The US Military And Global Warming

I never said you were a troll, is your reading comprehension that bad?

Also, again: you need to work on something, as I am not a troll, and you proved yourself wrong with your own links yet again.

But back on topic, has anyone actually learned that AWS is a thing, and they should be concerned about it yet? Or are we still on the point to where people deny it due to it's their political belief?

Just checking.

Back on topic. Prove AWS is a thing. Don't worry I know you won't, and you'll scamper back into the hole you came from for a few hours.
Edit: inb4 skewed chart/graph/statistics that benefit your beliefs.

Does it have to be a political stance or can a person simply not give a ***?

If a person truly gave no ***, would they have posted to begin with?

Touché

The evidence has already been posted, you'll just pretend it's not factual, and take a ***on the board and prance around like you're victorious.

But AWS is definitely real, can access it from Amazon.

But AWG (lol, I have too many acronyms in my head).


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-verdict-sc/

but a group of leading experts on the matter cannot be right, can they? I'm sure I'll hear as to why.

Perhaps it was a desire to break up the lovefest.

The research claims that there's a 90% likelihood that humans are behind climate change.

Polygraphs have a 90% chance at detecting fraudulent answers. Polygraphs are laughed at the world over and are being debunked, yet some scientists will stand behind the evidence of 90% being fantastic.

The correlation: 90% still leaves 10% margin of error. That's not a sure thing at all.

Good read though, thanks for the link Jet.

Last I checked it was closer to 97%, but it depends how one digests the numbers.

edit: I wouldn't put a polygraph at that high, tbh.

Old data. The most current IPCC report estimates with a 95% confidence level that warming can be attributed to human influences, which is the closest that similar science studies come to a "sure thing".

Just for the sheer fun of it, what can the other 5% be attributed to?

Random chance.

Ah your link as well went further:

There is no such thing as "probably right" in science, it either is or it is not. There is no such thing as "consensus", or "majority belief", science isn't a philosophy where you go around convincing people of something's truth. Instead you prove it, with actual experimental evidence, you then give your information to others and they attempt to disprove it and verify your original findings. If they can disprove it or even demonstrate inconsistencies, then it's back to the drawing board.

That is the problem with "Global Warming", there is no validation of findings. No one is allowed to have the original material, it's all hand waiving and "trust us we know this". Whenever someone casts doubt or demonstrated inconsistencies with the "Global Warming" theory they are harassed, shunned, viciously attacked and denied funding. There is four billion USD being spent yearly on attempts to prove "Climate Change" but nearly zero being spent on attempts to disprove it.

One of the biggest distinguishes between Science and Pseudo-science is falsifiability, or the notion that a theory might be false and thus should be testable. All theory's that are considered "scientific" have a possibility of being false and a theoretical method to test for such. This is a core concept of all science. So why in the world does any scientist have an issue with testing the theory of "Climate Change"? It should not only be accepted but encouraged. We never progressed by testing for something to be "right", as any experimental methodology can be setup to prove itself. We progress by testing for things to be wrong, and either the theory holds up against the test or it fails and is adjusted accordingly.

Anyhow there has been no warming for almost 16~19 years now, depending on how you count a trend. The last few years we've actually had slight cooling. There is no scientific basis that the Earth's climate circa 1900 was somehow a goalpost or ideal state. The Earth has been much warmer, and much cooler then in 1900 and long term trends show CO2 concentration lags behind temperature not the other way around. The Earth has had 3000~5000ppm CO2 concentrations before and didn't explode into a fireball that extinguished all life, instead the exact opposite happened and there was greater biodiversity then every before or since.

There is more then ample evidence that casts doubt on the theory of AGW. Anyone attempting to say it's not debatable just moved it into the realm of pseudo science where it keeps company with religion and astrology. The theory, as current modeled and presented, violates the laws of thermodynamics in how it handles absorption of emission of energy. There have been a multitude of papers put out on this that explain in great detail how mathematics and physics don't support AGW. The AGW folks refuse to look at any of them, and the liberal left mocks proper science as "climate deniers!", often without realizing how foolish it makes them look. AGW theory is dying a slow death right now, they missed their chance to capitalize on the warming during the 80's and 90's while hand waiving at the plateau that formed after 1998. They even went so far as to cease accepting data from sensors that reported lower temperatures then the previous year into their models and charts. No calamity came and now people have long since stopped caring, it's become a token issue to everyone except the extremists, kind of like "religion in our schools". Everyone can expect even more shrieking and urgent demanding from the IPCC and their various political groups but the world as ceased to care and moved on.

