COP 26: Planet saved, now what?

by D. Wojick, Nov 11, 2021 in CFact

A hugely funny thing happened on the outskirts of COP 26. The press seems to have missed this huge news, but the Paris Accord’s goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees has now been met. Well okay, it has just been promised by politicians. But if you take political promises seriously, as they do in COP-world, the end is here.

Specifically, several independent green analyses find that the various commitments made at COP 26 would limit global warming to just 1.8 or so degrees. The Paris target is “less than 2 degrees” so there you have it. Target met!

Where are the green headlines screaming “Planet saved”? Where are the green marches of celebration instead of protest?

The funny part is that this paper success raises big problems for the climate activist movement. All that remains is to makes sure the promises are kept. But these promises are for dates that range from from 2030 to way out in 2060 or 2070. There is almost nothing to do now as far as implementation is concerned. What are all these activists to do?

There are some technical things that need doing, at some point. In particular these big promises are not part of the actual COP. The COP is the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes over 200 countries, each of which has a veto.

None of these grand promises, even those made by over 100 countries like the methane reduction goal for 2030, are part of the official COP. In fact the thousands of national COP negotiators are reportedly “sour” because the grand announcements got all the press.

The actions of the COP are highly formal. What has to happen now is that all of these promises get incorporated into the official Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for each country that is a member of the Paris Accord. Even here the next round of updated NDCs is not due until 2025. So in a very real sense there is nothing urgent to do now, even though the Planet is saved (on paper).

Some of the global activists might simply reject the finding that the Paris target has been reached. This may be tough because one of these Earth saving analyses was done by the prestigious (to alarmists) International Energy Agency. IEA got a low 1.8 degrees of warming if all the agreements and public promises are met by every country.

Die hard alarmists might argue that the target is 1.5 degrees, not 1.8. But China has said officially that 1.5 is not the Paris Accord target and if people want it the entire Accord will have to be renegotiated.

There are some relatively immediate issues on the COP table that relate to these promises. One is finally establishing the global emissions trading system. Many of the “rich” country NDCs depend on trading in order to get to so-called net zero emissions. They need to buy indulgences for their air transport and shipping, which cannot be electrified.

Then there is the huge unresolved issue called finance. Many of the developing country NDCs are contingent on the rich countries paying the huge cost of getting to net zero, or even for hitting lesser targets like the 30% methane cut by 2030. The supposedly agreed on funding of $100 billion a year from 2020 through 2024 has yet to appear. Developing countries, led by an alliance of African leaders, is calling for a trillion a year beginning 2025, but that target too is a long way off.

Where does the climate alarmist movement go from here? Greta Thunberg in her new newly profane persona has asked of COP 26 “What the F are they doing in there.” The COPers can now answer “Saving the planet, what are you doing out there.”

Of course it is all just political promises. Many are economically impossible, some physically so. At this point that is not the point. The alarmist movement has the serious problem of apparent success. How they handle it will be fun to watch.

Glasgow Is Fake…Number Of Typhoons Formed In Pacific Has Trended Downward Significantly Since 1951!

by P. Gosselin, Nov 12, 2021 in NoTricksZone

The Glasgow climate conference has been a three-ring circus of doomsday clowns, all warning of ever increasing extreme weather events. But as hurricane trends have shown, most of it is baseless hysteria.

Pacific typhoons trending downward

As the 2021 tropical cyclone season for the northern hemisphere approaches its end, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) presents the latest data for Pacific typhoons — going back to 1951.

Autocorrelation in CO2 and Temperature Time Series

by A. May, Nov 14, 2021 in WUWT

In my last post I plotted the NASA CO2 and the HadCRUT5 records from 1850 to 2020 and compared them. This was in response to a plot posted on twitter by Robert Rohde implying they correlated well. The two records appear to correlate because the resulting R2 is 0.87. The least square’s function used made the global temperature anomaly a function of the logarithm to the base 2 of the CO2 concentration (or ‘log2CO2‘). This means the temperature change was assumed to be linear with the doubling of the CO2concentration, a common assumption. The least squares (or ‘LS’) methodology assumes there is no error in the measurements of the CO2 concentration and all error resulting from the correlation (the residuals) resides in the HadCRUT5 global average surface temperature estimates.

In the comments to the previous post, it became clear that some readers understood the computed R2(often called the coefficient of determination), from LS, was artificially inflated because both X (log2CO2) and Y (HadCRUT5) were autocorrelated and increased with time. But a few did not understand this vital point. As most investors, engineers, and geoscientists know, two time series that are both autocorrelated and increase with time will almost always have an inflated R2. This is one type of “spurious correlation.” In other words, the high R2 does not necessarily mean the variables are related to one another. Autocorrelation is a big deal in time series analysis and in climate science, but too frequently ignored. To judge any correlation between CO2 and HadCRUT5 we must look for autocorrelation effects. The most tool used is the Durbin-Watson statistic.

The Durbin-Watson statistic tests the null hypothesis that the residuals from a LS regression are not autocorrelated against the alternative that they are. The statistic is a number between 0 and 4, a value of 2 indicates non-autocorrelation and a value < 2 suggests positive autocorrelation and a value >2 suggests negative autocorrelation. Since the computation of R2 assumes that each observation is independent of the others, we hope that we get a value of 2, that way the R2 is valid. If the regression residuals are autocorrelated and not random—that is normally distributed about the mean—the R2 is invalid and too high. In the statistical program R, this is done—using a linear fit—with only one statement, as shown below: