Top physicist on climate change....

[ClimateSanity]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Source.

Your Wikipedia source says nothing about a 97% consensus among climatologists that the majority of warming is manmade. It also says nothing about any consensus among all scientists nor about any quantity of warming due to man. It turns out you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Quetzal]

Have you read the report by Zbigniew Jaworowski?

CO₂: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF)

I haven't, I would like to read through it but I can't at the moment. Will get back to this post in a bit.

 

[Quetzal]

Your Wikipedia source says nothing about a 97% consensus among climatologists that the majority of warming is manmade. It also says nothing about any consensus among all scientists nor about any quantity of warming due to man. It turns out you don't know what you are talking about.

You said there was no consensus. You are incorrect.

 

[tetelestai]

Still doesn't look like a ten foot draught.

It doesn't matter what it "looks like", it matters what the actual dimension is.

I think your Wikipedia source for the draught (spell it right!) was wrong. Don't trust Wikipedia, Tet. :wave:

It's not from Wikipedia, it's from google.

I don't live in the UK, we spell it "draft" over here.

Since you have no explanation for how the Gjoa did what it did in 1903, there are plenty of other voyages that support my claim, and prove you wrong.

Next, I will show that the German submarine U-435 was able to navigate through ice free waters north of the 81st Parallel in August 1942.

Submarine commander Kapitänleutnant S. Strelow documented the journey that took place north of Svalbard.

The U-435 will once again prove that ice conditions in the Arctic in the 1930's and 1940's were no different than they were in 2007.

Thus proving once again that global warming is a hoax

 

[annabenedetti]

Nope. Evidence, remember? You stormed into this thread

He "stormed" into this thread? :chuckle:

with nothing but nonsense and when called on it turned to hostility and mockery.

You mean like this?

You couldn't understand that?

:darwinsm:

:mock: User.

:mock: Evolutionists.

​

 

[ClimateSanity]

I haven't, I would like to read through it but I can't at the moment. Will get back to this post in a bit.

There is no consensus for all the things you are claiming is true. You make claims and then say a consensus agreed with you with no basis at all. There is a consensus among climatologists that most of the recent warming is PROBABLY due to man. That's all you got...nothing regarding everything you claim on Herr is true

 

[Quetzal]

There is no consensus for all the things you are claiming is true.

Yes, there is. Don't get me wrong, it isn't 100% unanimous. There are outliers in either direction. However, there is a very very strong majority that agree. Science is all about theories and probabilities, you are right. This is not a certainty. I accept that.

 

[gcthomas]

It doesn't matter what it "looks like", it matters what the actual dimension is.

So you are fine with the fact that the boat is a lot shallower than you claimed: photographic evidence doesn't convince you but Wikipedka does.

It's not from Wikipedia, it's from google.

I guessed you'd say that. Perhaps you might want to do the search again, and have a look at the source of Google's data. (I'll give you a clue. W*******a)

I don't live in the UK, we spell it "draft" over here.

OK.

Since you have no explanation for how the Gjoa did what it did in 1903, there are plenty of other voyages that support my claim, and prove you wrong.

I keep telling you, but you don't want to hear. The photo proves that Wikipedia/Google have mistakenly given the keel-gunwale height in place of the draught. Gjøa was a very shallow draught boat.

 

[gcthomas]

You do know you just claimed a ship 70 feet long, 20 feet wide with a draft of 10 feet, an engine and fuel, a crew of 6 men, and enough supplies for five years could navigate through water 1 meter deep?

People who make such foolish claims really shouldn't be calling other people "jesters".

Now that I've shown you irrefutable photographic evidence to show that your adherence to Wikipedia/Google's unverified 'data' was a mistake, are you going to do the honorable thing and take back your unwise criticisms?

(Or should I take your sudden abandonment of the thread as an acquiescence? :up: In which case, thank you for your belated honesty.)

 

[tetelestai]

Now that I've shown you irrefutable photographic evidence to show that your adherence to Wikipedia/Google's unverified 'data' was a mistake, are you going to do the honorable thing and take back your unwise criticisms?

(Or should I take your sudden abandonment of the thread as an acquiescence? :up: In which case, thank you for your belated honesty.)

You provided a photo of some girls in the foreground of the ship uphill from the ship.

I provided a photo of men standing right next to the ship.

Google/Wikipedia says the ship had a draft of 9'-10"

A book titled "Ships of Discovery and Exploration" HERE says the Gjoa had a draft of 7'-7"

So, you have given nothing "irrefutable". What you have done is failed to explain how not only the Gjoa, but how other ships were able to navigate the Northwest passage from 1853 - 1940.

As I pointed out earlier, the U-435 voyage from WWII is another example that proves the global warming hoax wrong.

Here is a photo and a map of the U-435's voyage:

 

[gcthomas]

You provided a photo of some girls in the foreground of the ship uphill from the ship.

I provided a photo of men standing right next to the ship.

Google/Wikipedia says the ship had a draft of 9'-10"

A book titled "Ships of Discovery and Exploration" HERE says the Gjoa had a draft of 7'-7"

I see your mistake. The book gives an L/B/D set of dimensions of the ship (D = 2.3 m).

Unfortunately, in Naval Engineering the terms L, B, D stand for length, breadth, depth, where depth is depth from the uppermost deck.
See here, for example. It is an easy mistake to make, especially for those without an engineering background.

