[awakened53]

What a load of BOLLOCKS: Climate change could ground Britain’s WARSHIPS: Rising sea temperatures will act as a ‘thermal blanket’ and cause engines to cut out, Ministry of Defence warns

Rising sea temperatures as a result of climate change could cause the engines of British warships to fail, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has warned.
During a ‘Defence and Climate Change’ presentation held by the Defence Committee yesterday, Lt Gen Richard Nugee, who offers guidance to the MoD on making defence more sustainable, said that warmer waters could act as a ‘thermal blanket’.
Ships generally rely on the cold seas to cool their engines, and therefore they ‘might have a problem’ if global warming raises the water temperature.
‘Ship captains were saying to me that the engines have the potential to cut out with the surface sea temperature it is today, let alone at 38 to 40 degrees,’ Lt Gen Nugee said.
‘So there’s something that we need to understand and we need to do something about to make sure that our engines can cope with that sort of water.’
A World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Report published in May found that ocean heat had reached a record high in 2021.
Professor Albert Klein Tank, the director of the UK’s Met Office for Climate Science and Services, said: ‘Around 90 per cent of the heat from climate change is accumulated in the ocean and last year’s record signals that climate change is progressing.’
A study from the University of Exeter and the University of Brest also warned that the ‘deep ocean’ could warm by a further 0.36°F (0.2°C) in the next 50 years.
Deep ocean is defined as water more than 2,300ft (700m) below the surface, and is what stores most of the heat humans have produced since the Industrial Revolution.
Extreme marine heat is now being described as ‘the new normal’, as more than half of the surface of the world’s oceans have experienced it since 2014.
Lt Gen Nugee is a retired senior British Army officer and the Lead of the Ministry of Defence’s 2021 Climate Change and Sustainability Review.
During yesterday’s session, he warned that Britain’s seaports could end up underwater if we experience ‘even 1.5°C degrees’ of warming.
The goal of limiting global warming to 2.7°F (1.5°C) was part of the Paris Agreement, which was signed in 2014 by 193 states plus the European Union.
The MoD’s climate adviser claimed that if both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets were to melt, sea levels could rise by 33 feet (10 metres).

Read More: Climate change could ground Britain’s WARSHIPS

[awakened53]

Net Zero Promoters “Have No Idea What They Are Doing” Over Multi-Trillion Dollar Battery Costs, says New Report

Evidence grows by the day that the Net Zero fantasy is a societal and economic disaster waiting to happen. Not only is it based on the giant propaganda lie of ‘settled’ science, but it is almost laughably unaffordable. On just one level around the storage of ‘green’ energy, a new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is scathing. Noting a “heads-in-the sand” approach by politicians, it says that “one would have to conclude that the entire effort is either wholly unserious or breathtakingly incompetent”.
For just one country alone, Germany, fully replacing natural gas back-up with battery storage “is a multi-trillion dollar project, likely costing a multiple of the country’s GDP, and thus completely infeasible”. Across the globe, existing plans to store energy, vital since wind and solar are highly intermittent, are producing only a “tiny fraction” of the capacity that will be required to avoid electricity blackouts. “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the people planning the Net Zero transition “have no idea what they are doing”, states the report.
Read more: Net Zero Promoters “Have No Idea What They Are Doing” Over Multi-Trillion Dollar Battery Costs, says New Report

[awakened53]

The Mirror Makes Ludicrous Claim That Large Parts of England Will Be Under Water By 2100

