The end of the world is near....... what Yacht will you build?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Wellydeckhand, Jun 16, 2006.

?

What u will choose if seawater rise 50M and u need to find other land but............

  1. Monohull Sail Yacht

    29.3%
  2. Monohull Motoryacht

    4.8%
  3. Monohull Motorsailer

    12.3%
  4. Catamaran Sail yacht

    17.1%
  5. Catamaran Motoryacht

    1.1%
  6. Catamaran Motorsailer

    10.8%
  7. Trimaran Sail Yacht

    12.0%
  8. Trimaran Motoryacht

    1.1%
  9. Trimaran Motorsailer

    4.6%
  10. Dont Know?

    1.4%
  11. Stay at land and hang on something

    0.9%
  12. Find a submarine........ hopefully

    4.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,634
    Likes: 66, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member

    Well, all these horribles you mention MIGHT happen, and might NOT happen.. A polar shift, or huge solar flare, or asteroid strike MIGHT happen, as I pointed out before. And we're over due historically. Those HAVE happened in the past!

    The PROBLEM is, you don't want to do anything constructive about AGW or climate change.
    I haven't met a conservative AGWarmer yet. ALL are leftys. Whatever you CALL yourself, you're socialists.

    And YOUR idea, is we should let the socialists run everything, and it will all end up hunky-dory!
    A political solution? A Hoodoo solution. "Who do, who do you think you're foolin?"
    Well, AIN"T gonna happen.
    If that's the best idea you got, and we're doomed if we don't try it?
    Then kiss your arse goodbye, we AIN'T letting ya'll ruin er run things.
    Nope, I was right first time Ruin things.
    Carbon tax is a part of ya'll grabbing control scheme.
    You want us to pay, and you spend the money on advancing your agendas. No, and HELL NO!
     
  2. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 422
    Likes: 45, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    I'll put Yobarnacle down as having tepid support for Carbon Taxes.

    This is meant to cheer up poor Yob. I don't want him to have a heart attack on us. :)
    [​IMG]
     
  3. longcours62
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 92
    Likes: 4, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 47
    Location: France

    longcours62 Junior Member

    I also read somewhere ..?

    In case of melting of the kilometer of tick ice on Groenland and Antarctic some "movements" of the "floor" (ground ?) could happens .
    It is difficult in English :confused::D

    "Le volume total des glaces continentales est estimé à un peu plus de 30 millions de kilomètres-cubes, réparti essentiellement sur l'Antarctique :

    •Antarctique : 29 millions de km3 ;
    •Groenland : 2,5 millions de km3 ;
    •Autres glaciers : 0,2 millions de km3.

    La surface des océans représente à peu près 70 % de la surface terrestre (rayon 6 370 kilomètres, soit surface totale = 4 x pi x 6370 x 6370 ~ 510 millions de km2), c'est-à-dire 357 millions de km2.

    Donc, si tous les glaciers continentaux fondaient, les 30 millions de km3 de glaces élèveraient le niveau de la mer de 30 / 357 = 0,084 km, soit 84 mètres. En réalité, ce serait un peu moins, parce qu'une partie des glaciers de la partie Ouest de l'Antarctique n'adhère pas partout au socle continental, qui est ici sous le niveau de la mer, et la fonte des glaces de mer (banquises) n'influence pas le niveau marin "

    "Depuis un siècle, le niveau moyen des mers est monté d'une quinzaine de centimètres. Pendant la même période, la température moyenne de la Terre a augmenté de 0,6°C. Le coefficient de dilatation thermique de l'eau est de 2,6.10-4°C-1."


    Pierre Thomas

    Laboratoire de Sciences de la Terre, ENS-Lyon.

    Gilles Delaygue

    Centre Européen de Recherche et d'Enseignement des Géosciences de l'Environnement (Université Paul Cézanne/ Université de Provence/ CNRS), Europole méditerranéen de l'Arbois


    Auteur(s) :
    Jean Jouzel

    Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (CEA/CNRS/Université Versailles-StQuentin), Gif sur Yvette.


