Never to their actual profit so far as I can see. Vietnam could have been South Korea.
Vietnam's per capita GDP is about 2,000 dollars. South Korea's is about 35,000 dollars
And if you know anything about Vietnam it is pretty much a wall to wall miserable shit show.
So... what was accomplished there?
its important to remember that Sun Tzu wasn't interested in the property of a kingdom... just keeping the ruling elite in power. Your government... who ever that is...
If the Vietcong had made peace with the US... we would have made sure they had control over their territory to the north so long as they offered people some basic rights... they would have had representation in the government... we would have helped them build up their economy... Sky's the limit.
Good things for everyone.
And what did they get instead? The US withdrawal from Vietnam was the worst thing that could happen to them... objectively.
And did the US suffer for it? Nope. We lost nothing we actually cared about. Our primary objective remember was to suppress the soviets to keep them from expanding. And we had no domino effect after Vietnam fell... so... either the domino theory was bullshit which is possible... or merely fighting the war and using up so many soviet resources was enough to shut down further soviet expansion.
Regardless, the US achieved its strategic goals and lost nothing it actually cared about. While the Vietnamese lost out big time on the chance to become a first world country. And the soviets gained nothing they wanted or needed in the process.
The US came out of Vietnam stronger. The Soviets came out of it weaker.
You're thinking of Vietnam like a war and not seeing it for what it really was... just a battle in the middle of the real war... The Cold War.
And Vietnam hurt the Soviets far more than it hurt us.
And we showed another group of hardasses that the US is made up of hardasses as well. Name another country that fought Vietnam that would actually go down into their holes? US soldiers would climb into those holes... often boobytrapped... with nothing but a pistol. Crawling around in the black.
The Chinese never followed the Vietnamese into their holes. We did. The Vietnamese still talk about it.
... Man makes sandwich 1812 I have sex with your mother 1972
They must be related.
Yes, we did invade Iraq at a time after 9/11 but the invasion of Iraq was only related to 9/11 in that the US was still keyed up and thus a little more trigger happy than before.
Thus when Saddam started dicking with the inspectors and we already had forces In Afghanistan... it was politically, logistically, and psychologically more acceptable to just say "fuck it - invade"
Now would the US have invaded Iraq without 9/11? Possibly not. Its hard to know as there are a lot of factors. But you can't say the US justified the invasion on the basis of 9/11. It was justified on the basis of nuclear containment which is a really really really really really big issue in US strategic policy.
There is something I've noticed with internationals and it is that they have ZERO conception for geopolitical strategy... I've seen no indication that you're taught any of this in school or university.
We get a little of it in the US and if you pick up any of our books on foreign policy then that's all they are... they literally don't talk about anything else. Its all strategic policy.
Now strategic policy can be bullshit. The Domino Theory was used as justification to fight the Vietnam war for example. The notion that if Vietnam fell it would cause a cascading domino effect where regional powers would fall into communist hands one at a time like tipping dominos.
But whether valid or invalid you have to understand that a lot of our behavior is based what our model for geopolitical strategy is from one moment to the next.
And different people have different theories.
A really big one that is shared by pretty much everyone in the state department and pentagon is the notion of nuclear containment.
The notion is that if some countries get nukes it encourages other countries to get nukes to counter them. And then other countries have to get nukes to counter those nukes. Its kind of a domino thing as well if you want to gainsay it. But the point is that it is believed by the US government that if Iran for example gets nukes that everyone in the middle east is going to want them.
And then you're going to have a high concentration of stupid assholes that hate everyone... they literally hate everyone... they hate each other they hate us they even hate themselves. They're not happy people. And then what happens when they have nukes?
Well they're suicidal on occasion. They get their religion all fired up... they stoke the fires of their hate... and they do really stupid things because they can't help themselves.
Now what is the US supposed to do in a nuclear Middle East for example?
Think about that. Not just Iran... EVERYONE has nukes... just contemplate that situation.
Now can the US get in there and defuse the situation and keep people from killing each other? Not really.
The whole thing is more analogous to a suspicious package that is probably a bomb... what does the bomb disposal unit do with it? Well... they put it in a bomb proof container and then they put another bomb inside the container to basically force the bomb in the package to go off.
And that is pretty much what the US is going to do if the middle east goes nuclear... we're going to back off... and with a really long stick... we're going to poke them so they just blow themselves up.
That is one of the end games if Iran gets nukes. It baffles me that internationals don't get this education. You all say stuff like "the US is important because you do things that effect us"... and then you make no effort to actually understand how we ACTUALLY think. You just watch some movies or tv shows and think you know something. It would be like watching bollywood and thinking you understand Indian strategic policy.
The concept is baffling to me. The US is a very poorly understood power mostly because people think they understand it. And they keep thinking that even though they get surprised and blindsided by US actions with some frequency. That would indicate that you don't understand us or you'd anticipate the move.
As to the citation, that is fair. I'll accept that but I do remember something else. I think my primary problem is that I can't find the source.
