charl, I note you do not like fossil fuels. You believe that Global warming is happening and perhaps it is reaching an emergency.
Do you also believe the hypothesis of AGW caused by Carbon Dioxide? If you do then the IPCC must alarm you with forecasts of temperature that keep dropping since before the last century closed: even though Carbon Dioxide keeps rising.
The statements about this thread seem simple enough with its heading: NOAA's CO2 record does NOT follow global temperature anomalies of the HADCRUT4 dataset Feb 2020. But Beck's does with an independence status, as stated, "Beck’s data are completely independent of the HadCRUT 4 temperature record". Here Jopo has kindly provided a link to Beck's paper "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" as I alluded to in my post.
The Abstract is straight forward:
ABSTRACT More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
I myself am slightly amazed by this since I had no knowledge of a possible random variation in CO2 over the previous centuries since the industrial revolution started. The confusion is really seeing a monotonic rise in CO2 as observed in (IPCC lead) current scientific media announcements. It just seems to be a statement that industrial processes have exponentially intensified and that the vast oceans really do nothing w.r.t. CO2. When it clearly is the other way around. And so I should of expected Earth's dominance by seeing the fluctuations in CO2 levels following temperatures. This, i.e temperatures, is how Beck's paper explains it (400ppm in 1942 just happens to be the current level). But fancy that: the shoulder's of Giants whom Newton said he stood upon to take him to the heights he reached (or Einstein or any other Nobel Prize winner), are the same as those quoted in Beck's paper who actually did the chemical method's analysis of CO2. And I would not be ignoring them.
I just want to know charl, in what way might you be thinking on this?
