• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
humdrum

The polar ice caps melted in the year 2000

Recommended Posts

 

The use of nuclear power has many advantages over its alternatives. These include the current cost of the electricity produced, the cleanliness of the plant that is operating normally, the reasonably large reserves of uranium ore, and the enormous reserves of uranium and thorium ores if the breeder reactor is developed. A less well known advantage is the relief from the increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. As the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, the temperature of the earth rises. This process is known as the ?greenhouse effect?. Just as the windows of a greenhouse allow the visible light from the sun to come into the greenhouse, yet retard the loss of heat inside, the layer of CO2 allows visible light from the sun to come through to the earth?s surface, but inhibits the passage of infrared radiation from the earth out into space. The Stanford Research Institute has predicted that at our present pattern of increasing use of fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect will cause the polar icecaps to melt, leading to the flooding of coastal cities by the year 2000.

 Introduction To Computer Simulation: A Systems Dynamics Modeling Approach ? Nancy Roberts, David Andersen, Ralph Deal, Michael Garet, William Shafer ? Addison-Wesley, 1983

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, humdrum said:

 

The use of nuclear power has many advantages over its alternatives. These include the current cost of the electricity produced, the cleanliness of the plant that is operating normally, the reasonably large reserves of uranium ore, and the enormous reserves of uranium and thorium ores if the breeder reactor is developed. A less well known advantage is the relief from the increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. As the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increase, the temperature of the earth rises. This process is known as the ?greenhouse effect?. Just as the windows of a greenhouse allow the visible light from the sun to come into the greenhouse, yet retard the loss of heat inside, the layer of CO2 allows visible light from the sun to come through to the earth?s surface, but inhibits the passage of infrared radiation from the earth out into space. The Stanford Research Institute has predicted that at our present pattern of increasing use of fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect will cause the polar icecaps to melt, leading to the flooding of coastal cities by the year 2000.

 Introduction To Computer Simulation: A Systems Dynamics Modeling Approach ? Nancy Roberts, David Andersen, Ralph Deal, Michael Garet, William Shafer ? Addison-Wesley, 1983

 

Well, we can now sail the Northwest passage.

since 2007

Above seems to be a book, so not peer reviewed literature.

I'd say their conclusion would have been seen as alarmist by science even in 1983.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Predictions should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I've mentioned that there has been zero sea rise in the UK despite predictions of several inches post 2000.

Though bizarrely there does seem to be some rise around Indonesia; though I don't understand how there and not here given that the sea is all joined up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Predictions should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I've mentioned that there has been zero sea rise in the UK despite predictions of several inches post 2000.

Though bizarrely there does seem to be some rise around Indonesia; though I don't understand how there and not here given that the sea is all joined up.

Land masses can sink ..a complete guess

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

"Above seems to be a book, so not peer reviewed literature.

I'd say their conclusion would have been seen as alarmist by science even in 1983."

It is actually a series of research papers collated by various academics and funded by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There is nothing particularly alarmist in the book. It is a solid read and further evidence that most scientists will just go with the flow and collect their grants rather than question the conventional wisdom.

Edited by humdrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Long time lurking said:

Land masses can sink ..a complete guess

No it wasn't that, someone on here did demonstrate it but their name escapes me. I think it was thermal expansion that was happening more in warmer seas and particularly those restricted by land rather than the open ocean.

The south of England is sinking anyway as part of the rebound of the north from the weight of the glaciers but's an incredibly slow process, something like two inches every fifty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Predictions should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I've mentioned that there has been zero sea rise in the UK despite predictions of several inches post 2000.

Though bizarrely there does seem to be some rise around Indonesia; though I don't understand how there and not here given that the sea is all joined up.

You have sea level rise hotspots that are influenced by currents, winds, pressures, subsea sructures, tectonics etc

So, all sorts of reasons, for example the trade winds make sea level heigher in the western Pacific than the eastern pacific, it's the periodic weakening of the winds during an El Nino and the consequent slopping back of the water that has been piled up in the western Pacific that gives the effect seen on Chilean and Peruvian fisheries.

Short explanation of why sea levels are not the same everywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hopeful said:

You have sea level rise hotspots that are influenced by currents, winds, pressures, subsea sructures, tectonics etc

So, all sorts of reasons, for example the trade winds make sea level heigher in the western Pacific than the eastern pacific, it's the periodic weakening of the winds during an El Nino and the consequent slopping back of the water that has been piled up in the western Pacific that gives the effect seen on Chilean and Peruvian fisheries.

Short explanation of why sea levels are not the same everywhere

Thank you @Hopeful you are the resident expert I was trying to recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, humdrum said:

 

"Above seems to be a book, so not peer reviewed literature.

I'd say their conclusion would have been seen as alarmist by science even in 1983."

It is actually a series of research papers collated by various academics and funded by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There is nothing particularly alarmist in the book. It is a solid read and further evidence that most scientists will just go with the flow and collect their grants rather than question the conventional wisdom.

The research papers will have been commissioned for the book. Books and their chapters IMO are not always the same as true peer reviewed literature in real journals.

I agree that there are many scientists who will jump on bandwagons and money likes to reactively jump from hot topic to hot topic,  we are seeing that with plastics at the moment. Plastics are eclipsing all other sciecne, even climate change unfortunately. Ambulance chasers do not mean that the underlying science is flawed, however. Although some of the froth might be. You have to identify the wheat form the chaff.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

The south of England is sinking anyway as part of the rebound of the north from the weight of the glaciers but's an incredibly slow process, something like two inches every fifty years.

So maybe retiring to Dorset is not such a clever idea after all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Indonesians are getting a lot heavier?

:D The North West of the UK should be underwater by now then!

 

22 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

The south of England is sinking anyway as part of the rebound of the north from the weight of the glaciers but's an incredibly slow process, something like two inches every fifty years.

Those clifftop mansions in Cornwall are doomed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

You have sea level rise hotspots that are influenced by currents, winds, pressures, subsea sructures, tectonics etc

So, all sorts of reasons, for example the trade winds make sea level heigher in the western Pacific than the eastern pacific, it's the periodic weakening of the winds during an El Nino and the consequent slopping back of the water that has been piled up in the western Pacific that gives the effect seen on Chilean and Peruvian fisheries.

Short explanation of why sea levels are not the same everywhere

I`m sure i have read barometric pressure and the effect on sea level is almost a 1to 1 ratio as 1mb =1cm  high pressure gives a lower sea level low pressure higher 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, humdrum said:

So maybe retiring to Dorset is not such a clever idea after all?

It does make those valuations for the low lying spit of sand that is Sandbanks look reckless.

3 minutes ago, swissy_fit said:

:D The North West of the UK should be underwater by now then!

 

Those clifftop mansions in Cornwall are doomed....

Sensible people like me live somewhere sheltered from the wind and waves; that is unless we get that Canaries tidal wave in which case I may be getting my feet wet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

Predictions should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

Is that what did for the ice caps then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

Don't laugh, this could actually happen 

 

 

I'm not sure how that can happen on a flat Earth, unless Guam is at the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

im still puting my money on polar bears outlasting pandas,

Probably, pandas are shit*.

 

* I thought about saying evolutionary dead end, but shit covers it much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.