'World Cruising Routes' by Jimmy Cornell

[cringle]

Since you haven't actually watched his lecture I don't see how you could comment.

Your Creationist rant is, at best, off topic and I don't know who Glenn Beck is.

As a sailor and a scientist I find the subject of interest and relevant. That is why in my post above I provided links to several hundred scientific papers and presentations which severely undermine the case for AGW and I asked for someone to post some bona fide, peer reviewed science papers supporting AGW. Perhaps from the "thousands of scientists" with whom you are familiar, you can provide a paper or two?

fair winds
C

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by cringle

... I asked for someone to post some bona fide, peer reviewed science papers supporting AGW. Perhaps from the "thousands of scientists" with whom you are familiar, you can provide a paper or two?

The consensus viewpoint is represented
Here ➥ IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

And ➥ IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Including the

AR4 Synthesis Report
➥ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

[cringle]

Hello GordMay, your chipping in is appreciated.

Science is not done by "consensus". It is an matter of data, as in do we or don't we have the data? The computer on which you're reading this does not function because some scientists and engineers have arrived at a "consensus" on whether or not eg the microprocessors or networks are going to function in a desirable way. Rather, decades of meticulous research, experimentation and data analyses have established the manner in which these devices and components work and there is no "consensus" invloved. The data is there. Likewise for your phone, your TV, your car, trains, ships, oil refineries and all the other artefacts and infrasctructure of our scientific culture. This is why things work ... I can assure you a boeing 747 does not stay in the air by "consensus".

The IPCC (Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific organisation - it is politicians, journalists and a host of pressure groups etc etc - there are very, very few scientists involved in the IPCC. Moreover those links you provide are not scientific papers: no abstracts nor hypotheses nor protocols nor data nor analyses. They do contain conjecture, hypotheticals and errors.

This chap was involved in the preparation of that AR4 report you provide a link to.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_r...d_analysis.pdf

The IPCC represents those people who stand to get the carbon taxes, green taxes, greenhouse taxes, revenue from C02 licences (Al Gore owns just such a licensing company) and the revenues from the huge-and-soon-to-be-much-huger profits from carbon trading markets on Wall st.

What I provided in #18 were links to several scientific papers. To reiterate, if you're scientific have a read and a watch of them. If not, watch the Monckton presentation.

fair winds
C

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by cringle

Hello GordMay, your chipping in is appreciated.

Science is not done by "consensus". It is an matter of data, as in do we or don't we have the data? The computer on which you're reading this does not function because some scientists and engineers have arrived at a "consensus" on whether or not eg the microprocessors or networks are going to function in a desirable way. Rather, decades of meticulous research, experimentation and data analyses have established the manner in which these devices and components work and there is no "consensus" invloved. The data is there. Likewise for your phone, your TV, your car, trains, ships, oil refineries and all the other artefacts and infrasctructure of our scientific culture. This is why things work ... I can assure you a boeing 747 does not stay in the air by "consensus".

The IPCC (Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific organisation - it is politicians, journalists and a host of pressure groups etc etc - there are very, very few scientists involved in the IPCC. Moreover those links you provide are not scientific papers: no abstracts nor hypotheses nor protocols nor data nor analyses. They do contain conjecture, hypotheticals and errors.

This chap was involved in the preparation of that AR4 report you provide a link to.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_r...d_analysis.pdf

The IPCC represents those people who stand to get the carbon taxes, green taxes, greenhouse taxes, revenue from C02 licences (Al Gore owns just such a licensing company) and the revenues from the huge-and-soon-to-be-much-huger profits from carbon trading markets on Wall st.

What I provided in #18 were links to several scientific papers. To reiterate, if you're scientific have a read and a watch of them. If not, watch the Monckton presentation.

fair winds
C

well, you're wrong. Consensus is exactly what science is about. it's called reproducibility (as in scientists can reproduce the results/data) and it's the founding tenant of the modern scientific approach.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by cringle

Since you haven't actually watched his lecture I don't see how you could comment.

Your Creationist rant is, at best, off topic and I don't know who Glenn Beck is.

As a sailor and a scientist I find the subject of interest and relevant. That is why in my post above I provided links to several hundred scientific papers and presentations which severely undermine the case for AGW and I asked for someone to post some bona fide, peer reviewed science papers supporting AGW. Perhaps from the "thousands of scientists" with whom you are familiar, you can provide a paper or two?

fair winds
C

who says I didn't listen to it? Well, yes, in fact I did. Thoroughly unconvincing.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by cringle

What I provided in #18 were links to several scientific papers. To reiterate, if you're scientific have a read and a watch of them. If not, watch the Monckton presentation.

fair winds
C

And again, the Heartland Institute is not a credible source:
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

but the AAAS and NAS are:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

"In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by cringle

The IPCC (Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a scientific organisation - it is politicians, journalists and a host of pressure groups etc etc - there are very, very few scientists involved in the IPCC. Moreover those links you provide are not scientific papers: no abstracts nor hypotheses nor protocols nor data nor analyses. They do contain conjecture, hypotheticals and errors.

This chap was involved in the preparation of that AR4 report you provide a link to.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_r...d_analysis.pdf

The IPCC includes most of the accredited climatologists in the world. It is the most creditable group working on these problems. McLean on the other hand is a data analyst working for a free market promotional group.

These days you are unlikely to find a climatologist who doesn't believe the change in our weather is anthropogenic and you would be hard pressed to find any creditable scientist who doesn't believe that the weather is changing.

On the other hand there is no shortage of people unqualified in the field arguing that we can continue to use the resources of the earth without consequence since the whole thing is a hoax or the result of people with fixed agendas. Ironic don't you think?

[trevordean]

i just paid 51.00 for a used copy. Including hst and shipping

[S/V Alchemy]

Hey! I see you trying to get back on topic!

[category4jay]

I can't believe this thread didn't get cut off for deviating from the original question...what was it by the way? Something about charts and sailing. Geez.

[Siskiyous]

As a power boat operator I am interested in knowing if books have been written describing the desirable routes for those of us who don't seek wind for power.

Cruising Under Power has a few hints, but has anyone done a more extensive examination of the subject.

I hope my work with the good people at The Heartland Institute doesn't disqualify me from asking an on topic question.

[Pelagic]

British Admiralty has Publication # 136 "Ocean Passages For the World"

A section showing Low powered steamer routes can be compaired with the enclosed seasonal pilot charts and the sailing routes to give you a solid understanding of weather patterns to look for when planning an Ocean crossing.

In reality most of what you do is covered in coastal Pilots

[p.germain]

Hi all, first post on this site! I have a question regarding Cornell's Cruising Routes book. I get the table's idea (i.e., Start, Departure, Intermediate, Landfall, Arrival).

What I don't understand is how to use the table when there are several Intermediate points. Example: table AN143. Let's say I leave Halifax, I go to Sambro next. Not sure why I go to Nova before going south, but OK. Where do I go next? Do I proceed to Bermuda N (Bold), then Bermuda NE, and only then Bermuda E, or do I jump from Nova to Bermuda E directly?

In sum, what does one do with the list of Intermediates that have no Start or Departure points beside them?

I read all the explanatory note, and it is not clear.

Any help will be appreciated!

Thanks

PG