>>9889770>>9889776hey retard, you don't understand how correlation works.
given that variables OTHER than CO2 affect global temperature, there's no reason to expect the two to track exactly. taking two 15 million year trends and just comparing the average slopes is babby-tier stats, and it's telling that that's the kind of stupid bullshit that deniers have to resort to.
so if CO2 is just one of several controls on temperature, how might that be reflected in the Ma scale? well, you'd expect to see sudden CHANGES in CO2 (happening too fast for other factors to change appreciably) to be reflected as sudden changes in the temperature record. and indeed this is the case if you actually LOOK at figure 6 in Royer (2014).
>http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Royer_2014_Treatise.pdfbonus points:
>hey this CO2 record is derived from a bunch of different proxies with significant variability in both values at a given time and density of measurements in time>let's just squash it down to a single average valueapparently you can think CO2 can't drive climate change, or you can have some idea of how stats work, but you can't do both.
