In 2024 it can be difficult to sort wheat from chaff in the peer-reviewed literature.

There has always been better and worse science — that goes with the territory — but as I argued last week, we are now in an era of tactical research, with science curated to advance narratives over knowledge. That makes knowing what’s what even more difficult.

I spend a lot of time here at THB on the chaff, and by reader request, I am going to try to spend more time also on the wheat.

To that end, this week has already seen cross my desk an unusually large number of really interesting recent peer-reviewed papers that I’m sharing with you today. Let’s get to it . . .

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet (Beaulieu et al. 2024, open access). Top line results:

“Our results show limited evidence for a warming surge; in most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023.”

The paper employs the traditional IPCC framework for detection and attribution and assesses what levels of global temperature increases would have to occur to achieve detection. The authors find that the recent “surge” is not very close to that magnitude of increase:

“Accounting for the short-term variability in the HadCRUT GMST over 1970–2023 and the added uncertainty for the changepoint location, the second segment (2013–2023) would need a slope of at least 0.039∘C/year (more than a 100% increase) to be statistically different than 0.019 at the α = 0.05 significance level right now.

The estimated slope of 0.029 ∘C/year falls far short of this needed increase. While it is still possible there was a change in the warming rate starting in 2013, the HadCRUT record is simply not long enough for the surge to be statistically detectable at this time.”

This paper is sure to motivate much debate as it is contrary to gobsmacking claims made by some visible scientists. Debate is good for science and for science in the public eye.

Crucial role of sea surface temperature warming patterns in near-term high-impact weather and climate projection (Zhao and Knutson 2024, open access). Top line results:

“Model biases in SST [sea surface temperature] trend patterns are shown to have profound implications for near-term projections of high-impact storm statistics, including the frequency of atmospheric rivers, tropical storms and mesoscale convection systems, as well as for hydrological and climate sensitivity.

If the future SST warming pattern continues to resemble the observed pattern from the past few decades rather than the model-simulated/predicted patterns, these results suggest:

A drastically different future projection of high-impact storms and their associated hydroclimate changes, especially over the Western Hemisphere.

Stronger global hydrological sensitivity.

Substantially less global warming due to stronger negative feedback and lower climate sensitivity.”

This paper identifies systematic biases in how climate models represent ocean temperatures and explores the implications of these biases for projections of the climate future.

The paper concludes:

“Our results indicate that if the future SST trend pattern continues to resemble the observed pattern from the past few decades rather than that simulated or predicted by climate models, we would anticipate a drastically different picture of future changes of high-impact storm statistics . . .”

This paper will also likely motivate some interesting discussions and future work.

The most important implication for consumers of climate research is to recognize that our near-term climate future likely encompasses a much wider range of possibilities than we (collectively) generally expect or hear discussed.

Robust future projections of global spatial distribution of major tropical cyclones and sea level pressure gradients (Murakami et al. 2024, open access).

I found this paper particularly interesting because it was published just a few weeks before Hurricanes Helene and Milton made landfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast, killing hundreds and resulting in tens of billions of dollars in economic losses.

I share this paper not because I believe its projections over other studies — actually, tell me what result you want for projected future hurricane incidence and I can produce a peer-reviewed study to support that view! — but because it is at odds with major media reporting and claims by activists (including some scientists) about trends and projections in hurricanes.

The gap between popular climate discourse and peer-reviewed research (including the assessments of the IPCC WG1) remains massive. This paper offers another timely example.

https://principia-scientific.com/more-studies-published-discrediting-climate-alarm/

**********************************************

From Your Wallet to Theirs: How EV Subsidies Favor the Wealthy

“I grew up in the middle class,” Vice President Kamala Harris says repeatedly to show that she understands what policies would best support the average American.

However, Harris’ electric vehicle subsidies don’t help middle- and lower-income households; they go to upper-income households.

It’s one of many hypocritical policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

This year, the government has issued $2 billion in tax credits for over 300,000 electric-battery and plug-in hybrids—mostly to wealthy households that don’t necessarily need them.

Nationally, 14% of households earning over $100,000 own an electric vehicle, compared to 5% of middle-income households and 2% of those earning $40,000 or less, according to a recent Gallup poll.