Even from that data though you're seeing an overall divergence of about 0.132 C in total. Which is still pretty big. If you're saying the temps went up.4... the sats are effectively showing 0.268 C... that's still a problem. What is more, the stats are not showing the high polar warming that the ground data is ASSUMING. Keep in mind, the ground stations have almost no actual data on the poles. I saw a map with all the areas not actually captured grayed out compared to the map we're typically presented with and all the areas with red had no stations in them. The stations all kissed the edges of the red areas but were not actually in them. If you look at the ground data they show big red spots at the poles. But the sats don't show it. And the ground data has a couple stations in greenland and a few in Alaska and northern canada. And it is on the basis of that that the entire pole is painted red. You're literally talking about maybe four or five stations... and if they're across the artcic circle at all... then only just barely.
The sat data shows a very different picture and I don't know if it makes sense to calibrate the sat data to the surface data because maybe it makes sense to do it the other way around... or at the very least try to harmonize the two. it seems like that doesn't happen though. The stat data is just slaved to the surface data even when the surface data is extrapolated.
As to your claim that the Zeta joule thing was audited, I've seen no evidence of that. I've actually seen several other scientists express frustration at the units because they don't know how to audit them.
As to church figures 5-7... if we assume 1860 predated any relevant human involvement then your citation actually undermines your position because the tend line doesn't significantly change with the burning of fossil fuels. Thus your citation of sea level rise while valid would not be valid supporting evidence for AGW. GW? Perhaps... but anthropogenic?... no.
As to your claim that it is accelerating, your cited figured from Church contradicts that. Examine figure 6... You're claiming the rate has jumped by three times... the trend line shows no break out with rates increasing by 3 times. I'm frankly puzzled by your Church citation because it seems to validate my positions more than your own and yet you keep citing it as evidence against me. You are confusing me.
As you can see there, at around 1 atmosphere or about 50km above the surface you're looking at around 75C. Keep in mind, Venus is a lot closer to the Sun.
Mars: Couldn't find a graph or table. Surface pressure is 600-1000 pascals with a temp of around -65 C... on Earth, the temp at 600-1000 pascals (about 30km above the earth's surface) is about -35 C.
What is more, on more, on the hotter worlds you can very easily get a lower temp by going up a tiny bit in the atmosphere and on the colder worlds going down a bit... typically you can equalize these with the Earth by moving the needle 10 or 20 percent at most up or down in the the relevant atmosphere.
This is the basis of the discussions about setting up a habitat on Venus for example... which would be some sort of lighter than air habitat that could choose the desired external temperature by rising or descending into the atmosphere.
As I said, this observation was not my own. I got it from a mathematician that played with the numbers and posted it on a blog as a "by the way" sort of thing. As a one off, I think its interesting. A different way of looking at things. Rather than simply comparing everything at the surface temperature of all these worlds which is quite arbitrary... comparing at equal pressures gives more of an apples to apples comparison. Since you can clearly see how radically the temperatures fluctuate based on pressure.
As to trapping heat... CO2 is hardly unique in this feature nor do I see why it plays a special role in the Earth atmosphere. The painted window analogy suggests that CO2 is like an opaque paint. But the reality is that once you've subtracted from its spectrum all the other overlapping spectrums you're left with only TINY sliver of spectrum that is actually unique to CO2. That is the ONLY portion of its spectrum that you can claim as being relevant. Water vapor for example overlaps over nearly all of CO2's spectrum all by itself... and goes well beyond CO2.
Water vapor is a MUCH more powerful green house "gas".
These lab tests you allude to... did they involve pumping a chamber up to 70~80 percent relative humility and then introducing CO2 in small amounts to see if the CO2 actually made any difference once the dominant green house gases were already accounted for?
I have no doubt that introducing CO2 into some test chamber is going to effect light absorption. The question is whether it does so significantly when the more common green house gases are already doing the same thing.
I've looked at these test cases in the labs and they don't appear to do that. They appear to have low humidity... or possibly even no humidity in the chamber when that happens. That's not reasonable.
You have to make as close an approximation to the earth's atmospheric composition at various altitudes... Then get a base line of
Hmmm... at this point the parties are more tribal actually. People rarely have different politics than their parents which implies it is a matter of indoctrination. Schools and universities have also shown ability to shift the politics of students. You poll them before they go in and then poll them after they come out and there are changes. Then you poll them 10 years after they leave university and their politics tend to have reverted to what they were before they went to university. So liberals become more liberal often after going to university and then become more moderate 10 years later but still liberal. Conservatives might go into a university as conservatives and come out either as moderates or even liberals... but ten years later that tends to have worn off.
Think of it like the way religions work. Same sort of thing. Not a lot of christian kids converting is Islam. Not a lot of islamic kids converting to Christianity... etc.
Atheism is more a matter of becoming lapse in a religion of birth rather than actually making any sort of conscious change.
Lets say I want you do something... and I beat the shit out of you to encourage you to do that... let say you really don't do any harm to me but I beat you until you're lying a pool of your own blood piss and shit.
Then I leave... and you still didn't do what I wanted you to do?
Did you win?
To say the US won in vietnam you'd have to say "yes, the guy that got the shit beaten out of him but still didn't comply won."
That is generally not how one determines winners and losers in a war.
In Afghanistan, lets say there was a house with several people in it... and we beat the hell out of the people causing us a problem and then put the people we wanted in charge of the house. Then we tried to give them some self defense training... gave them a gun with some ammo... and told them to take care of themselves. Then when we left the guy we beat up took the gun away from the guy we gave it too and went back to his old tricks. Did he win? Not against the US. Possibly against the guy we gave the gun to but conflating the Afghan government with the US is not reasonable.
