Global Warming Mk. II

Global Warming
So far, there is little concrete proof that global warming is being caused by a predominately man made carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect as presented by the IPCC and a few other organizations (although in the case of NASA and the EPA, not all members of the organization necessarily agree).[1][2][3]? While carbon dioxide may be having some effect, there is little evidence to indicate that it's a significant issue, or predominately responsible for any of the arbitrary warming that may theoretically be occurring. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the primary reason for this is the questionable aspects of carbon dioxide even causing warming itself.

Global warming works in many ways, but the predominate effect is through infrared radiation absorption. The Ozone layer blocks much of the UV that comes to earth. Visible radiation going through the earth's atmosphere, and a small amount of low frequency UV, is absorbed and then reflected back up into the Atmosphere at much lower frequencies, or in the infrared zones, which is opaque to various greenhouse gases, including water vapor. Greenhouse gases absorb and then reflect or re-radiate the infrared radiation, which is produced by the earth from visible light and other forms of radiation, in nearly all directions, some of it down, back towards earth which prolongs it's time in the atmosphere and warms up the earth.[1][2][3]

Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, with roughly 20,000 parts per million in the atmosphere, compared to about 400 ppm for carbon dioxide, or is 50 times more voluminous than carbon dioxide. This makes the effect of carbon dioxide relatively minor in comparison to the effect of water vapor and other more powerful greenhouse gases, near the surface.[1][2][3][4][5]

According the IPCC, the global warming potential of a greenhouse gas (GWP) is measured in it's carbon dioxide equivalency. Natural gas, or methane, is about 72 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, Nitrous Oxide 289, and Sulfur hexafluoride 16,300 times more powerful; according the IPCC, water had too short of an life in the atmosphere and fluctuated too much with temperatures to get an accurate reading on.

However, ozone is around 1000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, and most ozone only persists in the atmosphere for about 30 minutes.[1][2][3] Water vapor, which lasts for 9 days and is fairly consistent in the atmosphere, wasn't included. Thus determining it's relative importance to carbon dioxide in terms of warming at the surface was conveniently left out. Despite the fact that water vapor is often cited as a powerful "feedback" mechanism for increasing temperatures; the predominate effect of carbon dioxide is thought to be the resulting increase in water vapor.[1][2][3]

And yet apparently it's impact wasn't calculated. However, the IPCC states that if the carbon dioxide levels increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm (double) that temperatures will stably increase by 1 degree Celsius. This resulting temperature increase would theoretically increase the water vapor in the atmosphere by approximately 7%, thus warming up the planet another 2 degrees Celsius; the water vapor would not create more water vapor, supposedly, because the CO2 levels would be stable while the water vapor wouldn't be. A 7% increase in water vapor with a relative average of about 20,000  ppm would be a 1,400 ppm increase. 1400 /280 is exactly 5. Since water vapor would have roughly double the effect of carbon dioxide, water vapor should theoretically in turn increase the earth's temperature 1/2.5 times as much as carbon dioxide, or 40% as much as carbon dioxide. Since there is 50 times as much carbon dioxide as water vapor, this should put the effect of water vapor at roughly 95% of the effect of greenhouse gases, excluding the minor amounts generated by trace greenhouse gases. Thus it's total impact would still be minor.

Infrared absorption seems to be the key factor in determining relative strength.


However, the reality is somewhat more complex for the carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect. The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal or infrared radiation (with exceptions for "window" bands which let some of the heat through), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport, or more or less direct heat transfer. [1][2][3] Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the most powerful  greenhouse effect, with carbon dioxide, as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate. This particular area of carbon dioxide is far more important on the warming effect of the earth than it otherwise would be as a greenhouse gas due it's increased concentration and the lack of interaction from the water reflecting most of the infrared back down. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

If carbon dioxide does not reach this layer, which carbon dioxide produced from the surface, such as with cars and animals, rarely does, since it is denser than air and clumps at the surface and even in the mid troposphere,[1][2][3][4] it has little effect on this form of the greenhouse effect, making it relatively unimportant, which due to it's small amount in comparison, makes it relatively negligible. Unless the carbon dioxide reaches this layer in the mid troposphere, which being heavier than the atmosphere and clumping mostly to the surface due to the fact it does not diffuse through it, let alone uniformly, it's effect is relatively negligible. Due to the manner in which it reflects radiation back down, this surface in the mid troposphere is much thicker than is required to warm the earth; because so little gets past the surface of this band of carbon dioxide, increasing the thickness of this layer would also be mostly negligible in warming the surface. It's as a result of this that increasing carbon dioxide levels, produced from cars, fires, and other man made objects, are relatively insignificant.

