From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 12:42:11 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 17/12/2025 a 19:34, Mitchell Holman a ocrita:

Climate change deniers, lunar landing deniers,
evolution deniers, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers,
they all use the same rhetoric and thus all sound
alike.

Even data speak the same language : temperature variations precede
carbon dioxide variations in instrumental records.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

And it precedes in geological (proxy) records by ~800 years too !
What other effect do you know which comes before its supposed cause ?
Weird isn't it ?

Apparently it's part of a feedback loop:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 24/02/2026 |a 16:54, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

And it precedes in geological (proxy) records by ~800 years too !
What other effect do you know which comes before its supposed cause ?
Weird isn't it ?

Apparently it's part of a feedback loop:

But CO2 variations follow temperature variations at all time scales (in observations).
A cause never follows its consequence.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:02:14 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 24/02/2026 a 16:54, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

And it precedes in geological (proxy) records by ~800 years too !
What other effect do you know which comes before its supposed cause ?
Weird isn't it ?

Apparently it's part of a feedback loop:

But CO2 variations follow temperature variations at all time scales (in >observations).
A cause never follows its consequence.

From the site you snipped:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

"Based on these physical processes, itAs clear that increased
atmospheric CO2 leads to increased global temperature and this warming
can also cause CO2 in the atmosphere to increase. We call this
reinforcing relationship a positive feedback."
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 24/02/2026 |a 18:10, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:02:14 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 24/02/2026 |a 16:54, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

And it precedes in geological (proxy) records by ~800 years too !
What other effect do you know which comes before its supposed cause ?
Weird isn't it ?

Apparently it's part of a feedback loop:

But CO2 variations follow temperature variations at all time scales (in
observations).
A cause never follows its consequence.

From the site you snipped:

Observations show that CO2 concentration variations follow temperature variations, not the other way.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Even if a Scientific Authority as prestigious as "Skeptical Science"
says it, if is not what is observed in reality, I won't trust them.

A question (please answer it honestly) which curve variations peak
first, the red one or the green one ?

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise


[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

Red : GISStemp variations
Green : Mauna Loa CO2 ppm variations

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 12:00:34 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 24/02/2026 a 18:10, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:02:14 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 24/02/2026 a 16:54, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

And it precedes in geological (proxy) records by ~800 years too !
What other effect do you know which comes before its supposed cause ? >>>>> Weird isn't it ?

Apparently it's part of a feedback loop:

But CO2 variations follow temperature variations at all time scales (in
observations).
A cause never follows its consequence.

From the site you snipped:

Observations show that CO2 concentration variations follow temperature >variations, not the other way.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Even if a Scientific Authority as prestigious as "Skeptical Science"
says it, if is not what is observed in reality, I won't trust them.

A question (please answer it honestly) which curve variations peak
first, the red one or the green one ?

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

Red : GISStemp variations
Green : Mauna Loa CO2 ppm variations

Even if a Scientific Authority as prestigious as do-it-yourself
science website Wood for Trees is helpful, I would be careful because
according to the link I posted, 90% of global warming in past ice ages
followed CO2 increases, not vice versa; that better data from some ice
cores failed to detect that lag; that your graph doesn't display the temperature increases typically found in scientific studies over the
given timeline; and that relatively small changes in CO2 levels can
lead to large temperature increases (of the sort coming out of the
oceans, after they've absorbed large amounts of CO2), a feedback loop
that can give the illusion of an overall CO2/temperature lag.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 25/02/2026 |a 18:12, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/
from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/
detrend:3/from:1958/normalise


[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

Red : GISStemp variations
Green : Mauna Loa CO2 ppm variations

Even if a Scientific Authority as prestigious as do-it-yourself

This is data : variation rate of global GISS temperatures and variation
rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna Loa
observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the red
one or the green one ?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 25/02/2026 |a 18:12, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

90% of global warming in past ice ages
followed CO2 increases

No, it is absolutely false. On a geological scale, carbon dioxide concentration variations follow (proxy) temperature variations by 800 or
1000 years.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 20:10:27 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 25/02/2026 a 18:12, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/
from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/
detrend:3/from:1958/normalise


[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

Red : GISStemp variations
Green : Mauna Loa CO2 ppm variations

Even if a Scientific Authority as prestigious as do-it-yourself

This is data : variation rate of global GISS temperatures and variation >rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna Loa >observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the red
one or the green one ?