Iraq is basically the same story.
Holding Iraq or Afghanistan merely required a US presence to backstop the local militaries that were too weak for various reasons to hold on their own. The same could of course be said of Vietnam. Had we stayed... the south would not have fallen.
Leaving does not mean losing. We were driven out of none of these countries. Nothing the Vietcong, the Taliban, or Isis did forced the US out.
It was political pressure at home that caused us to pull back and for those territories to be lost.
if you want to say the US was defeated... you could possibly put the blame on the Democrat party since they were to my knowledge the official political force that caused the changes that led directly to US forces being withdrawn.
So... is that the argument you want to make? That the Democrat party is really good at undermining US foreign policy? Because that's more rational than anything you've said thus far.
First, Osama was not sponsored by the Saudi government.
Second, he did not run and hide in Saudi Arabia and then the saudis did not protect him.
Third, we did not attack Iraq after 9/11 nor was the justification for doing so 9/11.
Fourth, we attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 because Osama had gone to ground and was being protected by the Taliban.
As to attacking whomever without evidence, why do you think we wanted to attack Iraq in the first place? I think you were very mislead on US objectives and thinking in that matter.
A whole lot of people buy a lot of really stupid propaganda.
Okay then... sorry for upsetting you. Enjoy your pudding.
Explanation for people that aren't drooling all over themselves:
That polling data in relation to elections has problems has been well known. Exit polls especially are very unreliable. You ask someone that just voted how they voted and they often don't feel comfortable answering honestly.
papers have been written about and its a well known element of polling. As to the ease with which opinion polls can be biased by phrasing of questions is also very well known.
There are other issues like who even answers the polls. Many polls have fewer than 5 percent actually consent to have the poll taken which means that 95 percent are self selecting out of the polling. That means the sample is not random.
The issues are many and well known to anyone with any kind of education.
That's what they think. The nuke can only be used against a given type of attack. And that assumes we don't first strike it. The mullahs will need to put the "bomb" in a sub we can't find. Good luck with that.
If we know where it is, we can destroy it before they can use it.
The Mullahs have promised they will not develop a nuclear bomb. Their entire nuclear program as argued in the UN is a peaceful energy program. They are under the sanctions they're under even with that.
If build a bomb then they'll have lost any credibility in the UN... and the US could just without warning air strike their facilities with deep penetrators or possibly even a tactical nuke of our own.
And that's assuming we want to take that route. We have several other options.
We can also empower a proxy power to engage the Mullahs for us. The instant they use the bomb... assuming they do... they'll have shot their wad... and blowing up fellow Muslims in all likelihood.
And again... that is only one option... there are as they say many ways to skin a cat.
CO2 is not unique in its ability to absorb energy or radiate that energy.
You can do comparisons to every other planet in the solar system and what you'll find is that the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference.
what makes a difference is distance from the sun and density.
Do you want me to cite the temperature of Venus by pressure? We have graphs. I can do the same for Jupiter and mars... I'm not sure about Uranus but I can probably find good figures for that.
Tell me if you want those graphs cited. They're not hard to find. If you match pressures you'll find that the temps become much more similar across all the worlds. With worlds being closer to the Sun being hotter and worlds farther away being cooler.
The mistake with the Venus study was in discounting pressure as being relevant. I believe I was first twigged to this observation by a mathematician that took a casual interest in the issue.
As to the skeptical scientist, I should point out that that is an advocate's site... It isn't impartial. If you expect to cite that, then I expect to be able to cite the opposing equivalent... "Watt's up with that" or Judith Curry's blog. Can I do that or do you want to reconsider your citation?
As to the effect of CO2 being unquestioned, that is simply not true. You've just redefined "question" to only apply to people that don't disagree. By that method anything can be unquestioned. There is clearly a controversy so claiming there is no question is not logically supportable. Are the questions of it valid? Perhaps not... but you can't say they don't exist.
And that puts you in the position of showing why any given challenge is or is not valid. You can't simply dismiss them all. That is not how science works. That's your politics intruding into the issue. You can do that if you want... but your surrender scientific and intellectual credibility in the process and become purely a political animal at that point.
If you choose to do that, then I'll likewise shift into that argument and simply point out that you're losing the political argument. The trend line for polling of the general population in the US and UK shows a trend to skepticism. You're spending billions of dollars... often of US tax money to argue your case... and you're losing. Is this the discussion you wish to have? Or would you like to go back to science? Because I am quite happy to have either a battle of power politics or detached scientific evaluation. Its up to you. I'm an amphibian like that. Comfortable in either setting. I'm a seasoned campaigner, chum... we can have any kind of conversation you please but don't expect me to be surprised or unprepared for anything. I've seen it all.
No, I've watched national sports coverage of major games.
Compare them to what you get out of esports and you'll see esports for MAJOR games is already better.
As to dumb fucks... your inability to think rationally and instead descend into emotionalism is not helping you. It is ironic that people that make such insults tend to have to have them be more applicable to themselves than anything....Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Now... you show me a clip of a sports game that gives better coverage of a game.
You lose. Don't be stubborn. Just surrender. You're idiotically wrong.
Ever listen to football commentary or basketball? Its all color commentary or idiotic observations like "team X won because they scored more points"... no shit, fucktards.