Political hot air.

And as politicians are sub human, political hot air is not a human cause.

I'm glad someone way more articulate than me just blew all these AWG trolls out of the water. Bravo.

Grab some popcorn and prepare yourself for the skewed data graphs/charts/statistics followed by Nuh-uh and No U remarks.

Articulate doesn't mean factual. It's a 600-word essay that hits every square on climate denier bingo.

BINGO!

How, exactly, is this the case?
Every time you bring this particular subject up, over and over(and over again), it has been pretty straightforward to refute.


Where? Please provide the links; as there are at least three or four people who actually do read sources provided.

Devil's Advocate:


Always consider the motivation of people giving you technical info. especially if their paychecks depend on it. Directly or Indirectly. :)

That said, I'm a HUGE petrol-head, LOVE my Mitsubishi EVO and Nissan Z car.

However, there's no reason we can't switch to more Economical and environmentally friendly energy sources like Thorium. Sadly theres alot of political reasoning for using things like Uranium in a reactor(afterwaste is for nukes instead of lol-EMP weapons)

I listen to alot of *** from both sides, mostly regurgitated from their favorite Political talk-radio or TV-News network. It's just a sham, all of it. If you want energy "independence" and economically stability with some good environmental benefits Go-Nuclear


EDIT: OOHH NO... MIDDLE GROUND AAAHHhh!

I've presented the information before, people just refuse to read up on it and instead want a one page huffintonpost news article where a paid media person (they aren't really journalists anymore) translates and skews everything.

Very simply, there is a finite amount of thermal energy being radiated into the earth from the sun. That energy gets absorbed and re-radiated but on different wavelengths. Different molecules absorb and re-radiate different wavelengths of energy, if a photon pass's through a molecule that isn't sensitive to that wavelength then it gets ignored and continues it's merry way. CO2 has a few very narrow bands that it's sensitive to, otherwise it's transparent. It also shares it's primary emission range with H2O and the amount of H2O in the atmosphere is so great that it utterly dominates everything else.



There simply isn't enough energy in the right bands for CO2 to make the difference that AGW claims, it warms the atmosphere a few degrees total at best. H2O Vapor in the lower atmosphere is what creates our planets greenhouse effect, H2O in the upper atmosphere has the opposite effect as it reflects incoming solar radiation back into space before it has a chance to be absorbed and radiation. This is another fact that AGW theorists refuse to acknowledge, they treat all H2O exactly the same. Which bring us to this

http://www.randombio.com/co2.html


There is a ton more info that explains a lot of the details on the physics. Lots of links and citations.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

Now the way the AGW theory attempts to "sidestep" thermodynamics is to claim that increased CO2 cause's a slight warming which cause's more CO2 to be out gassed from the Oceans along with more H2O vapor which leads to even more warming. They have yet to prove this or even experimentally demonstrate it in lab conditions, it's just "assumed" to be true. The known physics says this can't happen, CO2 can't increase the temperature by a significant due to the energy balance issue, and from what we've observed H2O vaporization from the Ocean is balanced by additional high altitude cloud formations. Otherwise the earth would of gone nuclear back in prehistoric times when we were looking at 3000~5000ppm of atmospheric CO2.

http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html



Explains information dug out of sediments and how solar cycles and orbital mechanics effect incoming solar radiation and which part of the earth see's it. Our orbit is not a nice static one that is taught in school, other large celestial bodies (Jupiter and Saturn to name the biggest ones) exert a slight pull on earth which alters our orbit and cause's the variations in solar radiation that itself results in ice ages and interglacial periods.

Which brings us to the biggest issue of them all, "Climate Scientists" and most humans for that matter, take an extremely myopic look on the Earths history. You are under the assumption that a century is a "long time", you are very wrong. Planetary history, which includes it's climate patterns, is measured not in centuries or even millenniums, but in millions of years, sometimes tens' of millions. All those scary graphs that AGW folk like to show, they are all extremely dishonest because they are deliberately distorting the X and Y axis to give the false impression of this dramatic increase. It takes the Earth an incredibly long time to do anything, our entire existence has been nothing but an eye blink in comparison. When viewed from the big scale it becomes apparent that nothing out of the ordinary is happening. The only difference between now and ten thousand years ago is that we actually have the ability to record, compare and enumerate all the natural cycles and changes. They have always happened but we simply weren't capable of putting it all together and seeing the big picture.