Are you sure the Mauna Loa observatory is representative, to begin
with at least, of global changes in CO2 levels? Here's something more
to think about:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-basic.htm

"Finally, CO2 levels may lag temperature in some ice-core records from Antarctica, but in some other parts of the world the reverse was the
case: temperature and CO2 either rose in pace or temperature lagged
CO2. Figure 2 demonstrates this graphically and shows how things are
never as simplistic as purveyors of misinformation would wish."

Here's the Figure 2 they're talking about:

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig2a.jpg
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 20:12:52 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 25/02/2026 a 18:12, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

90% of global warming in past ice ages
followed CO2 increases

No, it is absolutely false. On a geological scale, carbon dioxide >concentration variations follow (proxy) temperature variations by 800 or >1000 years.

What if initial anthropogenic warming was too small to show up in the atmospheric CO2 (perhaps due to the high solubility of CO2 in water
compared to land) levels until it was released into the atmosphere
from the oceans, making it look like temperature was causing the CO2
levels to increase?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 24/02/2026 a 18:10, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 17:02:14 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 24/02/2026 a 16:54, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

And it precedes in geological (proxy) records by ~800 years too !
What other effect do you know which comes before its supposed cause ? >>>> Weird isn't it ?

Apparently it's part of a feedback loop:

But CO2 variations follow temperature variations at all time scales (in
observations).
A cause never follows its consequence.

From the site you snipped:

Observations show that CO2 concentration variations follow temperature variations, not the other way.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Even if a Scientific Authority as prestigious as "Skeptical Science"
says it, if is not what is observed in reality, I won't trust them.

A question (please answer it honestly) which curve variations peak
first, the red one or the green one ?

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

The first question that strikes me is, what does this graph mean? Why
are you comparing derivatives, what are the mean(samples) steps, what is "detrending" and why is #2 detrended and #1 is not, and what filters did
you use?

You do realize that restricting data to derivatives is itself a
high-pass filter? Would "detrending" be another HPF? What low-pass
filtering did you use, is it just a crude Simple Moving Average? Is
there an overall transfer function for the process? What was the
unfiltered spectral content before manipulating, and what steps did you
take to avoid aliasing?

What effect does this processing have on phase distortion? The phase relationship between temp and CO2 is, after all, what you are hanging
your causal hat upon, right?

To answer to all this would plunge us ass-deep into laplace and
z-transforms. May I presume you haven't done that?

It's hard to discount the nagging possibility that you just massaged the
data until you got what fit your agenda.

[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

Red : GISStemp variations
Green : Mauna Loa CO2 ppm variations

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 25/02/2026 |a 22:46, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

This is data : variation rate of global GISS temperatures and variation
rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna Loa
observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the red
one or the green one ?

Are you sure the Mauna Loa observatory is representative, to begin
with at least, of global changes in CO2 levels?

The Mauna Loa observatory was the first set up to record daily carbon
dioxide levels in 1958. A handful of other laboratories exist which
provide local data series, example : Barrows(AK).

On the graph of variation rates of global GISS temperatures and
variation rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna
Loa observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the
red one or the green one ?

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 25/02/2026 |a 22:47, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

What if initial anthropogenic warming was too small to show up in the atmospheric CO2 (perhaps due to the high solubility of CO2 in water
compared to land) levels until it was released into the atmosphere
from the oceans, making it look like temperature was causing the CO2
levels to increase?

It does not "look like", warm temperatures over (tropical) oceans cause
carbon dioxide in emerging deep cold waters (currents) to outgas.
Conversely, over cold oceanic zones, ocean waters absorb carbon dioxide.
Then dissolved carbon dioxide travels for centuries and millenia and
randomly (chaotically) emerges elsewhere. It causes very slow
(centuries, millenia) "global" variations.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 26/02/2026 |a 06:32, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/
from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/
detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

The first question that strikes me is, what does this graph mean? Why
are you comparing derivatives, what are the mean(samples) steps, what is "detrending" and why is #2 detrended and #1 is not, and what filters did
you use?

Using derivative is a known way to try to correlate two time series with trends (zero frequency component).
The running mean (convolution) is a cheap (but effective) low pass
filter. You can replace it by a fourrier transform, low pass filter,
inverse fourrier transform if you want. The temperature series doesn't
need to be detrended. You can look at the CO2 series without detrending
it if you see it convenient.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 26/02/2026 a 06:32, Samuel Spade a ocrita:

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/
from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/
detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

The first question that strikes me is, what does this graph mean? Why
are you comparing derivatives, what are the mean(samples) steps, what is "detrending" and why is #2 detrended and #1 is not, and what filters did you use?

