Just the number, please.
1900 on will do.
Let's hear it.
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.pdfA 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?
Spendolus lives in his own world. I once posted a paper that basically picked apart how all the skeptics have a huge anti-government cognitive bias. Well.... we're on a cryptocurrency forum, so you put 2+2 together.
So the paper I put here.. Spendolus insisted up and down that it was behind a paywall. I checked it from multiple browsers and had no issue. He would rather go that route than even admit the paper exists.
I don't remember the details, I can go look it back up .. but the "oh it is behind a paywall" is another variation on "the science is wrong" which is what these people use to maintain their delusions to themselves.