Priory_of_Sion

The concern is that carbon sinks aren't able to take up that CO2 due to warming and thus accelerate warming. The Ocean is the largest carbon sink and takes in gigatons more CO2 than it emits. The problem is that human activities has thrown the sink/source equilibrium out of whack so now the atmosphere is taking in more of the share of CO2 because as temperatures increase, the oceans lose their properties as good carbon sinks. 
Totally. 
Yeah, it was sorta figured out in 1956. 
 
Carbon 14  and 13 ratios are decreasing and thus the source for the extra carbon in the atmosphere is from an old and organic source. That suggests fossil fuels are driving the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.  
 
Depends where you live and how bad desertification/deforestation is in whatever region you're living in. 
I can see being skeptical about alarmism, though I can't see how a new climate regime being rapidly changed within a century's time can be harmless. There's plenty of worry about regarding positive feedback loops arising such as permafrost melting that will release methane that will warm the atmosphere even more. I touched on the oceans losing their ability to be carbon sinks earlier which is another feedback loop and you've also touched on the increased temperatures means increased water vapor (another greenhouse gas) feedback loop, the melting of ice is another feedback loop because ice reflects a good bit of solar radiation, but dark substrates such as the ocean or rocks will absorb heat and thus you'll get even more warming. This is what the alarmist sentiment is about, and the science behind how these feedback loops work are solid. 
 
I've tried to look for negative feedback loops associated with CO2 induced warming and I can't find anything.
 
 Many IPCC reports just focus on warming from CO2 emissions and not the warming that caused by these feedback loops as well, and thus there's been plenty of criticism that climate change projections, which often look at the end of the century, only show a rise in temperature of only a couple of degrees. Hell, even the sea level rise projections are just based off of thermal expansion and don't include ice melt.  
 
The powerful individuals and organizations... is an argument that goes both ways. 

 
Plenty of organizations, people, companies, etc are using global warming as a tool for their scams. It's disheartening for me as there's plenty of research papers documenting the potential negative effects of global warming and the most obvious solution is still demonized. 

The most idiotic claim in this is the idea that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. 
 
It's been understood since the mid-1800s that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Its not magic, its the physical properties of CO2 molecules that interact with long-wave radiation that the earth gives off and radiates that back. CO2 actually does match up well with temperature once you also include that the ancient sun was less irradiant. CO2 has doubled in the atmosphere, and its isotopic signature shows that it is from fossil fuel emissions. 
 
It's fine to debate how bad climate change will be, but this guy's "we don't know how the climate works, but doubling CO2 will surely make things better" is rather disappointing. I was expecting something more. Something not retarded. 

16th april, on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan&oldid=775736231
30th april, turkey bans wikipedia

That's from the blogger/twitter user "sntankograd".

What the..?

But the photo clearly shows that it was immobilized in the harsh Russian July winter.

With China it's not any ONE system that is the issue in my personal opinion. The issue is instead that they have those really fast catamarans, a metric shit ton of aircraft which can carry antiship missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, diesel subs, nuclear subs, and I'm sure a bunch more things that I've missed!
 
When you look at it from that angle, and from the angle of our surface combatants of all classes having pretty sparse defensive armament as compared to their Russian counterparts, I believe that the Chinese could definitely sink one of our carriers operating inside the first island chain.
 
Even when you look at the very serious muscle that American super carriers travel with, like a famous actor's entourage, it's still readily apparent that the Chinese could pretty easily flat out run an entire carrier group out of defensive missiles and then sink an entire carrier group except for the sub(s).
 
The question then becomes exactly how willing they are to have a nuclear disaster x kilometers from their coastline and et cetera.
 
But they can definitely do it.
 
In a way, I look at the Nuclear reactors which power super carriers as their penultimate defensive system which allows them to operate with impunity well within range of hostile coastal defense missile systems.
 
Sort of one of those situations where sure you COULD sink us... But you won't because your country depends far too heavily on protein sources etc that come from the waters we're steaming in!

I'm thinking of a US carrier group operating in a hostile Persian Gulf. Iran has a plethora of anti-ship missiles, from the lowly Silkworm to cruise missiles to an anti-ship ballistic missile. Iran's IRGC Navy and the regular Iranian Navy also can deploy swarms of fast attack and torpedo boats that could attack a US carrier group. I'd be worried that a carrier's defenses couldn't keep track with all of the potential threats. Would be a waste of a could $ billion if a carrier gets sunk by some dinghies.
 
I think a similar scenario could play out around the Korean peninsula if things go sour and a carrier isn't too far from the coast. 
 
Besides from operating in a littoral zone, I don't think carriers are that vulnerable. I think the threat from that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, the DF-21D, is a little over hyped and that Russian and Chinese submarines might not be quite good enough to sneak up on a carrier group. Could be wrong here though, and if they are highly vulnerable to these threats then the days of carriers as a weapon of interstate war may be numbered. 
 
Most of the wars that seem to be fought though are against non-state actors in regions where its hard to get a good airfield, so carriers will be useful to give air support against guerrillas/insurgents for some time to come and those groups won't have the capabilities to threaten a carrier. Toxn's point about small carriers being useful can be applied here as well. 

The FBI is extremely good now

 

Turkey has launched airstrikes against the Iraqi Yazidi region of Sinjar, you know, the same place where ISIS massacred and enslaved the Yazidis and prompted US intervention. Its ok if the Turks do it though, its especially ok since its the anniversary of the Armenian genocide which they still deny and the US fails to call a genocide due to Turkish lobbyists. 

The FBI is extremely good now

 

The FBI is extremely good now

 

Turkey has launched airstrikes against the Iraqi Yazidi region of Sinjar, you know, the same place where ISIS massacred and enslaved the Yazidis and prompted US intervention. Its ok if the Turks do it though, its especially ok since its the anniversary of the Armenian genocide which they still deny and the US fails to call a genocide due to Turkish lobbyists. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Even if global warming isn't even real (it is fwiw), I'd still be for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. The less money falling into the hands of the Saudis, the better. Fuck them. 

Boomslang has to be one of the best names in animalia 

LEARN THIS ONE COOL TRICK