Any updates based on the new world we live in?

[comfisherman]

Don't know of a colony of disaffected expat kiwi sailors, but I'd sure get a kick out of them if found.

I'll see if can find a sketch of what will become boat number 2, hodge podge of pieces and parts cut and pasted together. My last one had a hull from a now defunct company, a flybridge from another, house segment off another with a visor from a 4th company. Whole shebang was made even more bizarre as I'm a skosh taller than the average fella. Bit odd looking but it will whack fish. Next one will probably be a patchworkbl quilt as well. Really like the visor and flybridge and kept the molds. Wife calls them the ugliest permanent backyard fixtures she's seen.....

I need to dig for my grandfather's pics. He had a hull from a mold who's plug was made by a half aleut for his aleut kin. They aren't big folks, and grandad was a bigggun. His house was 6 inches taller and the venturi atop another 5 taller. There is a Pic from 70 or 71 with them lined up anchored 5 abrest, wasn't hard to figure out which one was his. Looked like an overgrown cupcake atop a little hull.

I'd say the the last few years have changed one other segment. We opted for twin 300 gallon fuel tanks and twin 99 gallon water thanks instead of twin 200s and a single 99. Also built racks for spare storage in the lazarette for extra oil, filters and dry goods. All the old boats maxed fuel and storage but 30 years of solid supply chain that feature had lost its need. Last few years have brought it back to a need.

 

[DogCavalry]

NASA's worst case scenario shows 2-3' sea level rise over the next century. By then Earth's population will be much lower than it is now, and our biggest problems will be from population decline, not sea level rise.

 

[mitchgrunes]

If people come together off the coast of Alaska from all over the world, that sounds like a possible way to spread various diseases within that community.

Some hypothetical floating cities are designed to survive hurricanes. But I agree that, when possible, a floating farm might best be in a sheltered location. Practical agriculture has always been economically limited, and functions within competitive marketplaces.

Living in a floating city sounds interesting and might sometimes be fun. Obviously, it would have potential problems, as does living anywhere.

Almost any medium or large size city already have "city planners" and a "city engineer", who apparently deal with engineering issues on a frequent basis.

But would designing practical and economically feasible (is that possible?) floating cities, and/or the individual modules and semi-standardized interconnections and utilities, be right up the alley of those in this forum who design boats and ships?

If you search for "floating city" and "competition", there are already design competitions that you can enter along these lines.

It's easy to imagine serious funding for this sort of thing - many countries and organizations might see it as a way to decrease future international tensions, and/or decrease illegal immigration and trafficking. The United Nations is already involved.

 

[hoytedow]

Show evidence that fish today hold more mercury than they held 100 years ago. I don't believe they do.
Show evidence of sea level rise. I don't believe it.
Keep your laboratory "meat". I won't eat it.
There has always been climate change. Solar output varies and with that temperatures rise and fall globally.
Sequester too much CO2 and plant life starts dying. Try finding seaweed then.
Isolation weakens the natural immunity. Social distancing is more harmful than helpful.
Don't believe everything nasa tells you.
Human populations will decrease, but that is deliberate by malevolent masterminds through such means as artificially induced famines, toxic vaccines and genocidal wars.
It's already happening so pick a side and hope you chose the right one because it's going to get ugly.
If the United Nations is involved it's doomed to failure.

 

[mitchgrunes]

In line with the floating city idea, look at these floating home systems:

Why the Dutch embrace floating homes https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220202-floating-homes-the-benefits-of-living-on-water

But while the opening picture of the proposed Madives floating city

https://maldivesfloatingcity.com/

and more informative:

is quite beautiful from above, and looks like lovely architectural, it doesn't seem very practical to me. It looks very inefficient to travel within the neighborhood, or from the outside.

I guess the idea was to make it possible to travel on foot, on wheels, and on the water. But neither is going to be very inefficient, because you wouldn't be able to travel in anything like a straight line. There are also a lot of intersections at weird angles, and confined spaces, where it will be hard for people to go past each other. And I'm doubtful about ways to efficiently transport large vessels, such as moving one of the homes.