In other words, the total volume of carbon dioxide is not the worry, but it's distribution. Since it does coat practically all of the mid troposphere, albeit unevenly, and with important exceptions for window bands considered, it reflects nearly all of the of radiation that can be reflected (predominately in the infrared spectrum) back down. This suggests that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will have a negligible impact; as long as there is a near complete cover of the earth's mid-tropospheric Atmosphere, even unevenly, forming a virtual wall, it will reflect most of the infrared back down; increasing levels do not change it's effects, as evidenced by how it operates and satellites which have proven no increase of temperatures over areas with higher carbon dioxide levels in their specific mid-tropospheric regions. In other words, while some areas have increased and decreased carbon dioxide levels, the levels do not seem to be affecting temperatures specifically nearly at all. [1][2][3][4]

Indeed, it was originally assumed carbon dioxide had a near even spread partially as a result of this near even infrared reflection. Areas with higher carbon dioxide levels do not tend to necessarily produce more heat. Areas over the equator tend to have less carbon dioxide than areas in temperate zones, yet their temperatures are often higher[1]. While important to the global warming cycle, relative power cannot be measured on a unit to unit basis; indeed, the carbon dioxide in the ocean and near the surface is considered less important than that of which is higher up in the atmosphere and that of which is in the mid troposphere. The importance of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse cycle is not dependent on amount, but distribution in the atmosphere; this also means that increasing the amount in important areas of distribution will likely have a negligible effect on warming. This means increasing levels, if they do increase, will likely have negligible effects except for surface increases, of which carbon dioxide is one of the weakest greenhouse gases in comparison to natural gas, nitrous oxide, and even water vapor in this form.

This can be explained somewhat by how carbon dioxide works. It absorbs infrared radiation, and then expels it in nearly every direction; a small portion of this goes back down. Assuming this holds true for every atom, than a virtual wall, 30 atoms thick, would eventually reflect  (1/2(1/2 + 1/

The amount we do produce is also being rapidly absorbed by trees, the ocean, and other waterborne carbon dioxide consuming creatures such as algae. NASA individuals, using the amount of carbon dioxide that is predicted to be produced by the IPCC, proved that it would at least have to be much cooler in the same given time frame, given how much carbon dioxide is likely to be absorbed by these sinks, even assuming it made it to the mid troposphere and amplified it's effects, which is unlikely. In a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, NASA scientists estimate that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in 1.64 degrees Celsius of warming over the next 200 years, max. As stated by NASA the IPCC Did not allow the vegetation to increase its leaf density as a response to the physiological effects of increased CO2 and consequent changes in climate. Other assessments included these interactions but did not account for the vegetation down regulation to reduce plant’s photosynthetic activity and as such resulted in a weak vegetation negative response. According to NASA; "When we combine these interactions in climate simulations with 2 × CO2, the associated increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration rather than surface runoff, consistent with observations, and results in an additional cooling effect not fully accounted for in previous simulations with elevated CO2." [1][2][3][4][5][6]

There are also a lot more radiative energy losses in this carbon dioxide zone than has been suggested by the IPCC, as well. According to some individuals at NASA, it's significantly less. While the carbon dioxide reflects virtually all the infrared back down to earth, only about 50% of the radiation produced by the earth is infrared and a certain percentage of the energy is lost as latent and sensible heat, reducing it's effects, in addition to the fact that heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, which is then lost by it's expulsion. Even assuming an increase would have a significant effect, it would be much, much less, as a result. Even while NASA proclaims the importance of carbon dioxide in the warming cycle, it does not state that increasing it will have a significant effect. -??[1][Remote Sensing PDF]

Carbon dioxide levels taken from ice core drilling are routinely used to measure temperatures of previous ages. There is a connection between warm weather and carbon dioxide, but it is not the carbon dioxide causing the warming. When the oceans warm, the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved into them decreases, due to the fact that warmer waters cannot store as much carbon dioxide in them, much like how colder carbon dioxide drinks stay fizzier longer (warm drinks can, but they have to be held under pressure, which is why warm soft drinks often explode in the heat). As a result, carbon dioxide is released as a result of the oceans warming, which serves as a good measurement when relative measures are taken from ice core drilling to figure out carbon dioxide levels, influence by the ocean, since over 70% of the carbon dioxide released is from the ocean.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It should be noted that since carbon dioxide increases when it's warm, and not the other way around, that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere does not exponentially warm the earth or else no cooling events would happen; if anything, the carbon dioxide release from the oceans after a warming event would seem to cool it down, since it has cooled since these times, compounding the issue of carbon dioxide being predominately responsible for the warming. If carbon dioxide did result in change, and the majority of it comes from the oceans based on their current temperatures, then where did the rest of the carbon dioxide come from? ...?

