• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About maggie40738

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

2,828 profile views

  2. Rules Question for Start

    JohnMB nailed it. Whole boat must go back. If you want to try this it's important to realize that an OCS boat returning to the start must stay clear of boats that have already started. Also note that if you know you're over early you must either go back or retire. A few years ago a boat with a throw-out to burn in a series purposely started OCS so that he could camp on his rival and proceeded to close cover his rival the entire first leg. He was DSQ'd for violating rule 2.

    No doubt. Paleoclimate data indicates that there are indeed significant non-linearities in the historical climate record. In particular the non-linear transitions between the Ice ages and interglacials. If there is to be a non-linear increase in sea level, what could the cause be? Let's consider the potential sources of sea level rise: thermal expansion and ice melt. A temperature increase of 3 degrees will cause a thermal expansion sea level rise of 17 cm. Thermal expansion can cause annoyance flooding, but it simply cannot cause the catastrophic "Florida is submerged" sea level rise National Geo warns. For the National Geo scenario to occur ice melt must dominate. The vast majority of the world's ice is trapped in the center of Antarctica with the only other source of significance being Greenland. Eastern Antarctica, where the ice is, is really cold. The high annual temperature at Vostok station is -31 degrees C. If Antarctica warmed by 10 degrees, way more than predicted by IPCC, the warmest day of the year would be -20 degrees C. Ice doesn't melt at -20 degrees C. As long as the continent is located at the south pole that ice is never going to melt. The only way the bulk of the Antarctic ice is going to melt is if plate tectonics moves the continent north. The only other significant source of ice, Greenland, is actually accumulating more ice mass http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/. The annual high temperature in the center of Greenland, which is where the ice is, -10 C. Just like Antarctica, even with a warm up of 10 degrees the Greenland Ice Cap stays frozen. Bottom line, while Sea Ice, the Palmer Peninsula glaciers and the coastal Greenland glaciers would be impacted by a 2-3 degree warm up. The ice required to produce more than a meter or two of sea level rise is staying put. The National Geo picture was a misleading lie.

    We agree on the difficulty on modeling clouds and the Albedo effect. I'll take a look at Trenberth. Thank you. Thank you for the Charney reference. If I understand correctly Charney states that a doubling of CO2 will cause in increase of 3 degrees C (+- 1.5 degrees). When Charney was published CO2 was at ~ 335 ppm, since then it has increased to ~410 ppm, an increase of 22%. If Charney's increase is proportional, then we should have seen about 0.6 degrees in temperature increase, which is close to what the data shows. So, I would agree that Charney's prediction is, so far, correct. Given the current rate of CO2 increase it will take about 220 years for Charney's 3.0 degree increase to take effect. Why do the IPCC assessments warn us of 4-6 degree warming by 2100 when Charney predicts that the temperature increase will be much less. Regarding the GISS temperature data. The data set I posted was satellite data of the lower troposphere from NOAA, and it is up to date. The GISS data you posted is based upon ground observations. Interesting how the lower troposphere data does not correlate with the GISS dataset. Why is that do you think? Could it be that the increase in urban heat islands is biasing the ground-based data?

    JohnMB, With respect, I don't think this is true. It is a fairly straight forward experiment to show that, for a given amount of solar flux, a layer of CO2 traps black body IR radiation which then causes an increase in the body's temperature. Not only can this be shown in a small scale but there are also (IPCC referenced) papers that correlate CO2 measurements, downward flux and reflected IR radiation that provide evidence that this happens on a planetary scale.

    Not assuming anything. Just looking at the data. Since they started using satellites to measure sea level (circa 1979) the increase has been strikingly linear at roughly 3.2mm/yr.

    ajbram, I think you mis-interpreted the quote. Earlier I wrote that, like you, I too am a scientist. As a scientist did you really think I would be appealing to a religious authority as part of my argument? What do you think the quote, "In God we trust, all others bring data" means? The quote is from a engineer/businessman to junior staff (either Deming or George Box, depending upon who you believe first said it). The quote was an instruction to his staff that meant: "unless you are God, and you aren't, bring some data to support your your claims". I included the quote as a cautionary note to both sides of the debate. Unless your view is ordained by God, and it isn't, show me some data to back up your claims. I'll add another relevant quote into the mix. This one is definitely from George Box: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Box was a world class statistician that used this quote to caution his fellow statisticians to make sure they understood the uncertainty in their models and the impact that uncertainty had on their conclusions. This too should be a cautionary note for both sides of the global warming argument. Over-trust in ones models is risky until you have empirical evidence to back up your conclusions. Box's quote relates to Huff, who in his book "How to lie with statistics" said, "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything". If you're not familiar with it check out: Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998), "Confirmation Bias; A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises", Review of General Psychology, Educational Publishing Foundation. 2 (2): 175–220. Nickerson discusses confirmation bias in science as well as other fields. What do you think? Is it possible that the climate science community is falling prey to confirmation bias? They certainly do seem to be intolerant of minority opinion, as this board attests. Am I too much of a heretic for my ideas to warrant a considered, scientific reply?

