Naval History Forums

A point about Montana's protection scheme which puzzles me. I have a copy of a document listing official IZ values for US battleships (C-BB/S1-1 of 13 July 1942) against 16 in 2240 lb shells with an MV = 2520 fps. The inner limit for BB 61 (Iowa) is given as 17600 yds and that for BB 67 (Montana) a...

Montana_vs_Iowa.jpg Can someone confirm/correct these schemes and provide some comments about their efficiency (e.g at which distance/inclination would Montana have been immune to her own and to Yamato's guns? I don't know what the 17" thick tapered strake is on the Iowa schem but that is not ...

For example, does RF accept the evidence from satellite measurements of the Earth's surface temperature, the average troposphere temperature and the stratosphere temperature which now extend over almost 40 years? Does he also accept the measurements of solar radiance over the same period? Does he a...

Then we are a battleship with a jammed rudder surrounded by the enemy, because there is nothing we humans can do to change the situation. In fact by implementing climate mitigation policies it will be counter productive, because climate mitigation will have devastating impacts on the world economies...

Hi Dave, so you can rule out the possibility with certainty that there will no negative effect by increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Remember the curve is logarithmic. Most warming from co2 concentration has already occurred. Warming change becomes applied less and less as the concentr...

Hi Marc, Employing the precautionary principle requires several assumptions: That we can mount an effective response in any case That atmospheric co2 concentration is really a function of human co2 emissions That replacing hydro carbon fuels is even feasible. That greater co2 emissions are not actua...

A 2013 study (Santer et al., Identifying human influences on atmospheric temperature, PNAS, 110, 26-33) that claimed some agreement between models and observations.... Some agreement? Maybe, kinda sorta? That’s pretty weak in the face of more than ample empirical evidence that it’s not there via di...

I sure hope that nobody is gullible enough to not question the fake news that 97% of scientists believe in AGW. Even Richard Tol has denounced the 97% claim: The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever. See also: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...

I remain convinced that the observed warming over the last forty years (the period for which we have good satellite data) is real. Natural variation is the more likely explanation. The established range of natural variation overwhelms any warming over that period. When I was first introduced to thi...

You are what is known as a luke warmer. This is not at all derogatory, at least from my perspective, and puts you in fairly good company in my opinion. Your views are not too far different from those of Dr. Judith Curry, who I greatly admire and respect, and with who I agree with on many things pert...

The official USN Skate photo page:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08578.htm

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ ... -so-thick/

There's a better photo somewhere I have seen.

I'm glad you brought up Arctic sea ice retreats and replenishment's, because what we are seeing now is very similar to most of the 1930s and some years in the 1940s: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/arctic-sea-ice-data-collected-by-dmi-1893-1961-259.php DMI could of course not collect data durin...

Every single one of those things listed in the cartoon is either irrelevant or a faulty assumption. LOL.

I have spent a little time looking at what is clearly known about climate change. The recent (post 1980) data on temperature seems fairly good and shows that the average global temperature for 2014, 2015 and 2016 was 0.74 K, 0.87 K and 0.99 K higher than the average for 1950-1980 https://climate.na...