Benny Pieser of the GWPF writes:
Edgar L. Gärtner, a German climate blogger, has written an obituary for Ernst George Beck./ It’s a translation from a German article here. I promised to pass it on to UK and US bloggers (see attachment). – Benny
I’ll have Part4 of Ferdinand Englebeen’s series, which discusses Beck, up tonight. – Anthony
===========================================
My friend Ernst Georg Beck died this week after a long battle with cancer. Ernst Beck was a biology teacher at the Merian technical grammar school in Freiburg and co-founder of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). He was a teacher of the old school, whom nobody could lead up the garden path. If a statement of politicians did not fit into its solid scientific conception of the world, he examined it by intensive study of international technical literature and, if possible, by own experiments. His website www.biokurs.de is still a treasure trove for everybody, who prepares for examines or finding answers to current scientific questions.
Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change IPCC. He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linear back to the 19th century.
Because he knew that for a long time before the introduction of the costly spectroscopic and/or electro acoustical CO2-measures relatively simple, but reliable chemical methods of the CO2-measures were available. Thus, well-known chemists as for instance German chemistry Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg analysed also the composition of air in industry-free, rural regions. With his special meticulousness Beck collected and analysed thousands and thousands of older measurements of the CO2-content of the air and found out that such content has been sometimes higher than today in the first half of the 20th century and also partially in the 19th century. Obvious conclusion: The rise of the CO2-content since 1958 cannot have been caused alone by the burning of rising quantities of coal and oil in the post-war period. And there is also no straight-line connection between the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere and the global temperature development.
Ernst Georg Beck published this analysis three years ago in the British technical periodical “Energy & Environment” and sowed thereby already before “Climategate” in late autumn of 2009 serious doubts about the reliability of the statements of the IPCC. Climatologists who depend on financial funding from the German Government and the European Union and who are closely linked to the IPCC could not forgive him that publication. They tried to denounce Ernst Georg Beck in the Internet as naive amateur and data counterfeiter. Unfortunately, Ernst could hardly defend himself in the last months because of its progressive illness. It is therefore particularly necessary that we as members of EIKE feel obligated to continue the work of our dear colleague, who left us much too early.
Edgar L. Gärtne
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I translated a couple of old Swedish papers for Ernst-Georg Beck. The exactitude of sampling and of the chemical methods of measuring CO2 were meticulously tested as was the urban influence of the CO2 values. – They analyzed samples upwind and downwind of towns and boilers. Ernst-Georg Beck meticulously compiled not 90 000 but 200 000 measurements from inhabited areas, Greenland, the Arctic and the Antarctic ocean, from balloons 10 km up and from terra firma. Blanket denial of the measurements of the great scientists of the 19th and early 20th who gave us modern medicine and modern agriculture and calling in question the judgment and intent of the person whose great effort in compiling them made them available to contemporary readers is really over the top.
As a follow up to Smokey and Anthony’s comments, I followed the repellent RW’s link, and find a paper that claims that CO2 levels were relatively constant and in the 280ppm range in the preindustrial age, and rise significantly only after that time. BUT. This paper is based upon Antarctic ice cores, a proxy measurement. The paper itself allows for 40-68 years of mixing of the gases in the ice with current atmosphere, down to a level of 70m below the surface of the ice. And RW thinks that these proxy measurements are to be given more credibility than actual measurements of the atmospheric gasses conducted by highly credible scientists?
Unless there are legitimate reasons to think otherwise, actual measurements should always be given more weight than proxy measurements.
RW, you are not just repellent, but you are a fool. And a poor scientist.
Smokey says:
September 23, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Hear, hear!!!
This is not the time or post to argue climate science. Nothing should appear hear but condolences.
Beck’s paper (Ernst-Georg Beck, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, VOLUME 18, No. 2, 2007, 180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS) should be required reading in every high school and university.
I never met the man, but miss him already.
RW,
“BBD: personally I find the tone of this “obituary” a little bit repellent, […] but is simply an anti-IPCC polemic. […] repellent that Watts couldn’t even spell the name of the dead man correctly. I also find it repellent […] When his death is being used as an excuse to promote his invalid analysis, it does not seem out of place to point out that his claims about CO2 were, and remain, wrong.”
When in a hole, it is normally advisable to stop digging.
REPLY: I find spell checkers that “fix” things automatically like “Georg to George” repellent. – Anthony
P Gosselin says:
September 23, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Seconded Pierre.
DaveE.
I agree with Hans Henrik Hansen’s corrections. I saw #1 but missed #2.
And jorgekafkazar, thanks for the humor with your possible interpretation of panel.
Sad to hear of Beck’s passing and some clarity to the ill-informed interpretations assigned to Beck.
1. His first foray into the public domain was via AIG News before E & E. when I published his essay on the topic. Unfortunately I did not know the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley sufficiently well to ask him to peer review Beck’s essay before publication.
2. Beck’s argument was that the IPCC’s position that CO2 was stable at 280 ppmv before industrialisation was not supported by the chemically determined data determined by various scientists over a long period of time in Europe and elsewhere. (He collated all the published data but made no measurements of his own).
3. His argument was that data were supreme and hence those who, in retort, state that the historical data were inaccurate and useless, follow Kevin Trenberth’s infamous approach and statement about the lack of warming shown by the extant temperature data – and that the data must therefore be wrong. Data is data but those who intellectualise science tend to dismiss contradictory data, while the empiricists among us the reverse – Whig science vs. Science.
Denigrating the past scientific efforts as inaccurate etc is Whig Science and to be deplored. It boils down to accepting either ice-core data with its known problems, or the chemically determined data that formed the basis of modern science of biology and medicine etc.
Wow, Smokey
Well said!!