The eSports commentary is vastly more incisive in most cases. They'll talk about tactics and strategies... they'll get into issues like the micro if we're talking about starcraft.
We don't need analytics and the last thing we want to emulate is the professional sports commentary for ANYTHING besides the quality color commentary.
And the issue there is that color commentary is actually already pretty good in esports. There are some commentators that are HILARIOUS while at the same time actually making good points about what is going on.
Watch three or four esports games with commentary from the esports community. THEN watch an normal sports game on tv. Whole thing... watch it all... all four hours of it or whatever.
Try as best you can to do apples to apples comparisons. eSports doesn't need any pointers from traditional sports coverage. Its already better.
Not really... copying someone is not the same thing as understanding. They learn by watching what we do but they don't know why we do it or know all the things we could have done or the counters to the things we did do.
... are you legit retarded? Like... really? Are you wearing a football helmet and typing by banging your head into a keyboard in some sort of assisted living facility?
I said from the start we left the war due to internal political reasons. Not because we were driven out by military force. And you just said I couldn't deny that the american people made their political will heard to end the war... and you say that while believing you're contradicting me?
Just shut up. You're too stupid to have this conversation.
... you're not thinking it through. We don't have to engage them directly to manipulate the situation against them. And our experiences are relevant in our goals, tactics, strategies, and thus ultimately what we have done to Russian forces through proxies.
When I said we wouldn't engage directly, I did not say we would not use proxies. And what proxies do the Russians have these days? None. Proxies must be supplied and paid for and the Russians can't even pay for their own forces much less fund proxies. Money and weapons are going to start flowing into eastern europe. Before we were just trying to rebuild and repair the damage the soviets did to Eastern Europe while at the same time make countries in the area feel safe and secure enough that investment could flow in to build up their industrial base.
But now the Russians have made it clear that they are a problem that needs to be solved. And that means efforts are going to be made to resolve the Russian issue so that we can go back to fixing eastern europe without further disturbance.
This will likely take the form of training, cooperation, the staging of US bases in the area, rapid response forces that can be brought to bear quickly, and of course arming the local forces such that if Russia makes a move they'll take unacceptable losses. Giving the locals modern US man portable anti tank rockets will make it very hard for them to move tanks through territory quickly. They'll have to send out scouts to clear ambushes etc.
This will slow their advance down significantly... and that will give the US plenty of time to reinforce the area with forces capable of stopping the Russian advance cold.
I do not think the Russians are stupid enough to engage those forces when they show up. The russians have relied recently on simply doing everything so quickly that by the time the US can respond it is already over.
If we can slow them down and reduce our reaction times in the area... then the Russians can't advance. What is more... it is critical that they take heavy losses when they push forward. Anti tank mines, man portable anti tank rockets... and of course giving the locals some actual proper tanks themselves should be enough to stop them.
The Russians like to use the US involvement as a pretext for invasion. We might play a double proxy ploy for example.
Fund poland and then have poland station troops in Ukraine. So no US troops... but a NATO member willing and able to fight to death.
We have a lot of options and a lot of resources. The Russians have neither. They can't win unless the US does everything wrong and the Russians do everything right. No one is that unlucky or lucky. The US will get a few things right and the Russians will get a few things wrong... and the US has too much leverage to lose and the Russians are too over leveraged to make even one mistake.
And yet we saw the soviets pushed out of Afghanistan by doing little more than giving the locals some stinger missiles.
Russia has already lost. They just don't know it. They're not able to sustain their existing forces with their economy much less replace losses much less upgrade anything.
Russia's only long term hope was making peace with the West. We could have saved them. But Russia has decided to challenge us with an economy half the size of Italy, a retrograde technological base, no friends in the world, and surrounded by neighbors that hate them.
Believe what you like. Its checkmate six moves and the only people that don't know it are the amateurs.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or contradicting me?
The poll was comparing a subgroup to the general population. That was my assertion and that is a fact... are you saying that I am right in that and that the subgroup was actually a subgroup of a sub group or are you saying that I made some sort of error?
1. I didn't claim they were left wing. I claimed the poll was a progressive puff piece.
2. If you read their discussion on the methodology of that poll, they actually fucking say what I said in my post to a large extent about the findings not being indicative of a scientific position.
3. As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
Never to their actual profit so far as I can see. Vietnam could have been South Korea.
Vietnam's per capita GDP is about 2,000 dollars.
South Korea's is about 35,000 dollars
And if you know anything about Vietnam it is pretty much a wall to wall miserable shit show.
So... what was accomplished there?
its important to remember that Sun Tzu wasn't interested in the property of a kingdom... just keeping the ruling elite in power. Your government... who ever that is...
If the Vietcong had made peace with the US... we would have made sure they had control over their territory to the north so long as they offered people some basic rights... they would have had representation in the government... we would have helped them build up their economy... Sky's the limit.
Good things for everyone.
And what did they get instead? The US withdrawal from Vietnam was the worst thing that could happen to them... objectively.
And did the US suffer for it? Nope. We lost nothing we actually cared about. Our primary objective remember was to suppress the soviets to keep them from expanding. And we had no domino effect after Vietnam fell... so... either the domino theory was bullshit which is possible... or merely fighting the war and using up so many soviet resources was enough to shut down further soviet expansion.
Regardless, the US achieved its strategic goals and lost nothing it actually cared about. While the Vietnamese lost out big time on the chance to become a first world country. And the soviets gained nothing they wanted or needed in the process.