The oceans rising due to thermal expansion and the melting of the ice caps is also silly. Most ice in the oceans are stored under water[1][2][3], and water expands when frozen, suggesting that the ice melting under water, if anything, should decrease the ocean's levels. As well, the maximum density of water occurs at 3.98 °C (39.16 °F), while it expands while under 0 degrees Celsius, or while frozen. While the surface temperature is often some 60 degrees, the water beneath the surface makes up the most significant portion of water, and on average is some 0 °C (32 °F) to 3 °C (37 °F).  This means that unless we have a sudden, extremely sharp change or increase in temperature, the ocean levels should actually decrease slightly from slightly increase heat, and not rise, if a significant change will occur at all, simply due to the vastness of the ocean and the somewhat irrelevant nature of atmospheric temperatures in relation. [1][2][3]

We do not have as many carbon dioxide producing chemicals as the IPCC States. Consumption, and therefore production of carbon dioxide,  is expected to increase over 200 years. [1]

The world has roughly, in proven reserves, 1,324 billion barrels of oil, 300 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and 860 billion tons of coal.[1][2][3]  The worldwide consumption of oil is roughly some 31.4 billion barrels per year, while worldwide consumption of natural gas is roughly 3.2 trillion cubic meters a year, and the worldwide consumption of coal is roughly 7.25 billion tonnes. At the current rate of consumption, this would mean running out of gasoline in 42 years, natural gas in 93.75, and coal in roughly 118 years. Gasoline represents some 40% of total fossil fuel consumption, and in 2008 energy by supply was oil 33.5%, coal 26.8%, gas 20.8%, out of the total energy consumption. [1]


The idea that we're going to increase temperatures substantially despite our lack of these primary carbon dioxide producing materials is mostly unfounded. If our consumption increased, by finding new forms of fossil fuels (which is possible, such as natural gas at the bottom of the ocean and other potential unfound or untapped reserves) perhaps it would be possible to extend this figure, but considering that global usage is expected to go down with a rationing of resources and improvements in fuel efficiency it's even further, less likely.

It should also be noted that warming is only occurring in key, isolated places, such as parts of Africa, Australia, and Alaska. Specific areas of the earth warming does not mean that the entire earth will warm, and effects over the whole earth from say, an area of 32 degrees suddenly turning to 34, are unlikely, since these areas will likely remain unaffected, since a total global average is increasing, but the entire earth is not warming equally.




Some Satellite Data
So, increasing surface carbon dioxide levels will have a negligible effect in warming the surface. Definitely not anything as high as a degree or so even if the next 100 years. However, if it were a result of a carbon dioxide driven greenhouse effect, we'd see a rise of temperature in the mid troposphere proportional to that on the surface. Do we?

Well, no. Satellites and weather balloons have documented little if any change[1][2][3][4]; even the IPCC's satellite documented little change[1][2]. The IPCC's official stance on the situation is there is "net spurious cooling". However, looking at the satellite data, it was possible to come up with a possible conclusion for why there seemed to be little if any change. It was possible that the orbital decay calculations on the satellite were off as it got closer to the atmosphere and eventually fall back through due to the earth's gravity increasing exponentially as it neared and due to atmospheric distortions from increased solar periods increasing UV and effects on the atmosphere. The problem with these calculations are, that orbital decay was already calculated for; assuming we were to recalculate this, the belief was that, as the satellite got closer to earth, the view of the satellite would be off due to the curvature of the earth. However, Microwave Sounding Unit data doesn't necessarily change with the angle of incidence to the earth, since there is a varied gigahert and aperture range. It's possible there would be less coverage of the earth, although this would simply present less data, and not necessarily a more negative trend (unless a series of coincidences were to occur). For all intents and purposes, if it did, it would suggest that the mid troposphere was warming more than it should have. As the angle of incidence increases with the earth, this would take the microwave sounding data longer to get to get from the satellite to the earth and back, given that the angle from the satellite to the ground would increase, hence increasing the length of the virtual hypotenuse. As a result, microwave data would take longer to get to the satellite, indicating what could be perceived as a longer hertz range, or a decrease in air pressure, which could be perceived the result of warming, and air expanding. (This impact would likely be negligible, however). In any case, this would require the orbital decay of the satellite to nearly have exactly matched the temperature change on the surface of the earth, proportionally, which has not been recorded by any other satellite, weather balloon, and would be increasingly improbable. Even if somehow it was slightly off in a perfect direction, with every satellite and weather balloon's temperature gauges perfectly slightly off to measure virtually the same temperature for random and various reasons, all evidence gathered to come to this conclusion would be scientifically and mathematically unfounded, suggesting a still unexplained cause for something that happened to effect every satellite and weather balloon equally, suggesting a far larger issue with a lack of the fundamental understanding of specific sciences that would compound the issue far beyond the scope of global warming, meaning global warming would be the least of our worries.

