XPost: alt.global-warming, sci.skeptic   
   From: paul.aubrin@invalid.org   
      
   Le 14/02/2026 à 16:26, Dawn Flood a écrit :   
   >> Data has no "null hypothesis". Your hypothesis is that each doubling   
   >> of CO2 concentrations causes a temperature increase. So each annual   
   >> increment of CO2 concentrations should cause a small but definite   
   >> temperature increase. Thus, the dots in the plot between annual CO2   
   >> increments and temperature increments should look like some cloud with   
   >> a definite linear trend. It does not (R²~0.01).   
   >>   
   >> No (visible) correlation implies no (detectable) causation.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > No way!  No one thinks this way!!   
      
   It's data, no hypothesis. Why can't you detect the temperature   
   increments which should exist if logarithms of CO2 concentrations   
   increments caused temperatures increments. The correlation, if it   
   exists, is not detectable in annual data series.Show me the correlation   
   between those two signals (log CO2 increments and temperature   
   increments) and I will change my mind.   
      
   CO2 increments follow ocean temperature increments.   
   https://postimg.cc/JyPJbv6y   
      
   Temperature annual increments have no detectable relation with annual   
   fossil emissions.   
      
   It's what data show, not an interpretation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)