    Auteur(s) :
    Jean-François Minster

    IFREMER


    Auteur(s) :
    Jean-Louis Dufresne

    Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, (Université Pierre et Marie Curie/ENS/École Polytechnique/CNRS), Paris


    Auteur(s) :
    Olivier Boucher

    Laboratoire d'Optique Atmosphérique, (Université de Sciences et Techniques de Lille / CNRS), Villeneuve d'Asq


    Auteur(s) :
    Marie-Antoinette Mélière

    Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement, (Université Joseph Fourier/CNRS), Grenoble
     
  4. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 422
    Likes: 45, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Translation compliments of Google
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,634
    Likes: 66, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member

    You ARE aware most of us tolerate the hysterical doom predictions, because we have little other choice!
     

    Attached Files:

  6. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    You were doing fine until this point. Global warming is a capitalist conspiracy theory. We socialists/communists are laughing at them and anyone stupid enough to believe in it. So, get your facts straight before blaming others for your own propaganda, eh? Greens are NOT socialists. They are brain-dead capitalists who want to be "cool" and appear progressive but never manage it.

    The owner and the capitan of that ship Irvine something, chasing Japanese whalers in South Pacific, is a multimillionaire businessman from usa. Or what about Al Gore? Is he a socialist too? With all his oil business interests? And his business of spreading panic about the "climate warming danger"? Howz that a "socialist"? It's plain pathetic from capitalists to invent a bull and then blame it on socialists. How stupid can get these (capitalists) people?

    The warming of the Earth is a natural process that has been around a lot longer than capitalist mo -rons. Humanity, however does contribute to it. How much, or little, that is another story.

    But, all, stop talking garbage and blaming socialists for everything you wrong wingers do. It makes you look even fatter.
     
  7. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    My argument is correct and I stand by it. I do not have the time to waste on <insult directed towards others removed>, debating the points one learns in elementary school physics and chemistry. Just the fact that you are spending so much time trying to "debunk" my message confirms that you have been de-educated in a usa school. Any debate is futile. You will believe whatever bull you have been brainwashed to believe instead finding the facts in science.

    Just a brief for anyone who might have any elementary knowledge of chemistry and physics:

    For ALL ice (on dry land) to melt, the quantity of CO2, preferred gas of capitalist businessmen pretending to be "lefties worried about the Earth", is such that by the time it happens, you will be long dead. Why is that?

    Because to melt the ice on Groenland, and/or Antarctica, you need enormous amounts of energy in form of heat. And to get to these temperatures, you need a LOT of CO2, which is toxic and is not all that good as a greenhouse gas. So the concentrations needed to melt the ice caps are such that if the temperature doesn't kill you, the toxicity will.

    You, and alike chair wannabe knowitalls talk your "skepticism" that was installed in your otherwise rather empty brains by those who see a good business opportunity in your ignorance. There are some mathematical calculations here and here.

    People like you are never going to actually look for the answers and I have no time to teach you basic physics, chemistry and maths, hence my previous statement that you so quickly declared incorrect and bogus. I am not your teacher, and you are no scientist (you are just a poor cpier and paster.) I do not have to "submit" "scientific", or my own for that matter, "calculations". Nor do I seek of you to do so. I read your opinion and seek scientific data myself. I suggest you do the same and THEN make your own conclusions. I have my opinion and I do not have to justify it to you, or anyone else. I express it without any pressure on anyone to accept it. If you do not like it, fine. But do not be such a patroinising <insult towards others removed>. I do not criticise you for believing in ghosts, "gods", santa clowns and whatnot. That is your right. Extend that courtesy back.

    What am I talking about... When did any usanians know any courtesy? Just ask Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, among soooo many other countries in the world that had the displeasure of being acquainted <insult towards others removed>...

