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’m sorry to say this is the first I heard of him but I want to thank those that have posted here to share their experiences with him. Makes me feel slightly less of an outsider.
I will be looking into his work because this does sound significant in the great debate.
My condolences to his friends and family.
Ernst Georg Beck did a meticulous scientific survey of historical measurements. That is something the hucksters either never did, not even informally, or if they were aware of these measurements, actively hid them. It is clear here who is to be respected and thanked for his contributions to humanity (and will be in a future, saner, world).
I never had the pleasure to meet Dr. Beck, but I had many email exchanges with him. One of our discussions concerned potential problems with certain CO2 analyses. I found him to be very concerned about the reliablity of the data he had collected.
I was very sad to hear that Dr. Beck had died. My sincerest condolensces to his family and friends.
Keeling did comment on the Beck paper,
Comment on “180 Years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods by”by Ernst-Georg Beck (DOC)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 5, pp. 635-640, September 2007)
– Harro A.J. Meijer, Ralph F. Keeling
I posted Beck’s response above but here it is again,
– 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
I am saddened by Ernst-Georg’s death. Like many others I corresponded with him by email. He was polite and considerate. He placed a lot of literature on his website for downloading and provided his data in files for others to examine.
I downloaded the paper by W Kreutz 1941 which is an example of how thorough measurement should be made. I have had experience with some of the gas analysis methods. I was disgusted by the personal attacks on Ernst-Georg. I told him I respected his dedication to scientific truth. He compiled the work of others who were respected in their field -some Nobel prize winners in chemistry and other scientific disciplines.
I hope that someone can step forward and maintain his web site as was the case for the late John Daly.
The AGW believers seem to go for personal attacks when they don’t understand or can’t refute the science and technology. Unfortunately, I am reluctant to use my name not because of possible personal abuse but because of possible personal attacks on my daughter who bears my surname and is internationally known in her specialist field.
Rest in Peace Ernst-Georg
Sorry to hear of Mr. Beck’s passing, I wish I could say I knew him personally but I only knew him through some of his works. Like any honest scientist, I have to feel he would want us to remember him most by continuing in his path, with honesty, the search for the truth, to detect and correct errors within science when found. His friends here at WUWT and elsewhere are doing a great job at that so his legacy is in good hands.
To his family, my thoughts are with you.
Uh! Oh! I meant to put when AGW believers can NOT understand or refute the science and technology!!! I have seen no sensible criticism on scientific grounds of Beck’s peer reviewed articles.
Sadness, must have clouded my eyes.
CV
Ernst-Georg Beck, B.A. Biology, M.A. Biology (biochemistry, plant physiology, microbiology and macromolecular chemistry), Teacher of Biology and Chemistry, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany
I looked at source data of the Co2 400+ ppm readings mid-20th century. Those readings were taken just several inches off the ground and quickly dropped down to the approximate values in ice cores for the same period in time. Near as I can tell Engelbeen won’t have any difficulty at all in discounting Beck’s survey as not at all representative of a well mixed atmosphere. Literally, with Beck 2007, it’s a case of “nothing to see here, move along folks”.
I used to work as a plant physiologist gathering photosynthetic measurements. I also tried several times to measure concentrations of soil carbon dioxide. Other physiologists and biologists I knew spent a lot of time trying to determine “background” levels of carbon dioxide at ground level – and they often gave up in frustration. They would have been further ahead reading Beck’s papers and thoughts on background levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Over the years I have tried to reconcile the difference between Beck’s historical compilation of atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements by chemists and the carbon dioxide extracted from ice cores. In my mind, the ice core data is weak simply because the assumption being made is that a bubble of atmosphere is trapped in the snow, which turns to ice, and held exactly that way for hundreds of years with absolutely no changes occurring in the composition of that sample. There is certainly no way to test if this is a correct assumption. On the other hand, a sample of the atmosphere obtained in a glass flask, which is then quickly analyzed, seems like a pretty direct and foolproof method of sampling atmospheric carbon dioxide. No need to assume anything.
