Studies are marvellous things. Almost seven years ago a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience led to this striking Guardian headline: “Global warming will weaken wind power, study predicts”. The abstract of the study was a little more nuanced, concluding that climate change and a warming planet would result in “decreases in wind power across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes and increases across the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, with substantial regional variations.”

The Guardian was concerned (but not sufficiently so to stop campaigning for more windfarms):

The research is the first global study to project the impact of temperature rises on wind energy and found big changes by the end of the century in many of the places hosting large numbers of turbines.

Wind farms have grown more than fivefold in the last decade and plunging costs have made them a key way of reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning. But in the central US, for example, the power of the wind could fall by nearly a fifth…

…It does mean such changes need to be taken into account in planning future wind farms, he said, and also in assessing how much wind farms overall can cut global emissions.

Ironically, perhaps:

The biggest fall was in Japan, where wind farm building is just beginning to accelerate, with wind energy projected to fall by 58kW, or about 10%. The central US was second with 49kW but because the average current winds are generally weaker than in Japan, this represents a larger 17% drop. The UK is anticipated to fall by 36kW, or 5%.

Fast forward almost seven years and – phew! – we have a new and exciting headline: “Global heating could raise potential for offshore wind power, study says”; and an even more exciting sub-heading: “Heating of 4C could increase potential offshore wind energy by average of 9% by end of century, research suggests”.

This time the research (titled “Increases of Offshore Wind Potential in a Warming World”) is published in Geophysical Research Letters, here. The “Plain language summary” is music to the ears of wind farm developers:

Wind energy is key to achieving global carbon neutrality. While onshore wind has been extensively studied, offshore wind energy (OWE) projections have received less attention. Climate models, particularly those from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 5 and 6 (CMIP5/6), have underestimated changes in OWE in past decades. Our study addresses this by using a state-of-the-art reanalysis, ERA5, to correct these underestimations in CMIP6 models and project future changes in offshore wind power density (WPD) in a warming world. We discover that global offshore WPD is expected to rise throughout the 21st century. By the end of the century, we project an increase in offshore WPD by 3.8%–18.3% under various emission scenarios. Specifically, with global warming of 4°C (and 2°C), we expect increases of 8.9%–9.2% (and 0.2%–2.2%) compared to that at a 1.5°C warming level. Europe stands out under 4°C global warming, with the largest projected increase in offshore WPD (26%). This …highlights the growing importance of offshore wind in our energy mix and underscores the need for improved modeling to guide investments and policies.

Isn’t that great? In less than seven years Europe and North America go from being net losers to big winners:

Overall, in regions with the higher current installations, the most substantial increase in offshore WPD is expected in Europe as global warming intensifies, although noteworthy increases are also evident in NA.

By happy coincidence, this is where so many new wind farms are planned. Happily too:

…Notably, the regions covering the East China Sea, the Sea of Japan, and the Bay of Bengal, which exhibited decreasing trends, are projected to accelerate…

As so often seems to be the case, however:

More research is needed to understand the impact of extreme wind events and to map the changes in wind energy at a higher resolution.

Send more money – we’re getting there! And isn’t it wonderful that the science is so settled.

From THE DAILY CALLER

Nick Pope
Contributor

House Republicans are pressing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) for answers about a signature dataset frequently cited as evidence that climate change is intensifying.

Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Committee wrote to NOAA Administrator Richard Spinrad on Wednesday demanding information about several aspects of the agency’s “billion dollar disasters” (BDD) dataset, which the Biden administration has cited to justify its pause on natural gas export terminal approvals, among other things. The lawmakers allege that the BDD data may be violating NOAA’s scientific integrity rules, and they also requested clarification on NOAA’s methodology and an explanation as to why the agency does not adjust for variables like GDP.

The metric’s critics have pointed out that economic statistics are an inappropriate proxy for climate change’s intensity or changing meteorological conditions. For example, identical storms in identical locations at two different times would render different damage totals because of increases in the amount of property in harm’s way and not necessarily because climate change has gotten any worse. (EXCLUSIVE: ‘Blatant Violations’: Watchdog Challenges Key Data Used By Biden Admin To Push Sweeping Climate Agenda)

“Since the 1990s, NOAA has published annual reports showing the number of disasters that have cost more than a billion dollars in damages,” the letter states. “Debate around the validity of the reports’ methodologies has resulted in NOAA making incremental but important changes. Since 2011, the reports’ cost estimates of all past disasters in the dataset have been updated annually to account for inflation in today’s dollars.”

“However, despite adjustments for inflation, the reports have not been adjusted for increases in population or wealth in the same capacity,” the letter continues. Due to these increases in population and wealth, even mild storms can sometimes appear to cause greater damage today. The lack of updated, comprehensive data in these models raises considerable concern given that these reports have been cited by both Congress and the President as the justification for different federal government actions concerning climate change.”

BDD data was used in a flagship climate report released by the Biden administration in 2023, and it was also cited as evidence to justify the administration’s pause on approvals for new liquefied natural gas export terminals by Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk in testimony provided to Congress in February.

The letter alleges that NOAA’s adjustments for inflation appear to be inconsistent in some cases. Additionally, the lawmakers wrote that the opaque methodology for deriving BDD data makes the data nearly impossible to independently replicate and verify.

The letter’s authors — Republican Reps. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, Max Miller of Ohio and Jay Obernolte of California — called on Spinrad to disclose why NOAA connects BDD data and climate change and the scientific basis it has for doing so, as well as for an explanation as to why the agency does not adjust its data for increases in population or wealth.

Roger Pielke Jr., a BDD critic and former environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, raised several of these issues in his own correction request submitted to NOAA in January. In response to his request, NOAA said that it would be taking some steps to improve the BDD data’s transparency.

NOAA referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to the statement it issued upon releasing their response to Pielke’s correction request when contacted for comment for this story. An agency spokesperson added that the agency will respond to the lawmakers’ letter via official channels.

“NOAA notes that the [request for correction (RFC)] did not identify specific data points that need correcting. In conducting its review of the RFC, NOAA has not identified any data inaccuracies in the Billion Dollar Disaster data set,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF regarding Pielke’s correction request. “NOAA has determined the U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data set meets the threshold for influential scientific information (ISI) under NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines. As a result, NOAA will review and update its management practices for the data set.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.