The Great Climate Flood Sting has hooked another big media fish. Recently the Mirror informed its bewildered, if rapidly vanishing, readers that much of London could be gone within 80 years, while large areas along the Humber and the Midlands could also disappear beneath the waves. Mirror reporter Sam Elliott-Gibbs notes the existence of “terrifying new maps” of the U.K. that predict towns and cities “will be vanishing into the sea”. Regular readers of the Daily Sceptic might already be observing the handiwork of Climate Central, a green billionaire-backed activist operation that specialises in custom-made flood catastrophes, usually aimed at local media.
Elliott-Gibbs informs his readers that the situation is bleak for many along the Humber – including Hull – “as the area becomes totally flooded, with a large portion of the Midlands submerged as well”. The Mirror prints a “terrifying” map showing water lapping Peterborough. The current annual rate of sea level rise is estimated by the U.S. weather service NOAA’s Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry to be 3.1 mm, with a 13% margin of error. Hull is four metres above sea level, so at the current rise it would take 1,290 years to be “totally flooded”. At eight metres above sea level, the current rise would leave Peterborough free of water for nearly three millennia.
These ludicrous forecasts, based partly on improbably high temperature increases, assume a sea level rise over 30 times faster than it is now. Elliott-Gibbs presses on: “If the sea level matches current forecasts, then other parts of the country could be in big trouble.” Coastal towns in Hampshire, Essex, Sussex and Kent are all said to be at serious risk. The bigger picture doesn’t escape the Mirror either. Belgium, Germany, Northern France and half of the Netherlands “are expected to be underwater by 2100”.
Climate Central is a well-funded green agitprop operation based in Princeton, New Jersey that provided the material for the Mirror story. Elliott-Gibbs obligingly notes that Climate Central “provides authoritative information to help the public and policymakers make sound decisions about climate and energy”. Meanwhile, the operation claims to work with news outlets, “to produce compelling and scientifically accurate feature stories”. On the flood stories, it supplies a free interactive map and web tools that are often used by local media to produce customised catastrophe copy.
Earlier this year, the Wiltshire Times reported that vast areas of south-west England could be under water by 2050 due to global warming. Among the sites that could be lost is Gloucester Cathedral, sited at an elevation of 19 metres. Last year, the Dorset Echo informed its readers that the waters would soon be lapping around the village of Lytchett Minster, a mere 17 metres above sea level.

Read More: The Mirror Makes Ludicrous Claim That Large Parts of England Will Be Under Water 

[awakened53]

See where it’s going? UK Government Report demands closure of all airports by 2050 to meet ‘Climate Change’ Targets & fuels fears of ‘Climate Lockdowns’

A sinister report conducted by Oxford University and Imperial College London for the UK government has outlined some drastic measures that may need to be taken in order to achieve the legal commitment of zero emissions by 2050.
According to the report, all airports in the UK, with the exception of Heathrow, Glasgow, and Belfast, will be required to close between 2020 and 2029.
These three airports will only be allowed to remain open if all transfers to and from the airport are done via rail. All remaining airports must then close between 2030 and 2049. In order to meet this legal commitment, the report states that every citizen of the United Kingdom will need to “stop using aeroplanes” for a significant period of time.

Read more: See where it’s going? UK Government Report demands closure of all airports by 2050 to meet ‘Climate Change’ Targets & fuels fears of ‘Climate Lockdowns’

[Steve]

European Union Reaches Agreement to Force Everyone in EU Countries to Pay for CO2 Emissions – First Step of Personal Carbon Credit System

…everyone in European Union countries will have to pay for CO2 emissions. The funds will then be used to tackle climate change.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12...it-system/

[Steve]

The 97 Percent Consensus Myth Revisited

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/video...revisited/

[awakened53]

The Green Energy Fraud

Many people now buy what they believe is ‘green energy’. They claim the electricity they use has all been created with the aid of windmills and solar panels. Sadly, this is an utter nonsense, and the smug individuals who claim that their laptops and television sets and tumble driers and heating systems are all run with the aid of electricity obtained from renewable sources are deluded.
All the electricity in the UK comes from the National Grid which obtains most of its electricity from fossil fuels. A very small part of it comes from solar panels and wind farms but most electricity comes from burning coal, diesel, gas and wood.
(It is widely believed in the West that coal is yesterday’s fuel. This is a colossal myth. In South Africa, coal still provides 85% of the country’s electricity and China has recently been building coal fired electricity generating plants as though there were a competition to see which country could burn more coal which, for all I know, there may well be. And, of course, the UK Government recently approved a new coal mine.)
And here’s the clever bit: governments everywhere have decided that gas and wood should be redefined as renewable or ‘green’ sources of energy.
The real irony is that most of the electricity obtained from so-called renewable energy sources comes from burning wood pellets. And the wood pellets come from trees in America. The trees have to be chopped down and turned into wood pellets. The wood pellets then have to be loaded onto diesel powered lorries and taken to a port where they were loaded onto a diesel powered ship and carried across the Atlantic. The whole process uses up far more energy than is produced and is incredibly wasteful. But politicians, journalists and those responsible for selling the wood pellets have succeeded in convincing a very gullible public that this is a `green’ source of energy since trees can, in theory at least, be considered ‘renewable’.