    Science is the pursuit of truth. The integrity of the climate science community requires that truth should be pursued without bias, or even the hint of bias. Anthony Watts' web page and National Geo are both media platforms that represent climate science from particular points of view. To the extent that climate scientists interact with the media they must be unbiased. To do otherwise besmirches their community. If the climate science community were shy scientific acolytes that never interacted with the media their failure to rebuff National Geo would be understandable; however, there is no shortage of climate scientists (Hansen et al) who vigorously police any and all reports in the media that run counter to global warming orthodoxy, yet this same community is strangely silent when false pro-global warming statements are offered by media outlets (e.g., the National Geo cover). If anything, National Geo is, compared to Watts, the more substantial media outlet and more worthy of critique. The community's failure to correct pro-global warming falsehoods such as the Nat'l Geo cover are indications of bias that leads one to question whether the entire community is experiencing confirmation bias. "In God we trust, all others bring data" - Deming

    Monsoon, Hay et al showed that sea level is rising at ~1m for every 1.8 degrees of warming. Given that the current level of warming is ~ 0.012 degrees per year, if Gay et al are right (which I believe) sea level is rising at about 2 feet per century. This makes National Geo's cover showing the statue of Liberty up to her waist in water, a sea level rise of 200 feet which would take 10,000 years to occur, patently misleading. Don't you think that the use of over-hyped, misleading statements and claims such as the National Geo cover, needs to challenged by the scientific community with the same vigor that false statements from deniers are challenged?
  10. SCIENCE!

    OK. Against my better nature I'm going to post. First, an appeal to authority is not a valid scientific argument. Likewise, guilt by association is not a scientific argument. Some of the greatest scientists in history (i.e., Einstein) were, by their own admission, wrong at different points in their career. Ad hominems against deniers make you look like snarky bullies. I know this is sailing ANARCHY and it's a wild west of snarky (albeit clever) put downs, but clever put downs are not scientific arguments. Besides, none of you are as good at snarky put downs as Lesbian Robot and he's long gone. In the interest of civil scientific debate. I'd like to state a couple of agreed to principals that then I'd like to pose a couple of questions: Agreements (I think): 1 - The earth is warming (based upon observations), which is causing the sea to rise (observations w/correlation drawn by well understood physics-based thermodynamic models) 2 - Man has put a great deal of CO2 in the atmosphere (based upon observations), but not more than the planet has ever seen, but much more than we've seen in the Holocene. 3 - CO2 traps IR radiation, warming the earth (Greenhouse effect, which is established theory supported by easily reproducible experiments) 4 - Increased warming due to CO2 trapping of IR radiation will have feedback effects, some positive (H2O trapping of additional IR radiation) and some negative (H2O blocking of downward solar flux and increased rate of CO2 sequestration due to accelerated growth of flora) Now, a couple of questions: a) If the atmosphere were saturated by CO2 (i.e., 100% of of the IR energy were reflected back down to earth) what are the first order thermal effects of CO2 saturation (i.e., how much would the CO2, by itself, heat the earth with no feedbacks). I don't have the exact figure here but I seem to remember from the IPCC report that it is less than 2 degrees C. b - Over time how well have the IPCC predictions been supported by observations? For example, IPCC #3 came out in 2001, 23 years after NOAA/NASA put satellites up that measured global climate. Have the satellite data since 2001 supported the 4-6 degree C/century warming predicted by IPCC #3? The best data we have from (see NOAA graph below) shows a diminishing trend. The most favorable view supported by the data (if you advocate global warming) is to cherry pick 1978 to current day which shows a 1.4 degree/century linear trend, hardly the 4-6 degree C/century catastrophe IPCC warned us about and definitely not the exponential growth we were warned about. Admittedly recent IPCC reports have softened the dire predictions found in IPCC reports 1..3 and pushed the looming disaster farther into the future. My hypothesis - In trying to explain the apparant contradictions in (a) and (b) I hypothesize that we underestimated the feedbacks to anthropogenic warming. The amount of time and energy scientists have spent investigating positive feedbacks seems to far outweigh the time and energy spent investigating negative (damping) feedbacks. The IPCC acknowledges this and has publically recognized that several important damping feedbacks are not well understood (Albedo effect in particular, but increased sequestration as well). I hypothesize that the planetary impact of global warming will be much closer to the first order CO2 effects than the feedback-heavy effects predicted by IPCC. The last 20 years of satellite data appears to agree with my hypothesis by showing a diminishing warming trend and only 1.0 to 1.4 degrees C/century of warming. Clearly I'm a shill for Exxon by using NOAA data. I admit I'm a scientist, author of 50+ papers, conference chair, journal editor, yada, yada, yada; however, I'm in a different field and do not claim to be an expert in climate science. Even if I were a climate scientist that fact should have no bearing on the merit of my argument or lack thereof. So, please help me understand. What is the flaw in my argument? Why is my hypothesis wrong?
  11. Nap NOODs bigger than Charleston RW?