The US came out of Vietnam stronger. The Soviets came out of it weaker.
You're thinking of Vietnam like a war and not seeing it for what it really was... just a battle in the middle of the real war... The Cold War.
And Vietnam hurt the Soviets far more than it hurt us.
And we showed another group of hardasses that the US is made up of hardasses as well. Name another country that fought Vietnam that would actually go down into their holes? US soldiers would climb into those holes... often boobytrapped... with nothing but a pistol. Crawling around in the black.
The Chinese never followed the Vietnamese into their holes. We did. The Vietnamese still talk about it.
...
Man makes sandwich 1812
I have sex with your mother 1972
They must be related.
Yes, we did invade Iraq at a time after 9/11 but the invasion of Iraq was only related to 9/11 in that the US was still keyed up and thus a little more trigger happy than before.
Thus when Saddam started dicking with the inspectors and we already had forces In Afghanistan... it was politically, logistically, and psychologically more acceptable to just say "fuck it - invade"
Now would the US have invaded Iraq without 9/11? Possibly not. Its hard to know as there are a lot of factors. But you can't say the US justified the invasion on the basis of 9/11. It was justified on the basis of nuclear containment which is a really really really really really big issue in US strategic policy.
There is something I've noticed with internationals and it is that they have ZERO conception for geopolitical strategy... I've seen no indication that you're taught any of this in school or university.
We get a little of it in the US and if you pick up any of our books on foreign policy then that's all they are... they literally don't talk about anything else. Its all strategic policy.
Now strategic policy can be bullshit. The Domino Theory was used as justification to fight the Vietnam war for example. The notion that if Vietnam fell it would cause a cascading domino effect where regional powers would fall into communist hands one at a time like tipping dominos.
But whether valid or invalid you have to understand that a lot of our behavior is based what our model for geopolitical strategy is from one moment to the next.
And different people have different theories.
A really big one that is shared by pretty much everyone in the state department and pentagon is the notion of nuclear containment.
The notion is that if some countries get nukes it encourages other countries to get nukes to counter them. And then other countries have to get nukes to counter those nukes. Its kind of a domino thing as well if you want to gainsay it. But the point is that it is believed by the US government that if Iran for example gets nukes that everyone in the middle east is going to want them.
And then you're going to have a high concentration of stupid assholes that hate everyone... they literally hate everyone... they hate each other they hate us they even hate themselves. They're not happy people. And then what happens when they have nukes?
Well they're suicidal on occasion. They get their religion all fired up... they stoke the fires of their hate... and they do really stupid things because they can't help themselves.
Now what is the US supposed to do in a nuclear Middle East for example?
Think about that. Not just Iran... EVERYONE has nukes... just contemplate that situation.
Now can the US get in there and defuse the situation and keep people from killing each other? Not really.
The whole thing is more analogous to a suspicious package that is probably a bomb... what does the bomb disposal unit do with it? Well... they put it in a bomb proof container and then they put another bomb inside the container to basically force the bomb in the package to go off.
And that is pretty much what the US is going to do if the middle east goes nuclear... we're going to back off... and with a really long stick... we're going to poke them so they just blow themselves up.
That is one of the end games if Iran gets nukes. It baffles me that internationals don't get this education. You all say stuff like "the US is important because you do things that effect us"... and then you make no effort to actually understand how we ACTUALLY think. You just watch some movies or tv shows and think you know something. It would be like watching bollywood and thinking you understand Indian strategic policy.
The concept is baffling to me. The US is a very poorly understood power mostly because people think they understand it. And they keep thinking that even though they get surprised and blindsided by US actions with some frequency. That would indicate that you don't understand us or you'd anticipate the move.
You want me to show you professional players... grown me.... crying? Because I can.
The point captain non sequitor is the commentary of the matches and not your impressions of the games or the players.
What are we talking about? Analytics in esports to make them more like traditional sports.
And my point was that esports coverage is already superior.
As to the citation, that is fair. I'll accept that but I do remember something else. I think my primary problem is that I can't find the source.
Even from that data though you're seeing an overall divergence of about 0.132 C in total. Which is still pretty big. If you're saying the temps went up .4... the sats are effectively showing 0.268 C... that's still a problem. What is more, the stats are not showing the high polar warming that the ground data is ASSUMING. Keep in mind, the ground stations have almost no actual data on the poles. I saw a map with all the areas not actually captured grayed out compared to the map we're typically presented with and all the areas with red had no stations in them. The stations all kissed the edges of the red areas but were not actually in them. If you look at the ground data they show big red spots at the poles. But the sats don't show it. And the ground data has a couple stations in greenland and a few in Alaska and northern canada. And it is on the basis of that that the entire pole is painted red. You're literally talking about maybe four or five stations... and if they're across the artcic circle at all... then only just barely.
The sat data shows a very different picture and I don't know if it makes sense to calibrate the sat data to the surface data because maybe it makes sense to do it the other way around... or at the very least try to harmonize the two. it seems like that doesn't happen though. The stat data is just slaved to the surface data even when the surface data is extrapolated.
As to your claim that the Zeta joule thing was audited, I've seen no evidence of that. I've actually seen several other scientists express frustration at the units because they don't know how to audit them.