Read More: The Green Energy Fraud

[awakened53]

Elite Billionaire Foundations Fund Wave of Green Climate Propaganda Flooding into British Schools


Climate change misinformation is flooding into British schools, funded, it would appear, by the dark green money of elite billionaire foundations. Schoolchildren are encouraged to plot implausible temperatures rises of 11°C, taught that alkaline oceans are ‘acidic’ and encouraged to write letters to policymakers claiming “our house is on fire” in the style of Greta Thunberg.

The material is being distributed around schools by a London-based operation called Climate Science. An introductory video says its mission is to bring “high quality climate education to every school, company and individual in the world”. Such aims of course do not come cheap. Among the lobby group’s “partners, supporters and friends” are green activist funders such as Schmidt Futures – the family foundation of former Google boss Eric Schmidt – and the Grantham Institute at Imperial – partly funded by green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.

Give me the child until seven, and I will give you the man, said Aristotle, a phrase understood down the ages, not least by the Jesuit Christian order. Blind faith is more readily accepted by minds whose critical faculties have not been fully developed. And there are few ideas in today’s climate political agenda that require more faith than the forecasts of climate models. How exactly do we know about future climate change and the frequency of extreme weather events, asks Climate Science. “It’s all down to climate models,” is the answer, adding: It’s “pretty cool” to get a glimpse of a potential future, isn’t it?

The school briefing notes suggest that climate models “have been used to make accurate projections for the past 50 years, and have advanced significantly during this time”. Of course, as we have seen in the Daily Sceptic, those “accurate projections” do not apply to temperature forecasts. In fact, it would more accurate to say that they have never produced an accurate forecast in 50 years of trying. Far from becoming more accurate, they are becoming almost laughably inaccurate.

The above graph was produced in a recent paper by the physicist Nicola Scafetta. It analysed 38 of the main models and found that most had overestimated global warming over the last 40 years. Many of them should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”, he concluded. The thick green line shows the actual temperature measured by accurate satellite recordings. Interestingly, the models started to go haywire at a time when the warming scare was gaining political traction and critical debate on the science started to be discouraged. The World Climate Declaration has been signed by almost 300 university professors, led by a Nobel physics laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the Declaration. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”

[b]Read More: Elite Billionaire Foundations Fund Wave of Green Climate Propaganda Flooding into British Schools[/b]

[awakened53]

Are We Really At War? Nonsensical Sustainable Development—Part 1

 Rosatom simply flew in nuclear energy components and fuel supplies to the EU, the US and other NATO aligned states.
Rosatom is more than just a Russian state nuclear energy corporation. It also has a national security role. The Rosatom nuclear weapons complex is responsible for the development, production and maintenance of Russian nuclear weapons. Rosatom is also a key component of the Russian government's unyielding efforts to tackle climate change and to fully engage in Agenda 2030 sustainable development.

Evidently, then, although Prime Minister Rishi Sunak calls Russia a "rogue state" and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly accuses the Russian Government of committing "atrocities”, that is no impediment to the UK Government working closely with Rosatom's commercial partners. The UK Government hasn't applied any pressure on its own partners to break these strategic relationships with Rosatom. In continuing its commercial and industrial partnerships, the UK Government is unavoidably contributing towards Russia's nuclear weapons programme and its economy.

This is not to suggest that the UK Government wants to support Russia's nuclear weapons development or assist it to overcome the sanctions; only that the nature of its public-private partnerships renders it incapable of doing otherwise—leaving it to spout nothing but hypocritical balderdash on the international stage.

Equally, Putin’s assurances to the Russian people ring hollow. In his New Year address, he said Russians were “fighting for their homeland, for truth and justice, for reliable guarantees of peace and Russia’s security.” Meanwhile the state-owned Rosatom, through its partnerships with companies like Siemens and EDF, is bolstering NATO aligned and EU economies, and thus governments. The same governments then supply the weapons that kill Russian soldiers.  

Both the UK and Russian governments, as much as any other, are part of the global public-private partnership, alongside Rosatom, EDF and Rolls-Royce. All are equally committed to sustainable development, and this obviously takes precedence over any claimed animosity.