    Wess, Do you know what is the criteria NOOD used to determine the "most competitive class"? I would think that a class in which the top 4 boats were within 1 point would be the most competitive. No?
  12. I had this happen years ago. A faster boat than mine hooked the mark and started dragging it upwind of the original location, effectively lengthening the leg for the slower boats. As a slower boat I rounded the mark's original location and was protested for doing so. I was DSQ'd by the protest committee (correctly in retrospect). The PC ruled that a boat must round the mark, no matter where it is. If you don't round the mark you have completed the course in accordance with the rules. That being said, if the mark was moved due to a improper act of the RC, or due to another boat's infraction you could request redress, but you still have to round the mark. In a separate incident our fleet had a boat that was so far behind that the rest of that fleet that the weather mark boat incorrectly picked up the weather mark. The boat rounded the GPS location of the mark (they had taken a hack pre-start) and eventually ended up winning the race (very light air with wind filling from behind). They were protested for not having rounded the mark. The PC found they had not sailed the course and they were DSQ'd; they then requested redress, a second hearing was held and were re-instated to their original finishing position (which was first).
  13. A Rule 19 and/or 20 question - from the Jobson Debacle

    Gentlemen, Please check my facts. Are the following true, or not? 1- Were both Courageous and Extreme2 on starboard, overlapped, with Extreme2 to leeward at the time of the incident? 2- At the time Courageous established an overlap with Extreme2 was there room for Courageous to sail around Extreme2 if Extreme2 had somehow become anchored to that spot? It appears that there was, that the fact that there was an extended yelling match indicates that the shoal was at least several boat lengths away when the overlap occurred. 3- At the time Courageous established an overlap with Extreme2 was there room for Courageous to avoid Extreme2 and the obstruction if Extreme2 continued her course? Clearly not, Courageous hit both the rock and Extreme2 in quick succession. 4- At the time Courageous' boom collided with Extreme2 was there safe room to weather of Courageous? could she have headed up to avoid the collision? Almost certainly not as evidenced by the fact that Courageous hit the rock. 5- At the time Courageous' boom collided with Extreme2 was there safe room to leeward of Extreme2? could she have headed down to avoid the collision? Not sure. There is some testimony that there were other leeward boats. 6- Was the J-88 on port and Courageous on starboard at the time of the collision? 7- At the time Courageous collided with the J-88 was there enough room to weather of Courageous for a J-88 to safely sail parallel and to weather of Courageous who was sailing dead down wind? Given that the J-88 draws 6.5 feet, 3 ft less than Courageous, I suspect that there was 25" of safe water between Courageous' spin pole and the shoal which is all that is needed by a J-88, but given the steep rocky shoreline that might not be true. 8- Was a boat involved in the incident disqualified in a hearing? I doesn't appear to be so. Courageous is scored RET and Extreme2 and the J-88 are scored DNF. Your thoughts? What did I get wrong?
  14. The Jobson Retort

    Many years ago I was a partof an incident that sheds some light on what should have happened. 2 J-35s rounding a weather mark to port, overlapped in ~20kts of wind. No 720 rule in effect, if you foul you are DSQ. Port gybe is favored for the next leg (90% port gybe, 10% starboard gybe). Both boats have set up for a gybe set. Both boats gybe onto port after rounding heading dead down wind approximately 1.5 boat lengths apart. The outside boat sets their pole and begins to hoist the kite. The inside boat hesitates, why?... When the kite is at 2/3 hoist the inside boat throws the main over, yells, "starboard" and heads up (slowly) into the port gybe boat. In 20 knots the boat setting the kite is royally screwed (much like Courageous). What happened next? The outside boat hailed, "Nice move, I withdraw, please gybe back" at which point the inside boat gybed back and sailed away. The outside boat dropped the kite, called the RC on the radio to withdraw and headed home. -- Play hard, but have some common sense and try not to break the boats.
  15. The Jobson Retort

    Interesting thread. To start with it seems to me that there are 2 incidents at play, the one with the J-88 (red kite) and the one with Extreme2. I believe Courageous is in the right with regard to the J-88. The incident w/Extreme2 depends upon some things that haven't been established by Jobson's article, by the pics, by the movies, or by testimony on this board. - Was Courageous ever clear ahead of Extreme2? Is a 50 year old 12 meter with a fractional, symmetrical kite faster than the shorter, much, much lighter asym. J-88 in light air down wind? Who was overtaking who? Had Courageous passed Extreme2 prior to the first grounding, during which she significantly slowed. If Courageous temporarily slowed to <2 knots when she first hit it's not at all unlikely that she would take some time to regain speed. - If Courageous did overtake from astern, was there room for her to pass to weather w/o hitting the rock at the time the overlap was established? Did Extreme2 alter course to windward, taking Courageous up after the overlap was established? Given Jobson's article's description of the screaming going on that seems possible. If either of these was true the Courageous was in the right. If not the Extreme2 was in the right. We don't know the answer to either of these; therefore, I argue, we don't know who was in the right. Regardless, the damage to a classic yacht of such historical importance is tragic.