissions.

The graph posted is the same one used in Beck's paper - I'll see if I can find out where I got it from - but it is attributed to Keeling et al, 2001.

More later

CB

Having had a look at Rabett Run, more information can be found on this page:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-i...i-has-been.html

In here he comments on the 1-3% error margin in the old methods (as opposed to a 0.004% error margin in the new measurements) - even so, that 1-3% margin accounts for an error of up to 10ppm, which can be deducted from Beck's figures and still leave a figure higher than the accepted figure. If we also take off 70ppm to account for possible local contamination (as described in yesterday's post) then, again, we still end up with a figure above that which is accepted.

In fact, even if we take off 100ppm (in some cases even more) we end up in many cases with a measurement of around 300ppm, which is still above the accepted figure.

I shall investigate further.

CB

Edited July 19, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Having had a look at Rabett Run, more information can be found on this page:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-i...i-has-been.html

In here he comments on the 1-3% error margin in the old methods (as opposed to a 0.004% error margin in the new measurements) - even so, that 1-3% margin accounts for an error of up to 10ppm, which can be deducted from Beck's figures and still leave a figure higher than the accepted figure. If we also take off 70ppm to account for possible local contamination (as described in yesterday's post) then, again, we still end up with a figure above that which is accepted.

In fact, even if we take off 100ppm (in some cases even more) we end up in many cases with a measurement of around 300ppm, which is still above the accepted figure.

I shall investigate further.

CB

I think we need to know how high CO2 can go in industrial areas/down wind of industrial areas. Off the top of my head ('cos I can't remember the links/threads elsewhere with the figures) the answer is very high - far more than 100ppm above background.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think we need to know how high CO2 can go in industrial areas/down wind of industrial areas. Off the top of my head ('cos I can't remember the links/threads elsewhere with the figures) the answer is very high - far more than 100ppm above background.

Indeed, this is another area to check out - Beck talks about wind direction at the time of measurements, so presumably he's made at least a cursory effort to eliminate this as a problem, but I'd better re-read it and see exactly what he says about it.

CB

[Eli Rabett]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

As Keeling commented

This Scandinavian program, started by Rossby in 1954, had been a major factor in triggering interest in measuring CO2 during the IGY. Nevertheless it was quietly abandoned after the meeting, when the reported range in concentrations, 150–450 ppm, was seen to reflect large errors. 3

3. At two stations in Finland, samples collected by station personnel had been sent to Scripps. These samples yielded nearly the same concentrations as those measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, proving that the errors in the Scandinavian program were mainly analytical rather than due to variable CO2 in the air being sampled.

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.

One could go on at length, and I suppose when I have some more time I will, but in short it would be amusing to give the Good Diplom Beck a couple of well characterized grab samples to analyze by titration.

For Z I refer you to Some Are Boojums

[Admiral_Bobski]

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...

Hi Eli! Welcome to the boards.

If you are indeed the Eli Rabett (and I assume that you are as I am a very trusting fellow really ) then you are something of a celebrity on these boards. I look forward to debating with you. (I am one of the skeptics of the board, as a quick browse through this thread will show!)

I have a few questions to ask, but I'm a little busy right now so I'll just ask one. On Rabett Run it is intimated that the figures used by Beck incorporate a 1-3% error margin, which equates to a CO₂ concentration of up to 10ppm - is this what is meant, and if so then is a 10ppm excess really statistically significant (since the 10ppm, if known, can be subtracted from the given figures)?

I shall return later (perhaps tomorrow).

CB

[Devonian]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

As Keeling commented

This Scandinavian program, started by Rossby in 1954, had been a major factor in triggering interest in measuring CO2 during the IGY. Nevertheless it was quietly abandoned after the meeting, when the reported range in concentrations, 150–450 ppm, was seen to reflect large errors. 3

3. At two stations in Finland, samples collected by station personnel had been sent to Scripps. These samples yielded nearly the same concentrations as those measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, proving that the errors in the Scandinavian program were mainly analytical rather than due to variable CO2 in the air being sampled.

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.

One could go on at length, and I suppose when I have some more time I will, but in short it would be amusing to give the Good Diplom Beck a couple of well characterized grab samples to analyze by titration.

For Z I refer you to Some Are Boojums

Hey, hello Eli, I can't add to that

Best, PH.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Devonian