You do realize that restricting data to derivatives is itself a
high-pass filter? Would "detrending" be another HPF? What low-pass filtering did you use, is it just a crude Simple Moving Average? Is
there an overall transfer function for the process? What was the unfiltered spectral content before manipulating, and what steps did you take to avoid aliasing?

Not important, or not understood?

What effect does this processing have on phase distortion? The phase relationship between temp and CO2 is, after all, what you are hanging
your causal hat upon, right?

To answer to all this would plunge us ass-deep into laplace and z-transforms. May I presume you haven't done that?

I take the nonresponse as a "no I haven't".

It's hard to discount the nagging possibility that you just massaged the data until you got what fit your agenda.

Using derivative is a known way to try to correlate two time series with trends (zero frequency component).

That's not clear. And, using the derivative is a filter. It has
spectral properties that you don't bother characterizing.

A "trend" is not a zero frequency component. Zero frequency would be an unchanging value over all time. You just need to pick a relevant time
constant and state that. Otherwise, you may be removing long-term
changes that tell part of the story. You wouldn't want to do that,
would you?

The running mean (convolution) is a cheap (but effective) low pass

It's only convolution in the time domain, it's simple multiplication in
the frequency domain. And, it's a cheap LPF because it's not a very
good one. There are many well known, well behaved digital filter types
to choose from, some of which have minimal spurious phase shift.

filter. You can replace it by a fourrier transform, low pass filter,
inverse fourrier transform if you want. The temperature series doesn't
need to be detrended. You can look at the CO2 series without detrending
it if you see it convenient.

You are doing spectral transformation whether you calculate the Laplace transform or not. The difference is, you don't know what your
manipulation is doing to amplitude and phase in your result.

(The more general laplace, using the z transform, is a better choice
than Fourier in this case, until you establish that transients have no
insight to contribute, which you haven't even thought of yet.)

It's not just the LPF that you need to characterize. There's the derivative-taking and detrending steps as well. You also need to
determine whether aliasing is going to be a problem. Indeed you don't
even know yet that this is a linear, time-invariant system, so all your
effort may be going for naught.

Due diligence is never required. Unless, of course, you want to
actually convince people of something, especially if you want to
convince them that established science is all fubarred, and that you
have a better interpretation of the data. If that's the goal,
amateurish arm-waving just idn't gonna do it.

Please do keep working on it.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 26/02/2026 |a 11:30, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

What effect does this processing have on phase distortion? The phase
relationship between temp and CO2 is, after all, what you are hanging
your causal hat upon, right?

To answer to all this would plunge us ass-deep into laplace and
z-transforms. May I presume you haven't done that?

I take the nonresponse as a "no I haven't".

I studied that at the university (signal processing). An industry
scientist thought us the double mean trick (and its frequency domain correspondance). Using the same filter on both series makes an eventual "distortion" the same for the two series. Actually, the whole thing
compares the desaisonnalized monthly variations of both series.
If you still have a doubt, the wood for trees graphing tool has a
fourrier transform tool. The final result is the same.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:23:52 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 25/02/2026 a 22:46, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

This is data : variation rate of global GISS temperatures and variation
rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna Loa
observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the red
one or the green one ?

Are you sure the Mauna Loa observatory is representative, to begin
with at least, of global changes in CO2 levels?

The Mauna Loa observatory was the first set up to record daily carbon >dioxide levels in 1958. A handful of other laboratories exist which
provide local data series, example : Barrows(AK).

And do you have any data for those?

On the graph of variation rates of global GISS temperatures and
variation rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna
Loa observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the
red one or the green one ?

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

In this graph of CO2 and temperature vs.time, which follows which, the
yellow dots or the blue line?

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig2a.jpg
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:33:38 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 25/02/2026 a 22:47, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

What if initial anthropogenic warming was too small to show up in the
atmospheric CO2 (perhaps due to the high solubility of CO2 in water
compared to land) levels until it was released into the atmosphere
from the oceans, making it look like temperature was causing the CO2
levels to increase?

It does not "look like", warm temperatures over (tropical) oceans cause >carbon dioxide in emerging deep cold waters (currents) to outgas. >Conversely, over cold oceanic zones, ocean waters absorb carbon dioxide. >Then dissolved carbon dioxide travels for centuries and millenia and >randomly (chaotically) emerges elsewhere. It causes very slow
(centuries, millenia) "global" variations.

Do you agree that CO2 levels can be caused by increases in
temperature, and that they can cause increases in temperature as well?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 26/02/2026 |a 16:48, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:23:52 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 25/02/2026 |a 22:46, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

This is data : variation rate of global GISS temperatures and variation >>>> rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna Loa
observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the red
one or the green one ?