And here is a piece of that big picture



Historically speaking, CO2 levels are at an extreme low for our planet.

But hey I doubt your here for any kind of information or knowledge. Judging from your past posts and tone you just want to find some sort of niche or angle to use for ridicule. Exactly as I discussed in my earlier post, anyone who disagrees with your ideology is branded a heretic and treated as such, even when they present a multitude of information that casts doubt on the truthfulness of your ideology. The information I posted today should at the very least cast doubt on the veracity of current AGW "theory" by the IPCC, Al'Gore and friends. There is more then enough information available to instantly dispel the "consensus" bullsh!t, and the "95% certain the science is settled!" nonsense. The Earth has been warming for over 5000 years, we had a spike between 1970 and 1998, which as seen from the long term record is fairly common. That spike has since stopped and we've started to experience a slight cooling for a few years. That cooling will most likely last until ~2020 where it'll start warming again.

There is a sh!t ton of money involved right now, about four billion USD just from the USA which isn't counting all the money out of the EU. All that money has a singular purpose, to "prove" "Climate Change" in the affirmative. When your tossing that much funding around people's careers become built off it which creates a situation where your writing reports with the purpose of proving your financial backers correct vs actually applying the scientific method. Should a "Climate Scientist" find that human created CO2 (which is a fraction of the amount of CO2 nature puts there) wasn't actually going to cause a gigantic catastrophe, said scientist would find themselves out of a job. Nobody would hire them on for any further studies, their professional career would effectively be over. That is a huge incentive to not go against the grain.

For the political side of things, the progressives don't give a flying f*ck about CO2 and it's effect on the planet. They are only concerned with using it as leverage to get legislation and policy's passed to limit the amount of energy available to the average person. Which is why they want nothing to do with nuclear technologies like Thorium. The USA developed and ran a demo 100MW Thorium reactor in the 60's, afterwards we bottled the whole thing up and let it sit on a shelf until the Chinese walked in and copied it. China is currently the worlds leader in researching Thorium fission and will soon have near infinite cheap power at their disposal.

Oh, goodie. It's this game again.
Dishonest or obtuse? The amount of water vapor in the air is contingent on atmospheric temperatures meaning an increase in water vapor, and thus the accompanying warming due to it, is not a cause but rather the effect. You can't decouple direct warming attributed to CO2 from that water vapor because they're intrinsically related through a positive feedback loop. In other words, warming from human-produced CO2 allows more water vapor which raises the temperature and allows more water vapor and on and on and on. The GH effect is a result of less heat escaping from the most upper layer of the atmosphere. There is no violation of thermodynamics.

Dissolved CO2 from the oceans is a minor contributor to warming when compared to the massive amount of carbon dioxide we produce from burning milions-of-years-old carbon sludge as that portion of the carbon cycle is typically balanced out by re-absorption of CO2 out of the atmosphere*. No violation of thermodynamics.

This argument lacks coherent logic. We wouldn't examine climate change at the phanerozioc level because it's irrelevant to absolutely anything alive today. Living creatures don't operate on anything remotely close to that time scale so of course we would examine warming phenomenon on smaller scales, and at the current and projected rates, warming is progressing at an unprecedented pace for proper adaptation to compensate. Hell, take your argument further and include the Big Bang in there. Then we'd definitely be cooling, eh?

Who do you think has more money, climate scientists or fossil fuel interests? The bolded is so entirely wrong that it crosses the line from denialism to delusional disorder irrelevant.

Edit: *clarified and added a correction

This video is more believable and logical than anything you just said Pleebo.



Na, my bad. Both are total nonsense and full of ***.

It wasn't really written with your aptitude in mind so don't worry about it.

All for nuclear, it's by far the best source of energy we currently have.

That being said: you don't use nuclear waste for nuclear weapons, hell you need better uranium than what you use for reactors to make a nuclear weapon in the first place, in needs to be enriched to a higher level, which is why it's laughable that people consider Iran a threat at this stage.

That being said: dirty bombs would be plausible.

IIRC about the only thing we use the waste for is tank shells, but that could just be people being stupid again, I honestly haven't fully researched the uses of waste.

But skewed data man.

I did like the video though.

You're quite right I don't understand naive stupidly very well.

This is what I think of everytime Altima tries to make some witty comeback...