Incidentally, the source of my 1 m depth claim is the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London, not some unattributes Wiki/Google stat (glad you've recanted on the data source, eventually! )

And that fits with the photo (the woman was NOT on a distant hill, but on the edge of the dry dock about 3 metres from the ship) and your L/B/D measurements. (You must really need the draught to be 7' not 3', since that proves AGW is a hoax, doesn't it? :chuckle

 

[tetelestai]

I see your mistake.

There is no mistake. You are wrong.

And that fits with the photo (the woman was NOT on a distant hill, but on the edge of the dry dock about 3 metres from the ship)

In the following photo, the set of stairs next to the ship is over 16' high. Zoom in and count the number of steps.

Spoiler

 

[tetelestai]

I see your mistake.

More proof you are wrong.

Another picture showing steps to the ship.

In the following picture it is very easy to count the steps, there are 24 steps. In the USA the building code for rise on steps is 7.5". Some sets of stairs that are older have a rise of close to 9". Assuming the steps have a rise close to 7.5", that equals a height of 15 feet from the ground. Since the ship is sitting on skids that are about 3', that puts the height around 12 feet.

 

[gcthomas]

There is no mistake. You are wrong.

In the following photo, the set of stairs next to the ship is over 16' high. Zoom in and count the number of steps.

Did you notice the low grass bank just beyond the ship? You know, the one where my photo had that woman standing?

(You forgot to give the source for your made up stat about the alleged height of the steps.)

To answer the question:
So there are ~18 steps from keel to deck level (as seen from the drainage slot). At 5" per step, that makes, hmmm, 7' 5" or 2.2 m. Pretty close to the 7' 7" / 2.3 m depth figure you found earlier. (The draught is of course, much less than this.)

(As part of the EU internal market, the regulation optimum public step height is 15cm (6") with a maximum of 18cm. 6" gives a full side depth of 9')

 

[gcthomas]

More proof you are wrong.

Another picture showing steps to the ship.

In the following picture it is very easy to count the steps, there are 24 steps. In the USA the building code for rise on steps is 7.5". Some sets of stairs that are older have a rise of close to 9". Assuming the steps have a rise close to 7.5", that equals a height of 15 feet from the ground. Since the ship is sitting on skids that are about 3', that puts the height around 12 feet.

The gunwale makes up one quarter of the side depth, so take off a quarter and you get 9'. Reduce a little more due to the excessively high step rise, and you are down to less than 8'.

If you start counting steps from when they are level with the keel, and stop level with the deck (at the top of the oak coloured planking) you have 13 steps. At a maximum of 7" per step that makes 7' 7". Spot on the side-depth figure you supplied. :thumbs:

(A 7.5"step rise would exceed the legal limit in Norway. The ship is not in the US.)

 

[tetelestai]

If you start counting steps from when they are level with the keel, and stop level with the deck (at the top of the oak coloured planking) you have 13 steps. At a maximum of 7" per step that makes 7' 7". Spot on the side-depth figure you supplied. :thumbs:

(A 7.5"step rise would exceed the legal limit in Norway. The ship is not in the US.)

Are you this stubborn, or really dense?

What is the legal tread depth in Norway? In the USA it's 11".

There are 24 steps. If each tread is 11" that means if you were to plum down to the ground from the top step the horizontal measurement to the base of the steps would be 22 feet.

If that distance is 22 feet, I suggest you refresh yourself with the Pythagorean Theorem.

 

[gcthomas]

I'm nearly done here. Go on - count the steps from level with the keel to the base of the gunwale (no guessing other heights). DO the calculation with those figures, to get the depth. Look at the photo of the woman who must be at least 11' tall on your figures. Follow the links to the L/B/D stats explanation. Look up stair step rise regulations in Europe if you must.

But although I have given up on you, no-one has intervened in the last day, not even Knight who said that your questions about how such a boat could navigate the NW Passage should be answered. And answered they have been, much to the amusement and enjoyment of others, if the pos reps are to be trusted.

I'll leave you now to your conspiracy theories about climate change. Enjoy.

Ta ra.

:wave:

 

[tetelestai]

Please take notice of the ladder lying next to the ship.

There are roughly 12" between ladder rungs. The ladder next to the ship has 11 spaces between the rungs.

Therefore, if that ladder is around 11 feet, and we use it as a baseline, once again you are wrong.

 

[tetelestai]

But although I have given up on you, no-one has intervened in the last day, not even Knight who said that your questions about how such a boat could navigate the NW Passage should be answered.

You have given up because you have no answer.

The only answer you attempted was to falsely claim the ship was really small and navigated next to the shore.

You were proven wrong, and now that you have been proven wrong, you have no other explanation as to how this wooden ship was able to navigate the Northwest Passage in 1903.

Once again, the global warming hoax is shown for what it is....a big hoax.

 

[gcthomas]

Please take notice of the ladder lying next to the ship.

There are roughly 12" between ladder rungs. The ladder next to the ship has 11 spaces between the rungs.

Therefore, if that ladder is around 11 feet, and we use it as a baseline, once again you are wrong.

OK, another photo analysis - can't resist.

On my screen, the ladder (assume 11' as you suggest) is 58 mm long. The camera is shooting at an angle of approx 45º, so the perpendicular length of the ladder is 58 mm / sin(45º) = 82 mm.
The side depth from the keel to the level of the top deck is, level with the far end of the ladder, 60 mm. 60/82 × 11' = 8', give or take, leaving a draught of 3-4'.

So your point is?