It seems, then, that the West, including all NATO-aligned governments, and the Russian state are arch-enemies, except when they're not. Disagreement appears to be restricted to the Ukraine conflict, but only where it is affordable. In every other regard, the supposed adversaries are in absolute agreement and working together to address the big global issues while continuing to support each other's economies.

 

Nuclear Nonsense

While the UK AMRs are very much in the concept phase, the UK-SMR consortium is close to production. Rolls-Royce, which heads the UK-SMR projects, has already selected three potential manufacturing sites for the "modular" nuclear reactor components. Like the Russian SMRs, though a different design is used, the British SMRs are based upon naval technology and can be assembled on site from factory-made kits.

The Russian operational SMRs are currently sited on barges and are primarily used as industrial power plants for large-scale infrastructure projects, in particular the construction of the Arctic Silk Road. Earlier this year, China became the first country in the world to bring a commercial onshore SMR online. Situated in the Shidao Bay nuclear plant complex, it uses a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) to heat helium to then drive the turbines that generate electricity.

According to the UK Government, the possible future development of AMRs, and the more realistic near deployment of SMRs, will help the UK to "decarbonise" its economy. This notwithstanding, there appears, looking beyond the UK's industry, to be a rather large shortfall in the total energy generation proposed.

Referring to "renewable energy" (excluding nuclear) as "low-carbon technologies", the Government's AMR R&D Phase A report notes:

The UK’s Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy highlights that the majority (70%) of the UK industrial energy demand is for heat. [. . .] there is currently no cost-effective technology solution for the decarbonisation of industrial heat. Hence, HMG aims to develop and demonstrate AMRs by the early 2030s so that they can be a viable cost-effective technology solution option (alongside other low-carbon technologies) for decarbonising industrial heat, and potentially for cost-competitive electricity generation.

To be clear, only nuclear power can possibly replace the "heat energy" that industry currently gets from so-called fossil fuels. Other sources, such as hydrogen, could do it, but sufficient energy is needed to manufacture the hydrogen in the first place. Nuclear is the only viable "low-carbon" option for the scale of hydrogen production required. Claims that natural gas can be used to generate the hydrogen cannot be considered a “low-carbon” solution. It is, however, being touted as such. This is yet more nonsense and we will return to it in Part 2.

In its self-professed Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy, the UK Government demands of the private sector:

We want to provide a clear signal to industry, setting out how we expect decarbonisation will happen through the sector.

The Government might as well provide clear signals about how it expects industry to turn lead into gold. While it is theoretically possible to achieve this "ambitious target", there isn't any actual sign of it happening.

If we really are going to switch to "low-carbon" energy generation, then SMRs are, at least, a more practical proposition than wind or solar power. The proposed design will generate around 470 megawatts. To generate the same from a wind farm would require roughly 10,000 times the acreage, and the figure would be at least 1,000 times for an equivalent solar farm. However, as we noted previously, the energy from such "renewables" is sporadic and needs to be stored somehow for it to be of any practical use.

To date, the UK hasn't built any SMRs. Speaking at the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Tom Samson, CEO of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:

[. . .] we believe the first unit will be on the grid probably in the early 2030s. [. . .] We looked at the NDA [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority] estate and other nuclear sites that are designated for large gigawatt or are under EDF, Chinese or French control, which could readily be deployed as nuclear sites for SMR. Within that existing footprint, there is enough space to accommodate all of the 24 GW that we would need from nuclear by 2050.

Assuming that UK industrial energy requirements don't increase markedly over the next three decades, SMRs could certainly contribute towards the "decarbonisation" of British industry. While Samson's statement suggests that the UK-SMR consortium envisage the construction of around 40 or more SMRs by 2050, he also notes that none will be ready for 2030, with perhaps one or possibly two completed by 2035.

A terawatt is one trillion watts, equating to to 1000 GW (gigawatts). That amount of output is expressed in terawatt hours (TWh) when referring to the equivalent generated heat energy required by UK industry.

According to government statistics, the UK's industrial demand for energy in 2021 decreased as a result of the pseudopandemic shutdown. Nonetheless, British industry used the equivalent of 95 TWh of natural gas and around 110 TWh of electricity, in addition to the oil, coal and renewable energy it required.