From what I have seen, while boats that spend most of their time out of the water, like my kayaks, require very little maintenance (e.g., a fiberglass kayak might last 10-20 years with absolutely no maintenance), vessels that remain in the water require a lot of maintenance. Am I correct that a floating city would require a lot more maintenance to keep running than a city built on land?

But perhaps some of you with engineering knowledge would care to comment on these things?

Don't forget the billion dollar budget, and the $250,000/residence cost - which seems impractical for most Maldives residents, who do subsidence level farming and fishing. While it might bring in wealthy individuals from outside who could contribute to the Maldives economy, The Maldives islands are about 1.8 m over current sea level, and are at significant risk.

Note also the idea of floating cities in Holland:

 

[hoytedow]

Sea level rise is a fantasy. Land subsidence is a reality.

 

[mitchgrunes]

Sea level rise is a fantasy. Land subsidence is a reality.

Would it matter if that were true?

Anyway, in practice, most people are going to ignore you if you post something that violates the majority scientific view, as you did in your last two posts in this thread. Especially if it mostly wouldn't really matter. What matters most is the relative levels. Most people will always assume the majority "expert" view outside their own areas of expertise is probably right, and you aren't going to convince them otherwise.

 

[hoytedow]

I live on the coast. There is no sea level rise. Obama, Pelosi and Gates just bought property on the coast. Land is subsiding, proveably.
Science is not consensus. Science is the quest for knowledge through trial and error, not through committees pushing a political agenda onto an unreceptive collection of humanity.

 

[hoytedow]

Land is also uplifting, proveably.

 

[mitchgrunes]

I'm not going to bother to fact check the home pictures you posted. I assume that you are aware that people often post fake home pictures of major celebrities for political purposes. Regardless, all of these people can probably afford to buy homes that won't be usable forever, and may be able to afford to use various ways to slow the loss of usability of those expensive properties within their lifetimes and those of their children, such as artificial wave breaks, sea walls, etc. While paddling, I have seen many multi-million dollar homes on the banks of rivers that engineers I was paddling with told me were on the verge of slipping into the water, within a few decades or less, though it is not certain that the owners all knew that. Some of those homes have flooded during major storms. I have also visited a home near an active volcano in Hawaii, that may in all likelihood eventually be destroyed by lava. (I was told Hawaii has an interesting law, though I haven't verified this: if lava covers your land, ownership of that land reverts to the state!) Geologically active regions are often very beautiful, and are often greatly sought after. Even people aware of long term problems and dangers often love living in such places. Government subsidized flood and disaster insurance sometimes helps encourage that.

There will always be a degree of partial consensus involved in science, as well as new measurements, theories and models that sometimes replace the old ones. E.g., articles in refereed journals and conferences are reviewed by other scientists, sponsors review requests for funding, government agencies authorize or fail to authorize materials for public release, sometimes government agencies, companies, and people deliberately release false data, etc. And there are always controversies within science about things that are difficult to be certain about, as well as people inside and outside the scientific arena who choose to disregard some measurements, models and theories.

Virtually all geoscience people would agree that land measurably subsides and uplifts in various regions. For example, the North American continent is generally believed to be tilting upwards around Alaska, and downwards around Florida, due to the melting of the ice that has been occurring since prior ice ages. The relative rates of sea level fall and rise in those regions have often been measured.

There have also been many measurements of both land subsidence and sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay region, believed to be due to many factors. E.g., see this publication.

And so on.