As to church figures 5-7... if we assume 1860 predated any relevant human involvement then your citation actually undermines your position because the tend line doesn't significantly change with the burning of fossil fuels. Thus your citation of sea level rise while valid would not be valid supporting evidence for AGW. GW? Perhaps... but anthropogenic?... no.
As to your claim that it is accelerating, your cited figured from Church contradicts that. Examine figure 6... You're claiming the rate has jumped by three times... the trend line shows no break out with rates increasing by 3 times. I'm frankly puzzled by your Church citation because it seems to validate my positions more than your own and yet you keep citing it as evidence against me. You are confusing me.
Jesus... fine.
Earth's temperature by pressure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I can probably find a better graph but lets go with that for now.
Venus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is this table in that wiki:
I assume X Earth means the unit is atmospheres.
Height(km) Temp.(ÂC) Atmospheric pressure (x Earth)
0 462 92.10
5 424 66.65
10 385 47.39
15 348 33.04
20 306 22.52
25 264 14.93
30 222 9.851
35 180 5.917
40 143 3.501
45 110 1.979
50 75 1.066
55 27 0.5314
60 â'10 0.2357
65 â'30 0.09765
70 â'43 0.03690
80 â'76 0.004760
90 â'104 0.0003736
100 â'112 0.00002660
As you can see there, at around 1 atmosphere or about 50km above the surface you're looking at around 75C. Keep in mind, Venus is a lot closer to the Sun.
Jupiter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
About -98C at 1 atmosphere.
Mars:
Couldn't find a graph or table. Surface pressure is 600-1000 pascals with a temp of around -65 C... on Earth, the temp at 600-1000 pascals (about 30km above the earth's surface) is about -35 C.
What is more, on more, on the hotter worlds you can very easily get a lower temp by going up a tiny bit in the atmosphere and on the colder worlds going down a bit... typically you can equalize these with the Earth by moving the needle 10 or 20 percent at most up or down in the the relevant atmosphere.
This is the basis of the discussions about setting up a habitat on Venus for example... which would be some sort of lighter than air habitat that could choose the desired external temperature by rising or descending into the atmosphere.
As I said, this observation was not my own. I got it from a mathematician that played with the numbers and posted it on a blog as a "by the way" sort of thing. As a one off, I think its interesting. A different way of looking at things. Rather than simply comparing everything at the surface temperature of all these worlds which is quite arbitrary... comparing at equal pressures gives more of an apples to apples comparison. Since you can clearly see how radically the temperatures fluctuate based on pressure.
As to trapping heat... CO2 is hardly unique in this feature nor do I see why it plays a special role in the Earth atmosphere. The painted window analogy suggests that CO2 is like an opaque paint. But the reality is that once you've subtracted from its spectrum all the other overlapping spectrums you're left with only TINY sliver of spectrum that is actually unique to CO2. That is the ONLY portion of its spectrum that you can claim as being relevant. Water vapor for example overlaps over nearly all of CO2's spectrum all by itself... and goes well beyond CO2.
Water vapor is a MUCH more powerful green house "gas".
These lab tests you allude to... did they involve pumping a chamber up to 70~80 percent relative humility and then introducing CO2 in small amounts to see if the CO2 actually made any difference once the dominant green house gases were already accounted for?
I have no doubt that introducing CO2 into some test chamber is going to effect light absorption. The question is whether it does so significantly when the more common green house gases are already doing the same thing.
I've looked at these test cases in the labs and they don't appear to do that. They appear to have low humidity... or possibly even no humidity in the chamber when that happens. That's not reasonable.
You have to make as close an approximation to the earth's atmospheric composition at various altitudes... Then get a base line of
Hmmm... at this point the parties are more tribal actually. People rarely have different politics than their parents which implies it is a matter of indoctrination. Schools and universities have also shown ability to shift the politics of students. You poll them before they go in and then poll them after they come out and there are changes. Then you poll them 10 years after they leave university and their politics tend to have reverted to what they were before they went to university. So liberals become more liberal often after going to university and then become more moderate 10 years later but still liberal. Conservatives might go into a university as conservatives and come out either as moderates or even liberals... but ten years later that tends to have worn off.
Think of it like the way religions work. Same sort of thing. Not a lot of christian kids converting is Islam. Not a lot of islamic kids converting to Christianity... etc.
Atheism is more a matter of becoming lapse in a religion of birth rather than actually making any sort of conscious change.
Depend on how you define winning and losing.
Lets say I want you do something... and I beat the shit out of you to encourage you to do that... let say you really don't do any harm to me but I beat you until you're lying a pool of your own blood piss and shit.
Then I leave... and you still didn't do what I wanted you to do?
Did you win?
To say the US won in vietnam you'd have to say "yes, the guy that got the shit beaten out of him but still didn't comply won."
That is generally not how one determines winners and losers in a war.
In Afghanistan, lets say there was a house with several people in it... and we beat the hell out of the people causing us a problem and then put the people we wanted in charge of the house. Then we tried to give them some self defense training... gave them a gun with some ammo... and told them to take care of themselves. Then when we left the guy we beat up took the gun away from the guy we gave it too and went back to his old tricks. Did he win? Not against the US. Possibly against the guy we gave the gun to but conflating the Afghan government with the US is not reasonable.
Iraq is basically the same story.
