Quote from: Spendulus on January 08, 2017, 02:30:16 AM

Quote from: valta4065 on January 07, 2017, 11:44:27 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on January 07, 2017, 08:39:28 PM

Quote from: valta4065 on January 07, 2017, 10:41:40 AM

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.

These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?

I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.

Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.

Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958. I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart. A correlation coef can be done from this.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300

ahahahahaahahahahah xD

Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.

If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.

Take your pick of the datasets available, look on right hand side.

Here we go with satellite temperatures.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/rss

Yes I can show Co2 datasets prior to 1958. But your Warmeristas do not like those because they don't support your religion. As an example.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.

Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200

So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.