Most modern astronomy texts would say the average land level is gradually growing, due to the accretion of matter from space - but, if the information I found is correct, it is not doing so at a fast enough rate to be statistically measurable on a global scale. That isn't surprising - the most accurate measurements will always be relative, between the land and the water, whereas measurements of the land surface level from space - the only ones that offer enough coverage to give global averages - are relative to satellite orbital estimates, as well as atmospheric propagation, which are somewhat indirect, and are subject to many complex estimation factors. Many height estimates are also based on Interferometric SAR data, and at least when I worked in that area, SAR instruments were usually poorly calibrated, and geotagging and motion compensation was fairly poor, and made relative use of earth reference points that were presumed correct, because the primary emphasis of those who developed and funded the hardware was to improve spatial resolution.

Which is why "sea level change" is usually defined relative to the water, so that, for example, it wouldn't matter whether in a given region, the sea surface were rising and/or the land surface was falling, eroding, etc. - all that usually matters is the relative change.

In contrast, the average rate at which the sea surface is rising, is fast enough to be readily measurable from space, at least approximately, and has been measured, many times - e.g., look at many references in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=average+sea+level+rise+satellite&btnG= - I was myself involved with a satellite that was involved in some such measurements, though I wasn't involved in doing those average measurements, only in verifying one small part of the process - verifying estimated local waveheights and local tidal height models, in a few selected areas and times. And I was only one of many people associated with that. And we did in fact make use of orbital estimations and atmospheric propagation models, as well as prior measurements, estimations and models of gravity, tides, geoid height and shape, etc. It usually isn't practical for most people working in the scientific arena to verify everything they use.

Anyway, if you wish to disregard those averaged satellite orbits, and estimated sea surface measurements, etc., that is your privilege. I have known people who don't believe satellites are possible, and that all space data is fake. I have no way to disprove that - most of the data I received was handed to me, and I chose to believe it was real, and acted on that assumption. The overall majority of people working in the scientific arena are dependent on outside sources of data, theories, models, etc., and cannot be absolutely certain everything they use is perfectly correct.

 

[DogCavalry]

Very measured and eloquent, @mitchgrunes . A pleasure to read. Although with regard to satellites, and the existence of, that are very easy to prove. Except to people who already disbelieve. I had a dog that ate other dogs' crap, and I couldn't prove to him that he shouldn't either. I believe the metaphor is apt.

J-Dog

 

[hoytedow]

Some people prefer a well-dressed lie over the naked truth.

 

[hoytedow]

Would it matter if that were true?

Anyway, in practice, most people are going to ignore you if you post something that violates the majority scientific view, as you did in your last two posts in this thread. Especially if it mostly wouldn't really matter. What matters most is the relative levels. Most people will always assume the majority "expert" view outside their own areas of expertise is probably right, and you aren't going to convince them otherwise.

The science is settled you say, so just shut up you say?

<posts merged>

Perhaps if the rabid climate change would quit banging on their marxist drums we who believe climate change is natural would quit banging on ours.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is science.
Man did not and does not cause climate change. Weather and environmental damage is an entirely separate matter.
Hat tip to the moderator but we didn't start this fight.

 

[Russell Brown]

I'm interested in the topic, but not interested in listening to rantings from a rabid climate change denier. Can the moderator do anything to save the thread?

 

[Boat Design Net Moderator]

Maybe it would be useful to refocus on:

...

I have my views on what's happening around the world and why...as do many others, but this is not what I'm really asking....

...

My yacht is a Kiwi (NZ) built 30ft offshore yacht... and since 90% of my sailing is solo..I have it set up as such and for very heavy weather... sure there are a few things I'd love to have (a shower would be lovely, as would hot water) but its never really been an issue... I'd rather sail my yacht in anything above 30 knots any day of the week, than on some modern plastic yacht that has flexing bulkheads and leaks everywhere... I feel pretty safe and confident that I can sail off at less than 3 hours notice and not have to be reliant on anyone at all... My boat is safe, strong, and is very simple...and she suits me really well....

So given how hard and stressful it is for everyone.....I'd love to hear about your boats, stories...preps for the "End of the world" and lets see if we can have some fun in these troubled times

So....The end of the world is (very) near...... What yacht will you build?