Holding Iraq or Afghanistan merely required a US presence to backstop the local militaries that were too weak for various reasons to hold on their own. The same could of course be said of Vietnam. Had we stayed... the south would not have fallen.
Leaving does not mean losing. We were driven out of none of these countries. Nothing the Vietcong, the Taliban, or Isis did forced the US out.
It was political pressure at home that caused us to pull back and for those territories to be lost.
if you want to say the US was defeated... you could possibly put the blame on the Democrat party since they were to my knowledge the official political force that caused the changes that led directly to US forces being withdrawn.
So... is that the argument you want to make? That the Democrat party is really good at undermining US foreign policy? Because that's more rational than anything you've said thus far.
First, Osama was not sponsored by the Saudi government.
Second, he did not run and hide in Saudi Arabia and then the saudis did not protect him.
Third, we did not attack Iraq after 9/11 nor was the justification for doing so 9/11.
Fourth, we attacked Afghanistan after 9/11 because Osama had gone to ground and was being protected by the Taliban.
As to attacking whomever without evidence, why do you think we wanted to attack Iraq in the first place? I think you were very mislead on US objectives and thinking in that matter.
A whole lot of people buy a lot of really stupid propaganda.
... yes but which ideology dresses itself in the mantle of science more than any other? The progressive left does.
And is there anything scientifically compelling about socialism or marxism?
Nope.
So as usual... these sorts of accusations tend to be more projection than anything.
So apparently you're a legit retard?
Okay then... sorry for upsetting you. Enjoy your pudding.
Explanation for people that aren't drooling all over themselves:
That polling data in relation to elections has problems has been well known. Exit polls especially are very unreliable. You ask someone that just voted how they voted and they often don't feel comfortable answering honestly.
papers have been written about and its a well known element of polling. As to the ease with which opinion polls can be biased by phrasing of questions is also very well known.
There are other issues like who even answers the polls. Many polls have fewer than 5 percent actually consent to have the poll taken which means that 95 percent are self selecting out of the polling. That means the sample is not random.
The issues are many and well known to anyone with any kind of education.
That's what they think. The nuke can only be used against a given type of attack. And that assumes we don't first strike it. The mullahs will need to put the "bomb" in a sub we can't find. Good luck with that.
If we know where it is, we can destroy it before they can use it.
The Mullahs have promised they will not develop a nuclear bomb. Their entire nuclear program as argued in the UN is a peaceful energy program. They are under the sanctions they're under even with that.
If build a bomb then they'll have lost any credibility in the UN... and the US could just without warning air strike their facilities with deep penetrators or possibly even a tactical nuke of our own.
And that's assuming we want to take that route. We have several other options.
We can also empower a proxy power to engage the Mullahs for us. The instant they use the bomb... assuming they do... they'll have shot their wad... and blowing up fellow Muslims in all likelihood.
And again... that is only one option... there are as they say many ways to skin a cat.
Yep. And more detailed than anything you find in sports. Clicks per minute for example is a thing in RTSs... that's insanely anal.
CO2 is not unique in its ability to absorb energy or radiate that energy.
You can do comparisons to every other planet in the solar system and what you'll find is that the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference.
what makes a difference is distance from the sun and density.
Do you want me to cite the temperature of Venus by pressure? We have graphs. I can do the same for Jupiter and mars... I'm not sure about Uranus but I can probably find good figures for that.
Tell me if you want those graphs cited. They're not hard to find. If you match pressures you'll find that the temps become much more similar across all the worlds. With worlds being closer to the Sun being hotter and worlds farther away being cooler.
The mistake with the Venus study was in discounting pressure as being relevant. I believe I was first twigged to this observation by a mathematician that took a casual interest in the issue.
As to the skeptical scientist, I should point out that that is an advocate's site... It isn't impartial. If you expect to cite that, then I expect to be able to cite the opposing equivalent... "Watt's up with that" or Judith Curry's blog. Can I do that or do you want to reconsider your citation?
As to the effect of CO2 being unquestioned, that is simply not true. You've just redefined "question" to only apply to people that don't disagree. By that method anything can be unquestioned. There is clearly a controversy so claiming there is no question is not logically supportable. Are the questions of it valid? Perhaps not... but you can't say they don't exist.
And that puts you in the position of showing why any given challenge is or is not valid. You can't simply dismiss them all. That is not how science works. That's your politics intruding into the issue. You can do that if you want... but your surrender scientific and intellectual credibility in the process and become purely a political animal at that point.
If you choose to do that, then I'll likewise shift into that argument and simply point out that you're losing the political argument. The trend line for polling of the general population in the US and UK shows a trend to skepticism. You're spending billions of dollars... often of US tax money to argue your case... and you're losing. Is this the discussion you wish to have? Or would you like to go back to science? Because I am quite happy to have either a battle of power politics or detached scientific evaluation. Its up to you. I'm an amphibian like that. Comfortable in either setting. I'm a seasoned campaigner, chum... we can have any kind of conversation you please but don't expect me to be surprised or unprepared for anything. I've seen it all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Both spellings are acceptable. Your enlightenment is my only reward.
No, I've watched national sports coverage of major games.
Compare them to what you get out of esports and you'll see esports for MAJOR games is already better.
As to dumb fucks... your inability to think rationally and instead descend into emotionalism is not helping you. It is ironic that people that make such insults tend to have to have them be more applicable to themselves than anything. ...Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Now... you show me a clip of a sports game that gives better coverage of a game.