In California, the state leading in electric vehicles, the Top 20 ZIP codes with the highest percentage of EVs have median household incomes above $100,000, while the lowest-income areas have almost no EV ownership.

Electric vehicles are simply too expensive for lower- and middle-class households. The electric version of the average compact SUV (the most popular class of cars) costs $53,048—49% more than the $35,722 price tag of the model with an internal combustion engine.

The federal government offers up to $7,500 in tax credits for a new electric vehicle, up to $4,000 for used electric vehicles, and up to $40,000 for commercial electric vehicles, all depending on domestic content requirements.

Tax credits are designed so that electric vehicles have more American components. However, contrary to congressional intent, a loophole allows people to lease (not buy) EVs without the domestic content restrictions. This benefits foreign automakers, primarily those making cars with components made in China.

The Biden-Harris administration also requires automakers to produce EVs or face financial penalties. The Environmental Protection Agency finalized strict emission standards that are projected to lead to 68% of new car sales being battery- and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles by 2032.

Similarly, the Department of Transportation’s final rule will bring the average fuel economy standard of a light-duty vehicle to 50.4 miles per gallon by model year 2031, a goal that is impossible to meet without EV sales. Currently, the average car runs on 26.9 miles per gallon.

An additional 13 states and the District of Columbia have signed up for California’s rules forbidding sales of gasoline-powered cars after 2035.

These three sets of regulations will force an oversupply of electric vehicles that will sit unsold on dealership lots. Not only are they too expensive for the average American to purchase, but they also take an hour or more to recharge and lose range in cold or hot climates.

People in cold climates are reluctant to purchase EVs because freezing conditions lower the vehicles’ average ranges by about 30%. EV registrations are low in Alaska (2,697), North Dakota (959), and Wyoming (1,139).

That’s why 26 Republican state attorneys general recently filed a lawsuit to challenge “unworkable” fuel economy standards that “leverage the weight of the federal government to require auto manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles.”

By a vote of 215-191, the House of Representatives last month passed a bill to repeal the EPA’s “out-of-touch regulation,” in the words of Rep. John James, R-Mich., sponsor of the legislation.

Other challenges to EVs make them impractical to many Americans, such as poor charging infrastructure and long-distance challenges. Those were two of the top three reasons why 46% of current EV owners say they would switch back to an internal combustion engine vehicle, according to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

In the aftermath of two recent hurricanes, Helene and Milton, electric vehicles exploded into flames and were difficult to extinguish, posing one more problem for EVs in areas vulnerable to natural disasters.

The choice of what car to buy should depend on the drivers, whose preferences are tecbased on affordability, climate, range, and other design features.

It’s clear now that drivers in hurricane-prone zones have one more reason to choose gas-powered vehicles.

https://principia-scientific.com/more-studies-published-discrediting-climate-alarm/

***********************************************

IEA: The World Is Not on Track to Triple Renewable Capacity by 2030

Despite the surge in renewable energy additions, the world is not yet on track to reach the goal of tripling renewables capacity by 2030, according to the Renewables 2024 report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Wednesday.

Global renewable capacity is expected to grow by 2.7 times by 2030, surpassing countries’ current ambitions by nearly 25%. But it still falls short of tripling, said the agency advocating for a swift move away from fossil fuels.

While climate and energy security policies have boosted the attractiveness of renewables by making them cost-competitive with fossil-fired generation, “this is not quite sufficient to reach the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity worldwide established by nearly 200 countries at the COP28 climate summit,” the IEA said.

The agency’s main case, assuming existing policies and market conditions, forecasts 5,500 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable capacity becoming operational by 2030. This implies that global renewable capacity additions will continue to grow every year, reaching nearly 940 GW annually by 2030 – 70% more than the record level achieved in 2023, the IEA said.

Solar PV and wind together are expected to account for 95% of all renewable capacity growth through the end of this decade due their growing economic attractiveness in almost all countries.

As a result of these trends, nearly 70 countries that collectively account for 80% of global renewable power capacity are expected to reach or surpass their current renewable ambitions for 2030. But this would still fall short of the COP28 pledge for tripling renewables capacity.

Growth is there, but governments need to boost their efforts to integrate variable renewable sources into power systems, the IEA said, noting that the rates of curtailment of renewable electricity generation have been increasing substantially recently, and already reaching around 10% in several countries.