Are you sure the Mauna Loa observatory is representative, to begin
with at least, of global changes in CO2 levels?

The Mauna Loa observatory was the first set up to record daily carbon
dioxide levels in 1958. A handful of other laboratories exist which
provide local data series, example : Barrows(AK).

And do you have any data for those?

On the graph of variation rates of global GISS temperatures and
variation rates of carbon dioxide concentration published by the Mauna
Loa observatory. Which curve peaks precede the other curve peaks, the
red one or the green one ?

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

[ ] the red curve
[ ] the green curve

In this graph of CO2 and temperature vs.time, which follows which, the
yellow dots or the blue line?

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig2a.jpg

Vostok ice core (400.000 years) : CO2 variations follow temperature
variations (~1000 years).
https://i.postimg.cc/1X0xJH5T/Vostok-Petit-Et-Al.png
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 26/02/2026 |a 16:49, Vincent Maycock a |-crit-a:

It does not "look like", warm temperatures over (tropical) oceans cause
carbon dioxide in emerging deep cold waters (currents) to outgas.
Conversely, over cold oceanic zones, ocean waters absorb carbon dioxide.
Then dissolved carbon dioxide travels for centuries and millenia and
randomly (chaotically) emerges elsewhere. It causes very slow
(centuries, millenia) "global" variations.

Do you agree that CO2 levels can be caused by increases in
temperature, and that they can cause increases in temperature as well?

But, overall, over the last 68 years, atmospheric CO2 ppm variations
follow temperature variations by 6 or 7 months. There are several
feedbacks (clouds for example), the overall feedback is negative
(systems with large positive feedbacks are oscillators).
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 21:47:53 +0100, Paul Aubrin
<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 26/02/2026 a 16:49, Vincent Maycock a ocrita:

It does not "look like", warm temperatures over (tropical) oceans cause
carbon dioxide in emerging deep cold waters (currents) to outgas.
Conversely, over cold oceanic zones, ocean waters absorb carbon dioxide. >>> Then dissolved carbon dioxide travels for centuries and millenia and
randomly (chaotically) emerges elsewhere. It causes very slow
(centuries, millenia) "global" variations.

Do you agree that CO2 levels can be caused by increases in
temperature, and that they can cause increases in temperature as well?

But, overall, over the last 68 years, atmospheric CO2 ppm variations
follow temperature variations by 6 or 7 months.

And how much of that results from a lag between CO2 entering the
environment from anthropogenic sources and a combination of
anthropogenic and naturally generated CO2 showing up in weather
stations around the world?

There are several
feedbacks (clouds for example), the overall feedback is negative
(systems with large positive feedbacks are oscillators).

So would you say, for example, that glacier extent is part of a
positive or negative feedback system?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 26/02/2026 a 11:30, Samuel Spade a ocrita:

What effect does this processing have on phase distortion? The phase
relationship between temp and CO2 is, after all, what you are hanging
your causal hat upon, right?

To answer to all this would plunge us ass-deep into laplace and
z-transforms. May I presume you haven't done that?

I take the nonresponse as a "no I haven't".

I studied that at the university (signal processing).

Then you should have known better.

An industry
scientist

Oil industry or coal?

thought us the double mean trick (and its frequency domain

Double mean trick? So there's deception afoot?

correspondance). Using the same filter on both series makes an eventual "distortion" the same for the two series.

Except you used different filters on the two. Filters you didn't or
won't characterize, or you don't understand.

You seem not to realize that differentiating the time domain function
f(t) has a transfer function H(s)=s, the laplace variable itself.

Actually, the whole thing
compares the desaisonnalized monthly variations of both series.
If you still have a doubt, the wood for trees graphing tool has a
fourrier transform tool. The final result is the same.

Great. Do it and get back to us with the details, including transfer
functions of the whole process and expected phase shift for each.

In the meantime, your claim that a rise in global temp leads the rise in
CO2 is just wishful hoooraah.

Please do keep working on it.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

But, overall, over the last 68 years, atmospheric CO2 ppm variations
follow temperature variations by 6 or 7 months.

You keep asserting this, but you have yet to provide valid evidence.

There are several
feedbacks (clouds for example), the overall feedback is negative
(systems with large positive feedbacks are oscillators).

If positive feedback makes the system unstable, it may or may not
oscillate. More often it will increase without bound in one direction
or the other, and stay there.

