XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: paul.aubrin@invalid.org   
      
   Le 14/02/2026 à 16:19, Dawn Flood a écrit :   
   >> No, because of the risk of spurious correlations.   
   >> https://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations   
   >>   
   >> Derivation alleviate this risk. The long-term trend should be visible   
   >> in the shape of the cloud of annual dots.   
   >>   
   >> For example, here is the shape of the cloud of monthly dots between   
   >> Mauna-Loa CO2 and Ocean temperatures 7 months before. The correlation   
   >> is not perfect, but quite visible.   
   >> https://i.postimg.cc/tC7Gyvds/ESRLCO2-HADSST-7months.png   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > No, you're are wrong.  Here is the regression equation:   
      
   You have first to detrend the two series. Then you can try to find a   
   correlation. You will find :   
   1) there is a correlation between ocean temperatures and Mauna-Loa   
   concentrations six or seven months later. Thus, either temperatures   
   cause CO2, or they both follow a common cause.   
   2) there is no correlation between "anthropic" emissions and temperatures.   
      
   NB : I followed a course on signal detection techniques, the professors   
   almost daily warned us about "frequency zero" spurious correlations.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)