In a separate report last month, the IEA said that the global goal to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade is still within reach, but massive investments in power grids and energy storage would be needed.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/IEA-The-World-Is-Not-on-Track-to-Triple-Renewable-Capacity-by-2030.html

*************************************

Australia's "renewables" policy in trouble

The wheels are falling off Mr Bowen’s energy policy as the Albanese government heads downhill like an out-of-control billy cart. Mr Bowen’s energy policy can be summed up as ‘not Mr Dutton’s policy’. That’s the extent of the substance to it, as each day brings more bad news for the 82 per cent renewables charade. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is turning to nuclear to meet future demand.

Rather than remove the prohibition on nuclear to enable market testing, the Albanese government will publicly fund a government-dominated inquiry to discredit the opposition’s nuclear energy plan. The aim is to ‘clear the decks’ for an election next year, rather than to deliver cheaper, cleaner energy for Australian households.

The Albanese government has gone on a crusade against nuclear. How Mr Bowen will produce costings for Mr Dutton’s plan when he is yet to provide costings for his own plan is anybody’s guess. This government is clearly afraid of nuclear and will do anything to put it down rather than face facts.

Microsoft is on the way to securing the Three Mile Island reactor to power a data centre. The reactor was the scene of the worst commercial nuclear accident in US history in 1979. Midnight Oil sang about it with the scaremongering lines, ‘And when the stuff gets in, you cannot get it out.’ Microsoft plans to restart Three Mile Island’s Unit 1, not Unit 2 which suffered the meltdown.

Both Google and Amazon plan to use nuclear energy to power their data centres, too. Artificial intelligence and data centres are driving up energy use and the trend is only likely to continue. How wind, solar, and batteries will be enough for Australia’s future needs is not clear from Mr Bowen’s policy.

In Australia, two major green hydrogen plans have recently fallen through.

Further, two major investors in the unpopular Illawarra Wind Zone have pulled the pin on deploying offshore wind turbines. The move comes amid community concerns over the size of the zone and the proximity to the coast. The smaller zone was part of a political compromise that apparently didn’t sit well with investors.

In the US, the Department of Energy has announced US$900 million to support small nuclear reactors. President Biden’s administration:

‘…believes nuclear power is critical in the fight against climate change because it generates electricity virtually free from emissions, and that US nuclear power capacity must triple to meet emissions goals.’

This is a blow to Mr Bowen who has mocked nuclear energy on a daily basis for some time.

The biggest problem with Mr Bowen’s energy policy is that the evidence doesn’t support his assurances. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) stated last week that the:

‘…cost of wholesale electricity rose during winter as periods of depressed renewable energy generation coincided with soaring demand for power in bitterly cold weather, data.’

Further, and although wholesale electricity costs were less compared to the previous quarter, the year-on-year costs were much higher. According to the AER:

‘Year-on-year prices were significantly higher across all regions, with Tasmania up 290 per cent, Victoria up 114 per cent and South Australia up 76 per cent.’

The $275 saving is long down amid such lofty numbers.

Unsuitable weather conditions for renewables generation in July and early August coinciding with increased demand was at the heart of the problem. Talk of batteries and pumped hydro (Snowy 2.0 is way behind its timeline and several times over its budget) are fantasy at this stage, with the reliance being placed on extending coal-fired power stations and increasing the amount of electricity generated by gas-fired stations.

Gas, too, is expected to remain at elevated prices for several years.

Yet the problem was recently exacerbated by wind drought – what Germans refer to as ‘dunkelflaute’ – and also that wind and solar projects are taking too long. So, any criticism of nuclear denies the lessons from overseas while pretending the current renewables rollout is progressing well.

Can renewables meet current demand? And can renewables scale-up like nuclear can? (As Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are betting on.)

The short answer is no. The long answer is that Mr Bowen’s Plan A is failing rapidly, and, by his own admission, he has no Plan B.

It will take more than hot air to fix Australia’s energy woes. It would seem that only a change of government will solve the crisis Mr Bowen got us into.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/10/it-will-take-more-than-hot-air-to-fix-labors-renewables-woes/

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

https://westpsychol.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH -- new site)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************