If the musings of Beck on the Gleissberg cycle are correct and we see a drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide as a result, that will pretty much be the final nail in the AGW coffin. Time will tell.
I am sorry to see Beck go. He has done a great service to science by reminding us that our current knowledge is built on a scientific foundation created by others over the centuries. No doubt he irked the warmists by providing a convincing alternate to their assumptions. Another demonstration that the science is far from settled.
Tomorrow evening I will raise a pint to his memory. I hope others will do the same.
CO2 is heavier than air. Greenhouse injection is done at the ceiling. If it were done at the floor it would stay there below most of the leaves on the plants. The high readings in Beck 2007 where I spot checked a 1941 paper the high readings were all close to the soil and quickly fell off to levels agreeable with Law Dome data at a height of 1 meter. At the soil level some of the readings were as high as 1100ppm. That’s because soil bacteria are what’s emitting it in terrestrial environments it isn’t well mixed close to the source.
Thank you Anthony for posting this obituary about my dad Ernst-Georg Beck.
I know there are a lot of people out there, who didn´t respect the work of my dad, but as i can see, the fact that the whole wide world have known my dad and that a lot of people supported him, makes me so proud.
Time and Climate will show, if my dad was right.
REPLY: It was my honor to do so, and I think I can speak for the entire WUWT community in saying that we are deeply sorry for your loss, and that right or wrong in the final analysis, your father was respected by many. Thank you for visiting and commenting during this difficult time. With sincerest condolences and regards, Anthony Watts
I met him once (in Berlin in 2007), and listened to him explaining his work.
I could tell he was a good man.
Stefanie Ostendorf :
Please be assured that Anthony is correct when in reply to you at September 24, 2010 at 1:01 am he says:
“I think I can speak for the entire WUWT community in saying that we are deeply sorry for your loss, and that right or wrong in the final analysis, your father was respected by many”.
Now is a time to honour your father and to convey condolences to you and your relatives. As Anthony says, that is the desire of the entire WUWT community, but some of the above posts may have given you a different impression. Those posts are from a few interlopers who are moral and intellectual pygmies by comparison with your father. And they have acted as they have because they fear his work so much that they have chosen this time to denigrate him and to demean his work.
I think I can point out to you the nature of what those interlopers have attempted by refuting the worst of them which I think are
RW at September 23, 2010 at 9:55 am
movielib at September 23, 2010 at 10:12 am
Poptech at September 23, 2010 at 9:58 pm
and
Dave Springer at September 23, 2010 at 10:46 pm.
RW makes untrue and unsubstantiated slurs against the integrity and competence of Ernst, and movielib supports those slurs while claiming to be a CAGW skeptic.
Poptech claims to provide the cv of Ernst but omits mention of any of Ernst’s publications. A lie by omission is a lie.
The above mentioned interlopers display cowardice by hiding behind aliases while making their untrue, offensive and obnoxious comments. Dave Springer has the decency to provide his name but attempts to demean the immensely important work that Ernst published. The facts are that atmospheric CO2 has effects (i.e. radiative, biological, etc.) that are determined by its concentration. Those effects are not determined by a hypothetical ‘background concentration’ that has not been shown to exist anywhere. Ernst reported the magnitudes of real atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their spatial and temporal variations.
So, Stefanie Ostendorf, your father was a great man. He displayed honesty, integrity and courage in his significant contribution to science. We who frequent WUWT know that, and the fact that the interlopers have chosen to behave as they have demonstrates that they know it, too. Those interlopers deserve and obtain our disgust and contempt.
We grieve at the loss of a great man and we offer our condolences to you for your greater grief at the loss of your father.
Richard
This thread makes me proud to be a member of the climate skeptics community. Beck, bravo. Your evidence continues to rankle the orthodox position because it cannot be faulted but does not fit the CO2 HOCKEY STICK. May that irritation long continue.