I didn’t know of the man, but I have a better handle on him for having read your posting.
I am shocked by Ernst-Georg’s untimely death. My condolations to the family in these sad days.
I had several personal discussions with him, and always will remember the discussion we had at the home of Arthur Rörsch, where each of us did show our opinion about the value of the historical data. Although we courtiously disagreed on several points and I completely disagreed with his conclusions, I only can admire the amount of work he has done to bring the many historical CO2 data from all over the world back into the light.
I to am saddened at the passing of Herr Beck. The fact that his research was so despised and denigrated with no substance whatsoever seems to have demonstrated that it was close to the mark.
I am equally saddened at the death of manners and common courtesy. Even the virulent left toned it down for President Reagan’s funeral. Apparently CAGW is so catastrophic that there is simply no time for even such niceties.
I wonder if RW also kicks over headstones at cemeteries.
I too exchanged emails with Dr Beck. The impression I got was that he would follow where ever the data would take him.
A good man and scientist. Would that there were more like him.
Engelbeen, I still have a bunch of Becks mails with updates of interesting data – i think you remember. So sad that beck is not around anymore.
I think Beck was just very very very honest. He simply put a lot of data for anyone to see without changing them – at leats to begin with. In mails to me he wrote that his first versions where indeed comprising too large amplitudes, but his later work certainly improoved on this front.
But I would rather have “too honest” and “too unadjusted data” than too adjusted data. With Becks work everyone is allowed to actually see what CO2 data is out there and make his own conclusions. This the IPCC and CRU could learn from.
Beck had a respect for real data that i miss in general in the climate debate. If the data shows something absurd – at least what we think is absurd – data is still data and we cant allways just fiddle data to fit our views.
Even if ALL data presented by Beck was “wrong” it still needs to be examined. There is no scientific argument to just ignore high quality data like the alarmist seems to prefer.
I think what would please Beck the most was if his work was finally really appreciated, now or later. As i know him, thats what would matter to him.
K.R. Frank
I am saddened at his passing.
To hear this news about Beck fills me with great sadness. And what a diamond of a man he was for the work that he did.
Beck’s work was like a stake in the heart of the global warming fraud be perpetuated across the globe.
[snip – speculating about the man’s illness isn’t appropriate] – Anthony
I’m deeply saddened. I had some very friendly communications with Beck exactly three years ago about effects of lunation (correlation w/ moon phases) observed in his CO2 reconstruction. Many mysteries still remain about historic CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere. I hope that others will be able to follow in his footsteps.
There is nothing in RWs referenced Law Dome paper to refute the measurements that Beck compiled. RW has yet to explain the differences. Is RW a scientist? To start with, RW needs to prove that the Law Dome CO2 measurements give the same CO2 levels as the sites mentioned by Beck. Undoubtedly, there will be spatial and temporal differences. How big are they?
RW says:
September 23, 2010 at 12:20 pm
‘BBD: personally I find the tone of this “obituary” a little bit repellent, as it mentions nothing of who he actually was but is simply an anti-IPCC polemic. I also find it a bit repellent that Watts couldn’t even spell the name of the dead man correctly. I also find it repellent when people pretend to change their view of someone just because they have died, and I will not do this. When his death is being used as an excuse to promote his invalid analysis, it does not seem out of place to point out that his claims about CO2 were, and remain, wrong.’
Please, call me Dominic.
This is not the time or place for denigrating the late Dr. Beck. All you had to do was keep quiet. Simple as that.
It’s what I would have done and so I find your comment repellent.
Silence would have been the least damaging response on your part.
Dominic
It would be a fitting epitath if the figures compiled by Ernst could be independently audited. Has anyone any practical suggestions as to how that could be done?
tonyb
tonyb says:
“Has anyone any practical suggestions as to how that could be done?”
If alternate CO2 measurements were recorded by equally accomplished scientists during the same time frame and could be located, they might refute or confirm Dr Beck’s research.
I suspect that there are no convincing physical measurements refuting Beck et al., or they would have already been published in the pal review journals.
Right, wrong, or indifferent it matters not. What matters is, Ernst Beck did what he did from an obvious love and respect for the scientific method and those who preceded him and us, that developed it. He will be missed and we are the poorer for his passing. He pointed out to our modern, sometimes cynical age, that we know less then we are willing to admit. He pointed out the foundation of how we got to where we are. Our present age needs more Ernst Becks. If for on other reason that to temper the hubris and egos of us all.
The data says what the data says. There is no evidence that I know of that Beck “adjusted” data. There is plenty of evidence Hansen has “adjusted” data. Hansen still recieves heaps of money, while Beck had scorn heaped on him for being honest about the facts he had at hand.
The only way to ignore Beck’s data is to claim the chemical record he used has no validity. You can’t attack the man’s character the way you can attack Hansen’s.
What would be really interesting is a dip in CO2 levels over the next thirty years, as we enter a thirty year period of global cooling. Cold water absorbs CO2 more than warm. I don’t yet put a dip in CO2 levels out of the realm of possibility.
Thank you Anthony for providing a space for the obiturary and thank you to Benny for the translation. I was too shocked to do anything like that, having only last night read about Ernst-Georg’s death.
Allow me to repeat what I posted in Tips yesterday:
WUWT readers will probably remember Ernst-Georg Beck for his studious, diligent, open and honest research into the real historic levels of atmospheric CO2 as they have been measured for the past 180 years.
He will be missed. We are in debt.
Condolences to those who loved and knew him. And to those who respected his work.
In Memorandum,
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282, March 2007)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
– Comments on “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 641-646, September 2007)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, pp. 1017-1028, December 2008)
– Ernst-Georg Beck
My condolences to his family.