Quote from: Spendulus on January 08, 2017, 02:25:35 PM

Quote from: valta4065 on January 08, 2017, 10:40:34 AM

.....
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.

No, you did not "show any correlation." You've now been forced to grapple with proving your argument from the actual data, haven't you?

Still ignoring my posts... I'm wondering if you even bother reading?
I've given you links towards multiple and precise studies showing a clear correlation between Co2 rise and temperature rise from 1958 and you never answered to that. You just claimed that it was not enough for you and wanted to challenge me on other things.

Quote

Well, here is your chart with your scaling factor, but with the temperature series extended its full and proper length. Now you see the slight temperature increases occurring LONG, LONG before your "alarming increase in Co2." An honest researcher at this point would say something like "Maybe the difference in the slope of the lines is Co2. But not you. You want to claim the entirety of a trend.

Lol, I take the time to try to understand and work with your dataset without you giving me the slightest explanation on where they're from or what do they represent or how they were recorded, I give you my vision of the work that should be done and rather than explaining me why or where my work is mistaken you accuse me of bad faith? If you want to make a perticular point then make it! Don't make me look for it in the middle of more than 25 different datasets and then accuse me of chosing "the wrong one"!

Quote

Also, you claim it's right to just scale the data and offset it anyway you would like. How about we scale it somewhat differently? How about this? Instead of scaling (LYING) use the function "Normalize."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/normalise/trend/plot/rss/normalise/trend

Yes. That's the idea of correlation. In the correlation calculation you can scale and offset your data as much as you want... That's the main point of showing correlation... Not my fault if you have no knowledge about mathematical methodologies...
Correlation is to show a relation between variations of 2 datasets. Thus, offset and scaling processes have NO INFLUENCE on the result!

Whereas Normalization is a non-linear application which means that it can't be used. If you normalise the different trend that means you destroy the variations! Do you even know what correlation means? By normalizing what you're trying to do is showing there is no LINEAR CORRELATION between the sets of data, and of course there is none! who claimed anything like this? Huh

So please, check the definition of correlation, what is a linear application and why you can't use non-linear applications in correlation calculation.