Furkolkjaaf

Members
  • Content Count

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Furkolkjaaf

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 11/08/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.furkolkjaaf.net
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lignano, Italy

Recent Profile Visitors

4,904 profile views
  1. Furkolkjaaf

    J/99 anyone have info beyond the teaser?

    Isn't the UK boat bulbless (flat keel) ? as opposed to the L-keel type that you should have sailed. L-type much stiffer.
  2. Furkolkjaaf

    Three J/99's to be in the PNW by summer!

    I guess sprit length is moderate also to be more ORC/IRC friendly (mainly for european market)
  3. Furkolkjaaf

    How are J/88's doing in PHRF light air?

    yes she is indeed !
  4. Furkolkjaaf

    Greta Rides Again?

    Bruce : on Evans et al (2006) paper : interesting and informative, I have no reason to doubt about the accuracy of the assertions therein (but I did not make any research on any follow-ups on this paper). The point is that this paper is irrelevant (as far as the conclusions of Dr Berry’s are concerned). Let me explain why. The three unproven postulates of (IPCC’s) AGW theory are : Humans are responsible of all the increase of CO2 measured in the atmosphere since 1750 CO2 causes global warming Global warming causes bad things to happen Evans et al (2006) are talking about item 2. Berry is NOT arguing about item 2. He’s rather focusing on item 1 (this does not mean that he agrees on 2 and 3). Obviously, if he is right in saying that assertion 1. is false, then this destroys the foundations of the AGW theory, and makes assertion 2 and 3 irrelevant. One question : you said that Berry’s theory is a nonsense and too-simplistic. But your suggestion to start reading Evans et al (2006) means that you did not read or tried to understand what Berry is saying, because - as I said above - the topics are totally different. Thus I am puzzled on how you arrived to your conclusion. Nevertheless I stop it here. My post was totally .... inappropriate, for this audience, and website. Let’s go back sailing (when whether permits).
  5. Furkolkjaaf

    Greta Rides Again?

    Thanks Bruce, but you seem to be missing the point of what Berry's article is all about. It's false to state, as you are doing, that it "leaves out where the greenhouse go", because on the contrary it uses the same 4 "reservoirs" used by IPCC (atmosphere, land, surface ocean, deep ocean) to calculate how the gas disperse/distributes over time in such "containers". Clearly you have not read or understood the article, that also shows how Berry's model closely replicates the experimental 14CO2 data from 1970 to 2014 of Turnbull et al. (ref.35 of the paper). Bern's model [the one at the basis of IPCC (wrong) claims] fails to replicate such data. The CO2 physics model of Dr Berry describes how both the natural and human-generated CO2 flow between such 4 reservoirs and, USING THE SAME IPCC INPUT DATA, it points out blatant errors in the IPCC carbon cycle, that does not treat the natural-generated and human-generated CO2 molecules in the same manner. This violates physics because nature can't tell the difference between natural and human generated CO2 molecules, that are identical. The result of this mistake is that the effect of human CO2 is multiplied by a factor of 3 as opposed to natural CO2. As Einstein said : 10 experiments cannot prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong...this is how science works. But the stance of many AGW supporters seem not to accept this. That's because science was mixed with politics, and IPCC is firstly a political body with the "apodiptic" mission of supporting the idea that climate change is man-generated. You take it for granted that everything is settled, and AGW is demonstrated, but as Professor Lindzen, atmospheric physicist of MIT, had to say : “The notion that anthropogenic global warming is a fact and will be catastrophic is drilled into people to the point where it seems surprising that anyone would question it, and yet, underlying it is very little evidence at all. Nonetheless, there are statements made of such overt unrealism that I feel embarrassed. I feel it discredits science. I think problems will arise when one will need to depend on scientific judgment, and by ruining our credibility now you leave society with a resource of some importance diminished.” As others said, I made the error of posting this stuff here, because I was entertained by the content of this thread...so for me it's time to shut the fuck up. Cheers Max
  6. Furkolkjaaf

    Greta Rides Again?

    Mr Nice Guy, clearly you have not read (or simply you can't understand) the article, and the physics that is behind that. Rather than discrediting the content by delegitimating who is publishing it, you should be honest enough to try to understand such content and maybe challenge it, if you can. Several Phd's and physicists have tried to do that, and - from what I have read - have not been able to find any flawed statement in this new physics model. Everyone with some robust physics background should be able to understand it, as well as to reproduce the calculations that Dr.Berry has presented. I did it, and I am only an engineer (nobody is perfect after all). After having read IPCC's claims and their debunking by Dr. Berry, I believe IPCC's AGW theories will have short life. Which - unfortunately - may mean a few decades, given the sleep of reason that is permeating the world in regard to these topics.
  7. Furkolkjaaf

    Greta Rides Again?

    Wrong. Fossil fuels (or human carbon) contribute for a tiny portion of the overall CO2 generation. This is demonstrated by latest physics that won't find much echo in media (but not forever...) because its against common hysteric mainstream thinking - but mathematics behind, and reproduction of experimental data, are elegantly falsifying the IPCC theories. For those who understand physics : https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/
  8. Furkolkjaaf

    That's a Sport Boat?

    That's exactly why I earlier said it's a sportboat. From her ORC certificate the figures I got are SA/D = 30.4, D/L = 72.3 (SA based on 100% rig data). Such numbers are not far away from - say - Melges 24 (respectively at 32, 73).
  9. Furkolkjaaf

    That's a Sport Boat?

    ...by the way, the pictured winner is a Delta 84 - that - I tell you - IS a sport boat despite the "classical look" and the symmetric spinnaker. This boat is moored close by my J/92 in Sistiana (Trieste) - Italy, and is a real planing rocket, that can also go uphill like a train. She won a countless number of Barcolana, the largest (or so) regatta in the world..
  10. Furkolkjaaf

    J92S Polars

    J92s North Sails Polars.pdf J 92s Elvstrom Polars and sail chart.xls
  11. Furkolkjaaf

    J/99 anyone have info beyond the teaser?

    Not understanding much of french....but here J/99 seems to have been crushed by both Sunfast 3300 & JPK 1030 at the single/double handed race Gascogne 45/5... https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14Nq-Mi0Dao3sxcI3MmMgcprDFxbFYLfQ
  12. Furkolkjaaf

    J/99 anyone have info beyond the teaser?

    ...you mean that the J112E and the J109s are racing with conventional kite setup ?
  13. Furkolkjaaf

    J/99 anyone have info beyond the teaser?

    thanks JL92S
  14. Furkolkjaaf

    J/99 anyone have info beyond the teaser?

    How is the 99 doing in the first races ? I guess there may be some feedback now on how this new design performs vs known / established competition