    Keep copying and pasting "small portions of wiki articles", after all that is the best education you will ever get in the usa, given the catastrophic state of your educational system that forces the children to sing anthem every day, and swear allegiance to some imaginary "god" while claiming to be "secular democracy".

    The exact science, which is what you and most of your compatriots do not have the capacity to grasp even on a basic level of the concept behind it, is quite clear on global "warming" "cooling" and every temperature in between.

    Unless the Earth tilts dramatically and exposes the two current ice caps to the sun (sub- and -tropical), most of the ice will NEVER melt. Period. Science.

    Now, before you choose to respond with more of your wikipedia induced garb, do me a courtesy and learn the actual, true, factual science. Thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, the lot. Yo will be surprised how little you really know and how much your "own" opinion is actually a capitalist propaganda made in usa.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2014
  8. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 422
    Likes: 45, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Maybe your communicating in a language not your Mother Tongue is tripping us up, but CO2 is not considered toxic. I hope you can forgive my use again of Wikipedia.

    Carbon Dioxide | WIKIPEDIA
     
  9. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    The question is how can you forgive yourself your slack and superficial reading of even wikipedia...???

    Which part of

    "Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[85] The physiological effects of acute carbon dioxide exposure are grouped together under the term hypercapnia, a subset of asphyxiation." is escaping you?

    But, ok. According to your best knowledge base, CO2 is NOT toxic. Here's why is wikipedia shift, and I was right every time: according to EVERY Hazmat Manual on Earth, CO2 is DIRECTLY TOXIC in concentrations above 5%.

    Open ixquick and search for hazmat guidelines on CO2.

    Or, better yet, take my advice and go to school. Get real education. Chilean schools (public) are very good. You will learn most of teh science you need to be able to actually participate in discussions, such as this one, with some (albeit limited) understanding of the subject.

    It will be better than understanding you show today.
     
  10. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    Coz, by now I can see that you have no idea even about using your own browser/search engines, here's one small contribution to your learning. The site is usanian site, but it seems to be fairly well informed.

    http://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

    From the page (to save you from struggling reading, I can only imagine how hard is to be undereducated...):

    • Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic.

    So, there. But, hey. You feel free to stick to your source of "authoritative" information, the wikishitedia. I do not insist you believe what I am saying. I hate believing. There's nothing to believe and everything to know. To an intelligent person. Only the weak believe. The strong learn and arm themselves with knowledge. The choice is yours.
     
  11. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    Make sure you do NOT miss this from the article:

    "According to the newspapers CO2 is nontoxic and it is the decreased oxygen levels that kills. THIS CONCEPT IS WRONG."

    Your wikishitedia's "asphyction" and "suffocation" lies.

    As a naval officer, I had to learn about the dangerous and TOXIC gases, and the first aid. CO2 is high on the list of these TOXIC gases. But, again, I do not insist you believe a single word of what I say. I only hope that you will start LEARNING the SCIENCE, and stop believing religions and brainwashing propaganda of these capitalist brainwash outlets such as wikipedia.
     
  12. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 422
    Likes: 45, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    The beauty of the Wikipedia is that anyone can add to or correct it, even people from Chile. Perhaps you'd like to correct the Carbon Dioxide entry? Do your small part to upgrade the basic intelligence of us usanians.
     
  13. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    You may discover that the intelligence is not subject to change. The knowledge is. However educating usanians is not on my "to do" list. It would be much easier to walk to the Moon that they have never visited.

    And it is not true that "anyone" can add or correct in wikipedia. That was the case in the beginning, but now you have to be accepted as a "subject authority" in order to be able to make changes and have them stay.
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,634
    Likes: 66, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member

    I just edited global warming in wikipedia with the statement: "CO2 is unconnected to temperature." :D
     

  15. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 422
    Likes: 45, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    No you didn't. The Wikipedia article for Global Warming is locked, just to keep the riff-raff like you from mucking things up. :p

    However the article on Carbon Dioxide is not locked, so feel free to edit it to your heart's content. ;)
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.