Top physicist on climate change....

[gcthomas]

Is it the one that thinks the men walking in front of the ship are around 6' tall or the one that thinks the men walking in front of the ship are around 3' tall?

The 6' person whose head comes to the top of the draught line when the ship is raised several feet on the wooden structure? Tet claims that line should be ten feet from the keel, which would make that man at the stern at least 13' tall.

 

[tetelestai]

The 6' person whose head comes to the top of the draught line when the ship is raised several feet on the wooden structure? Tet claims that line should be ten feet from the keel, which would make that man at the stern at least 13' tall.

Dimensions of the Gjoa sister ship Far Barcelona:

Date built: 1874
Restored: 1991 -2006
Crew: x
Capacity: 15 pers.
Daytrips: xx pers.
Length: 23.10 m
Draught: 2.96 m
Sail: 362 m2

"Roald Amundsen refurbished one of them, the GJOA 91873"

2.96m = 9.71 feet

SOURCE

 

[annabenedetti]

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

Thank you for the best TOL read I've had in a while now. :chuckle: I'd started following the boat conversation early on, but didn't make it back here to catch up until this morning. Classic.

 

[gcthomas]

Dimensions of the Gjoa sister ship Far Barcelona:

Date built: 1874
Restored: 1991 -2006
Crew: x
Capacity: 15 pers.
Daytrips: xx pers.
Length: 23.10 m
Draught: 2.96 m
Sail: 362 m2

"Roald Amundsen refurbished one of them, the GJOA 91873"

2.96m = 9.71 feet

SOURCE

The last detailed spec you found gave the draught as 7', and the one before that said 10'. That makes THREE definitive draughts for one boat!! Shocking research! They can't all be right, as you've claimed.

The photographs say something different again (remember all the steps?), and I always have had a hankering for reality.

 

[gcthomas]

Thank you for the best TOL read I've had in a while now. :chuckle: I'd started following the boat conversation early on, but didn't make it back here to catch up until this morning. Classic.

It has felt cruel, like ridiculing a child for an innocent mistake. But fun anyway, and better than letting Tet twitter on about the great Jewish conspiracies dominating science across national boundaries and specialisms.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The 6' person whose head comes to the top of the draught line when the ship is raised several feet on the wooden structure? Tet claims that line should be ten feet from the keel, which would make that man at the stern at least 13' tall.

I can only assume from your numbers that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Using a simple photo editor, I can copy the man that is walking in front of the ship and move his image so he looks like he is standing on the bottom beam of the platform the ship is on (even with the bottom of the keel). The top of the man's head never goes higher than the top of the waterline with his feet on the bottom beam.

That means that the total height of the waterline is at least as tall as the man.*

So, either the man and the height of the waterline are both around 3' or the man and the height of the waterline are both around 6'.



* (It is actually a bit taller than the man since perspective makes closer objects appear to be bigger than objects that are far away. Perspective is simple science taught in public school art classes.)

 

[tetelestai]

The last detailed spec you found gave the draught as 7', and the one before that said 10'. That makes THREE definitive draughts for one boat!! Shocking research! They can't all be right, as you've claimed.

All of them were 10' or near 10' except for one that was 7'-7".

The point is that even if the 7'-7" one is correct (giving you the benefit of the doubt), the ship couldn't go through 3 feet of water as you claim.

Here's two more quotes regarding the Gjoa's draft:

"And that he did it in the Gjoa, which had a draft of just over 10 feet."

"The Fox had a draft of 11.5 feet -- scarcely more than the Gjoa."

SOURCE

Here's the deal. The Arctic sea ice declined and recovered a few times before the warming trend in the early 80's.

You guys can't have that, otherwise your hoax falls apart.

There was significant warming in the Arctic in the early 1940's.

The following photo shows the melting of the Norwegian Glacier Mjölkevoldsbreen. The photo on the left is from August 1937 and the photo on the right is from July 1936

 

[User Name]

The OP provided no evidence beyond the inexpert, unsupported opinion of one elderly physicist commenting outside of his area of expertise.

If he was still a member of the UK's learned body, the Institute of Physics, he would be acting against the code of ethics in claiming expertise outside of his experience.

Interestingly, Dyson himself admitted, "I have no credibility...I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert."

 

[gcthomas]

To be honest, Tet, this whole draught thing is pointless for your argument.

The fact that a tiny boat reinforced against the ice succeeded eventually where larger ones failed, and this by navigating close to shore where the ice was thin and the sea very shallow, does not show that there was less is then, now that commercial shipping in the thousands of tonnes displacement can get through the deep water passages.

Your whole premise is bunk. You are a fruit loop conspiracy theorist. And all the rational technical people are laughing at you.

 

[tetelestai]

To be honest, Tet, this whole draught thing is pointless for your argument.

No, it shows that the Arctic had gone through warming and cooling periods.