I’d like to remember Beck by reference to the man who I still believe has done most to question the Ice Core records that are used to provide the flat base to the CO2 hockey stick. Jaworowski and Segalstad are veterans of the old school of True Science, also smeared by the current usurpers and hence also IMHO misunderstood and undervalued even by climate skeptics like Engelbeen. I still think the Ice Core CO2 measurements constitute the biggest unrecognized piece of Bad Science, equivalent to Mann’s Hockey Stick but nobody is talking about it.
Here’s my transcription (with Segalstad’s permission) of what I regard as Jaworowski’s best paper, with my introductory notes.
Stefanie Ostendorf
I hope you will view the thread I ran on ‘Historic Variations in Co2 measurements’ as a tribute to the work of your father who raised some difficult issues and participated fully in the ensuing lively discussion
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
I sympathise with you and your family at this difficult time but hope you will take comfort in the thought that many of us thought he was a great man and a fine scientist.
tonyb
Richard Courtney:
You say I claim to be a CAGW skeptic. I am a CAGW skeptic.
I have been doing my part for years, hosting a series of threads (we’re on Part 10 now) at a site called dvdtalk.com (see current thread at http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/578495-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-10-post-climategate-whitewash-edition.html). There have been a total of more than 7000 posts, most of them mine. I have featured WUWT many, many times. Read through these and tell me I am not a CAGW skeptic.
I meant no disrespect. Perhaps this was not the right time or place to say this and I apologize if I have been the source of any hurt or offense.
You criticized RW for hiding behind anonymity. I am not afraid to reveal my identity. My name is Howard Glick and I live in Madison, WI. You can imagine my position on CAGW is not very popular here.
Again, I apologize.
REPLY: Howard, welcome to the light – Anthony
I am sorry, my link somehow got the “close parenthesis” symbol included in it so it doesn’t work right. I’ll try again:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/578495-one-only-global-warming-thread-part-10-post-climategate-whitewash-edition.html
What? I linked directly to his full CV, I just posted a summary of his education and relevant experience as a reference. I have no idea how that was taken the wrong way, this is just bizarre.
Dave Springer ,
I believe you are wrong, not only to pick up the controversy on this thread, but also in your assumption that CO2 is “well mixed”. or should be “well mixed”, and that there is a virtue in going to high places over volcanoes, or cold places where there is no flora or fauna, to find the “true CO2 well mixed ” concentration, which is what Engelbeen is supporting.
I think Beck has given the world a valuable and good historical compilation map of what CO2 was and how it was measured over the centuries since chemistry became quantitative. It will be very useful for the future generations who will not be wearing “well mixed blinders and “Keeling endorsed” studies. For this Beck will be remembered.
I have given up commenting on Ferdinand’s threads because I am convinced that “well mixed” is nonsense , and measuring global CO2 from the top of the mountains and in desert places is ignoring reality and wearing blinders. I am waiting for more inclusive satellite measurements, but not holding my breath. The Keeling spell is strong.
anna v
There is no valid controversy in this case. Anyone who takes the time to look at the papers Beck references (due diligence) will quickly find the high readings from past decades were only found when samples were taken within several inches of the soil. Samples taken at the same time at the same location a meter or more off the ground correspond well with Law Dome data for the same year in history. This is not surprising at all if you understand the few simple biological, chemical, and mechanical processes involved.
I was saddened by this news. I believe in the years to come that Ernst Beck may well prove to have made a far more significant contribution than has generally been accepted.
Dave Springer
The Beck data i represent here is just a fragment, but still dont you think that these data strongly suggests far higher CO2 level around 1940 than AGW´ers believe?
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/co2-carbon-dioxide-concentration-history-of-71.php
see middle of the article
REPLY: Howard, welcome to the light – Anthony
I’ve always been here.
– Howard
RIP E.G. Beck !
My condolations to the family and friends in these sad days.
I never had the chance to meet him. He was to ill to come to my father in law, while Fred Singer was in Germany last november
The last outstanding work published from Dr. Francis Massen, Luxembourg with Georg Beck at the “Climate 2009”, Nov 2-6, 2009, earned the first place of all published and reviewed papers