There are 8,760 hours in a year; therefore, an SMR, running at full capacity and maximum efficiency for one year, could generate up to 4 TWh. The capacity factor is the difference between a power station's theoretical maximum and achievable output. The capacity factor of SMRs is as high as 75%. So the proposed SMRs could generate the equivalent of 3 TWh (a year).

The Government has already admitted that the "low-carbon technologies" (renewable energy) needed to meet the UK's industrial energy requirements don't in any practical sense exist, so how does it expect this decarbonisation alchemy to take place? We are told:

[. . .] emissions will need to reduce by at least two-thirds by 2035 and by at least 90% by 2050, with 3 MtCO2 captured through Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) and around 20 TWh switching to low carbon fuels by 2030.

A target of increasing the UK's industrial reliance upon "low-carbon" energy by 20 TWh by 2030 represents less than a 9% shift. This doesn't come close to "reducing emissions by at least two-thirds by 2035".

Lets forget about the additional energy that UK industry currently gleans from oil, coal and renewables, and assume that it only requires the 205 TWh which it presently derives from gas and electricity—regardless of how that electricity is generated. To match that alone, the UK would need to construct at least 69 SMRs. 

To achieve the 20 TWh switchover by 2030, it will need at least 6 operational SMRs. It won't have any.

So the 20 TWh from "low-carbon energy" by 2030 isn't going to come from SMRs or other sources of nuclear power generation. The Government appears to be suggesting that this input will come from "renewable energy", which it has already ruled out due to its inability to provide the energy intensity needed for UK industry. The Government's expectations seem fanciful.

We also need to generate energy for domestic use: charging the future EV fleet, for example. Bearing in mind that the UK hasn't even built the factories to make the SMRs yet, the prospect of any "decarbonisation" of the UK economy using "advanced nuclear" solutions seems extremely remote.

To put this in perspective, Rolls-Royce says that one SMR can power a city the size of Leeds. With a population of just over half a million people, Leeds is the UK's eighth largest city. If we use population as a yardstick—as Rolls-Royce has—then Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield and Glasgow will each need at least one SMR. Birmingham will require two to three SMRs, and London will need around 17. A total of around 25 SMRs will be required just for the country's eight largest conurbations.

If we then take the remaining 992 of the UK's thousand largest towns and cities, around another 200 SMRs should do the job. With the 50 or more required to "decarbonise" UK industry, 275 would appear to be the minimum requirement by 2050. 

Of course, the Government is not claiming that nuclear power can generate all of the UK's required energy. But at the moment, its ambition of generating just 24 GW from nuclear by 2050 looks like a pipedream.

The clue of how this magical emission transition is supposed to occur comes with the above-mentioned "3 MtCO2 [three million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide] captured through Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS)”. That is to say that the initial planned reduction in emissions was set to be achieved by not reducing them by three million metric tonnes by 2030. However, as the plan stands today, the objective is not to reduce emissions by 20–30 million metric tonnes (MtCO2) by 2030.

If the above paragraph makes no sense, don't be surprised. Nothing about the net-zero "low-carbon" energy transition makes sense.
That whimsy is something we'll explore in Part 2.

[Steve]

Greta Thunberg deletes ‘end of the world’ tweet

 The climate campaigner claimed in 2018 that humanity had until this year to prevent its doom


Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has deleted a 2018 tweet in which she shared a warning that climate change “will wipe out all of humanity” unless fossil fuels were abolished by 2023. 
In the tweet, Thunberg quoted a “top climate scientist” as saying that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”
It is unclear when the self-described “autistic climate justice activist” deleted the tweet, but its removal was first noticed by US conservative pundit Jack Posobiec on Saturday. The website her tweet linked to no longer exists.
 
Thunberg herself did not reply to Posobiec, and a host of right-wing commentators chimed in to remind her that the world, in fact, still exists.
“Greta Thunberg deleted this tweet because it exposes her for being a fraud,” US conservative activist Brigitte Gabriel tweeted. “Make sure the entire world sees it.”
Thunberg may not have been predicting the end of humanity in 2023. As some commenters pointed out, she may have been claiming that the human race faced extinction at some undetermined point in the future if fossil fuels weren’t eliminated by this year. 
 
https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/climat...rld-tweet/

https://www.rt.com/news/572871-greta-thu...tes-tweet/