You lose. Don't be stubborn. Just surrender. You're idiotically wrong.
Structure your comments better... decoding your babble isn't worth my time.
Ever listen to football commentary or basketball? Its all color commentary or idiotic observations like "team X won because they scored more points"... no shit, fucktards.
The eSports commentary is vastly more incisive in most cases. They'll talk about tactics and strategies... they'll get into issues like the micro if we're talking about starcraft.
We don't need analytics and the last thing we want to emulate is the professional sports commentary for ANYTHING besides the quality color commentary.
And the issue there is that color commentary is actually already pretty good in esports. There are some commentators that are HILARIOUS while at the same time actually making good points about what is going on.
Watch three or four esports games with commentary from the esports community. THEN watch an normal sports game on tv. Whole thing... watch it all... all four hours of it or whatever.
Try as best you can to do apples to apples comparisons. eSports doesn't need any pointers from traditional sports coverage. Its already better.
Not really... copying someone is not the same thing as understanding. They learn by watching what we do but they don't know why we do it or know all the things we could have done or the counters to the things we did do.
Its a good deal more complicated.
... are you legit retarded? Like... really? Are you wearing a football helmet and typing by banging your head into a keyboard in some sort of assisted living facility?
I said from the start we left the war due to internal political reasons. Not because we were driven out by military force. And you just said I couldn't deny that the american people made their political will heard to end the war... and you say that while believing you're contradicting me?
Just shut up. You're too stupid to have this conversation.
... you're not thinking it through. We don't have to engage them directly to manipulate the situation against them. And our experiences are relevant in our goals, tactics, strategies, and thus ultimately what we have done to Russian forces through proxies.
When I said we wouldn't engage directly, I did not say we would not use proxies. And what proxies do the Russians have these days? None. Proxies must be supplied and paid for and the Russians can't even pay for their own forces much less fund proxies. Money and weapons are going to start flowing into eastern europe. Before we were just trying to rebuild and repair the damage the soviets did to Eastern Europe while at the same time make countries in the area feel safe and secure enough that investment could flow in to build up their industrial base.
But now the Russians have made it clear that they are a problem that needs to be solved. And that means efforts are going to be made to resolve the Russian issue so that we can go back to fixing eastern europe without further disturbance.
This will likely take the form of training, cooperation, the staging of US bases in the area, rapid response forces that can be brought to bear quickly, and of course arming the local forces such that if Russia makes a move they'll take unacceptable losses. Giving the locals modern US man portable anti tank rockets will make it very hard for them to move tanks through territory quickly. They'll have to send out scouts to clear ambushes etc.
This will slow their advance down significantly... and that will give the US plenty of time to reinforce the area with forces capable of stopping the Russian advance cold.
I do not think the Russians are stupid enough to engage those forces when they show up. The russians have relied recently on simply doing everything so quickly that by the time the US can respond it is already over.
If we can slow them down and reduce our reaction times in the area... then the Russians can't advance. What is more... it is critical that they take heavy losses when they push forward. Anti tank mines, man portable anti tank rockets... and of course giving the locals some actual proper tanks themselves should be enough to stop them.
The Russians like to use the US involvement as a pretext for invasion. We might play a double proxy ploy for example.
Fund poland and then have poland station troops in Ukraine. So no US troops... but a NATO member willing and able to fight to death.
We have a lot of options and a lot of resources. The Russians have neither. They can't win unless the US does everything wrong and the Russians do everything right. No one is that unlucky or lucky. The US will get a few things right and the Russians will get a few things wrong... and the US has too much leverage to lose and the Russians are too over leveraged to make even one mistake.
And yet we saw the soviets pushed out of Afghanistan by doing little more than giving the locals some stinger missiles.
Russia has already lost. They just don't know it. They're not able to sustain their existing forces with their economy much less replace losses much less upgrade anything.
Russia's only long term hope was making peace with the West. We could have saved them. But Russia has decided to challenge us with an economy half the size of Italy, a retrograde technological base, no friends in the world, and surrounded by neighbors that hate them.
Believe what you like. Its checkmate six moves and the only people that don't know it are the amateurs.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.nature.com/news/why...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/a...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.mysterypollster.com...
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/general...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.c...
http://nautil.us/blog/why-were...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...
http://articles.economictimes....
First few links from the search engine typing in "why are election polls often wrong"...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-pol...
http://time.com/3558932/pollin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/...
http://www.kansas.com/news/loc...
Shut up. Just close your stupid mouth. Sit down. And don't speak again until addressed. You're an idiot. It has been officially noticed.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or contradicting me?
The poll was comparing a subgroup to the general population. That was my assertion and that is a fact... are you saying that I am right in that and that the subgroup was actually a subgroup of a sub group or are you saying that I made some sort of error?
Clarify please.
1. I didn't claim they were left wing. I claimed the poll was a progressive puff piece.
2. If you read their discussion on the methodology of that poll, they actually fucking say what I said in my post to a large extent about the findings not being indicative of a scientific position.
3. As to right versus left... are you implying that progressives don't complain when hit pieces are published about them? Who do you think you're fooling besides yourself?
Oh my summer child... what do you know of SJWs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You've not seen an SJW until you've seen a San Franciscan hipster. Those ones are outright cultural marxists. The real deal. Sophists to the core.