The following two articles are proof:

The first article from 1946 is titled "Northwest Passage May Be Navigable For Ordinary Ships" HERE

The second article from 2006 is titled "Global Warming May Open Northwest Passage" HERE

They basically say the same thing, except the 1946 article doesn't blame it on "global warming" (Probably because Al Gore wasn't born until 1948)

As documented by the German Naval Command in WWII (and others), the Arctic went through a considerable warming trend during parts of the 1930's and 1940's.

If you remember from earlier in this thread genuineoriginal showed how NASA and NOAA fudged the 1934 USA temperatures. 1934 is still the hottest year on record in the USA, which is when the Arctic ice began to melt, reaching an apex in the mid 1940's.

 

[Stripe]

The OP provided no evidence beyond the inexpert, unsupported opinion of one elderly physicist commenting outside of his area of expertise.

Nope.

His claims were a description of how society gets wrapped up in an idea and ignores science. He gave reasons for his beliefs.

Meanwhile, evolutionists want to talk about something else. His intelligence, the source, imaginary data, boat sizes... anything but the evidence.

 

[annabenedetti]

Nope.

His claims were a description of how society gets wrapped up in an idea and ignores science. He gave reasons for his beliefs.

And he's also an evolutionist. :chuckle:

Meanwhile, evolutionists want to talk about something else. His intelligence, the source, imaginary data, boat sizes... anything but the evidence.

Are you saying that your evolutionist isn't getting enough respect?

 

[tetelestai]

In 2007 the Northwest Passage was ice free. The global alarmists were quick to point this out as there were hundreds of articles about it. Many people planned trips including cruise ships, yachts, etc.

But then something happened that the global warming alarmists didn't plan on. The Northwest Passage became frozen year round again in 2013.

We find the following from a September 2013 article HERE:

"The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back."

 

[User Name]

In 2007 the Northwest Passage was ice free. The global alarmists were quick to point this out as there were hundreds of articles about it. Many people planned trips including cruise ships, yachts, etc.

But then something happened that the global warming alarmists didn't plan on. The Northwest Passage became frozen year round again in 2013.

The Northwest passage has been open for business in recent years during the summer and this includes 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011. However, it was a different story this summer as much of the passage was clogged with ice, according to the NSIDC.

-- http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/update-on-sea-ice-and-the-nort/33520485

 

[tetelestai]

However, it was a different story this summer as much of the passage was clogged with ice, according to the NSIDC.

-- http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/update-on-sea-ice-and-the-nort/33520485

Not that it really matters, but your article is from the summer of 2014, not "this summer".

From the very Liberal Washington Post:

"Commercial traffic hasn’t really increased in the Northwest Passage at all"

 

[tetelestai]

More craziness and false predictions by global warming hoax adherents:

"It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that's when it will happen." - Climate Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, 2011 HERE

You read that correctly, this idiot climate professor actually predicted there would be no ice in the Arctic just 4 years ago.

Yet people keep believing these idiots. I just don't understand believing people who are wrong 100% of the time.

 

[User Name]

More craziness and false predictions by global warming hoax adherents:

"It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that's when it will happen." - Climate Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, 2011 HERE

You read that correctly, this idiot climate professor actually predicted there would be no ice in the Arctic just 4 years ago.

Yet people keep believing these idiots. I just don't understand believing people who are wrong 100% of the time.

Notice that the article you linked to states, "Most models, including the latest estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s," so Prof Wadhams was on his own on that one.

 

[tetelestai]

..suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s,"

When the Arctic ice is still there, or even greater than today in the 2030's, will that convince you that these idiots are wrong all the time?

 

[User Name]

When the Arctic ice is still there, or even greater than today in the 1930's, will that convince you that these idiots are wrong all the time?

Except that they clearly aren't "idiots" (that's just you being offensive), and they aren't "wrong all the time." Yes, a number of them have made extreme weather predictions that thankfully haven't come true, but I gave you an example of a paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 that turned out to be largely accurate in its projections for the future.

 

[tetelestai]

so Prof Wadhams was on his own on that one.

Not really:

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” - Al Gore, 2008

“you can argue that maybe our projection of [an ice-free Arctic by 2013] is already too conservative.” - Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, 2007

"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015". “And it’s probably going to happen even faster than that,” - Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet, 2007

“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions" - NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally, 2007

"We're actually projecting this year [2008] that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time in history" - Professor David Barber, of the University of Manitoba aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker - 2008

“There is a possibility of an ice-free Arctic Ocean for a short period in summer perhaps as early as 2015. This would mean the disappearance of multi-year ice, as no sea ice would survive the summer melt season" - Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report – 2009

“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,” - David Vaughan, Glaciologist & IPCC scientist, 2012

"For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….” - Paul Beckwith Sierra Club, 2013

Why do you keep believing idiots who are wrong 100% of the time?