Venus's climate became unstable from positive feedback due to excess
CO2. Do you see anything oscillating there? Does Venus periodically
bounce between deep freeze and hell?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 27/02/2026 |a 07:48, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

Paul Aubrin<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

But, overall, over the last 68 years, atmospheric CO2 ppm variations
follow temperature variations by 6 or 7 months.

You keep asserting this, but you have yet to provide valid evidence.

The evidence has been shown many times, once more for you :

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise

CO2 variations follow temperature variations after 6-7 months.
And there is NO correlation between human emissions and Mauna Loa ppm increments (R-#=0.01), that's a big problem, isn't it ?

Abstract
[...]
Moreover, the strong month-by-month correlation, over nearly 800
months, between the increments of the COree stock at MLO (altitude 3.4 km)
and the sea-surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the inter-tropical zone
shows that 94.5% of atmospheric COree reflects the time-integrated effect
of past surface temperatures, themselves determined by surface
insolation. ARIMA time-series modeling further supports the correlation between 12-month increments of MLO COree and SST. By contrast, there is no correlation (R-# = 0.01) between the detrended 12-month COree increments
and fossil-fuel emissions.

Simple models of carbon fluxes and stocks for the oceans, atmosphere,
and vegetation & soils, assuming ocean degassing driven by
inter-tropical SST, reproduce the observed time series atmospheric COree, +|-|-|C and vegetation productivity since 1900.
[...]

https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol.5.3-Veyres-et-al.pdf

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 27/02/2026 |a 07:34, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

studied that at the university (signal processing).

Then you should have known better.

I used this technique many times with full success. You can either
derive the two series, or you can detrend both.

Convolution low pass filter and fourrier transform :

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/hadsst3gl/derivative/fourier:12/low-pass:96/inverse-fourier:20/from:1958/normalise
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 27/02/2026 |a 07:34, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

I studied that at the university (signal processing).

Then you should have known better.

Left : Correlation between fossil fuel emissions and CO2 atmospheric concentrations increments R-#=0.02
Right : Correlation between satellite tropospheric temperatures and CO2 atmospheric increments R-#=0.38

https://i.postimg.cc/HWhVCX5v/figure-0006a.jpg

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 27/02/2026 a 07:48, Samuel Spade a ocrita:

Paul Aubrin<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

But, overall, over the last 68 years, atmospheric CO2 ppm variations
follow temperature variations by 6 or 7 months.

You keep asserting this, but you have yet to provide valid evidence.

The evidence has been shown many times,

All you've shown is arm-waving and the same tired denialist apologetics.

I've debunked your claims, and you can only snip, run, deny, and repeat.

But please do keep working on it.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 28/02/2026 |a 06:57, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

he evidence has been shown many times,

All you've shown is arm-waving and the same tired denialist apologetics.

I show you official data in graphic form. If you don't trust me (or the
wood for trees graphic tool), download the data, take the derivative (or annual increments) and observe.

If your ideology forbids you to observe variations (derivative), you can
still observe that CO2 peaks (negative and positive) follow temperature
peaks in detrended and normalized data.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/mean:12/from:1958/detrend:0.62/normalise/to:1995/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/offset:-307.5/detrend:90/to:1995/normalise
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 28/02/2026 |a 06:57, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

I've debunked your claims, and you can only snip, run, deny, and repeat.

Your unfounded allegations did not "debunk" anything. Please note that I
don't pretend that oceanic temperatures explain the whole variation.
Oceanic currents and the CO2 content of deep oceanic waters are
certainly a very complex system since they are chaotic and depend on conditions that existed hundreds or thousand of years ago.
Now, there is obviously some oceanic temperature signal in the
atmospheric CO2 signal.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Paul Aubrin <paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 28/02/2026 a 06:57, Samuel Spade a ocrita:

he evidence has been shown many times,

All you've shown is arm-waving and the same tired denialist apologetics.

I show you official data in graphic form.

You showed us purported data that has been massaged by a process you
can't explain, into something that, you postulate, is disruptive to
climate science.

So far, there's no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Please do keep trying.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.atheism

Le 01/03/2026 |a 06:14, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

Paul Aubrin<paul.aubrin@invalid.org> wrote:

Le 28/02/2026 |a 06:57, Samuel Spade a |-crit-a:

he evidence has been shown many times,

All you've shown is arm-waving and the same tired denialist apologetics.

I show you official data in graphic form.

You showed us purported data that has been massaged by a process you
can't explain,

You lie. The process derives the speed of variation of two official data series, applies a low pass filter (~ 1 year), and detrends both series.
Then it compares the low frequency, detrended variations.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1958/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/scale:20/detrend:3/from:1958/normalise
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2