To directly compare MSU2R with radiosondes, a surface temperature layer is added to the radiosonde layers, and a vertical integration over all layers is done to compute and effective MUS2R trend of -0.02K per decade, instead of -0.05K, which is closer agreement with the observed +.07K per decade trend. Even so it still displays a negative trend; decreasing or not, essentially the aspect is, the mid tropospheric data is not complete nor indicative of being where global warming would suggest even over compensating for heat, which gives a much higher heat increase than would be expected, as well. Basically, the data does not suggest an increase in global warming as a result of the carbon dioxide in the mid troposphere, and potentially even records the opposite effect. [1][2][3]

While orbital decay could theoretically be compensated for, it does not negate the satellite data, as at best it is still cooling -.02K per decade, according to that data.

Even if the changes are "spurious", they could still exist, so the data should not be construed to reflect a predicted model, in any case.


The fallibility of Temperature Measurements

Correlation Between carbon dioxide and temperature; heat is going up, carbon dioxide is going up, therefore there must be a connection? While there might be, it seems to be rather inconsistent. Should it be atmospheric warming, it should be even and a direct result of increased carbon dioxide, but the figures are relatively random. [1][2][3] While many "positive" links have been asserted, they have not in fact, proven a direct correlation with carbon dioxide, which if it is carbon dioxide, there theoretically should be. Carbon dioxide increases, earth heats up X amount; supposedly. But what the data shows, more or less, is no direct connection between heat and carbon dioxide. There are wild and variable temperature changes, even over long periods of time, but carbon dioxide has increased steadily, without a steady increase in temperature, even if it can be average. If climatologists know what they are talking about, then on another planet, like earth, say some 10 degrees cooler, how much would X degree of carbon dioxide increase that planet's temperature? The fact of the matter is, all that's been measured is an increase in temperature, and a theoretical increase in carbon dioxide, and if those two correlate the same, then X amount of temperature increase could be expected. However, the temperature may have increased regardless of carbon dioxide, due to other factors, other greenhouse gases and may even simply have been arbitrary or a slow warming as getting out of the ice age.

It should also be noted that most warming has occurred in the last 20 years, that is calculated within the 100 year data. This has also been surface temperature increases, and not necessarily atmospheric increases. While the data presents various ups and downs that easily factor out, it is only a result of these last 20 years that we see massive increases in temperatures. It may simply be that the last 20 years have been unusually warm, with no real direction connection to human activities. Measuring the earth's average temperature when it's been the hottest it has been in the last 1300 years, as a baseline for global warming, may indeed produce a biased result.

Additionally, we are just out of a "little ice age". [1][2][3] Temperatures, from roughly 1300-1850 A.D., were around 1°C cooler. If the earth was warming, this would be consistent with re-normalizing to regular trends, and wouldn't denote any significant increase afterwards. Many theories exist as to why this occurred, many more suggest it was potentially localized in specific areas, but possibly the one that ought to be considered the most is the arbitrary variability and fluctuations of weather. Even according to the IPCC, the 1 degree difference was rather "modest" and probably was ineffectual, suggesting a recent warming may be just the same, as well.

Weather balloons didn't begin to monitor weather until about 1896, by a single French Meteorologist,[1] and didn't become accurate, stable or consistent until the 1950's. The first satellite in space, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, first reached space in 1957. Weather monitoring did not occur until some time after this. The world meteorological society was not produced until the 1950's, The International Meteorological society, (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Antarctica, Alaska and other important places did not begin substantial weather monitoring until some time later. The notion that surface temperature measurements in the 1850's are a "good enough" measurement, when such information would be disregarded completely if taken today, without accurate atmospheric measures, different altitude measurements and a multitude of other factors, is silly.

While ice core drilling has shown correlations between carbon dioxide and temperature, this is most likely a lag in production. When the oceans, or pretty much any water warms, they release carbon dioxide; when they cool, they absorb more carbon dioxide. As the oceans warm, they will release more carbon dioxide, and vice versa; a little bit of this carbon dioxide is often trapped in ice, revealing relative carbon dioxide levels of a given timeframe. This means that, likely, most of the carbon dioxide found during warm temperatures is likely a result of warmer oceans, and not the other way around.[1][2] Compounding the issue, of carbon dioxide was the primary cause of an increase in global temperatures, than as they increased, increasing the carbon dioxide levels even further, the earth would have never cooled back down, which is has considerably since these times. It should also be noted that levels of carbon dioxide could also theoretically be times of great cold, in accordance with increased volcanic activity, which can cool down the earth.

This also means that the issue involving "the most carbon dioxide in 650,000 years"[1][2][3] could likely be explained by the fact the ice age began at the Pleistocene Epoch some 2.6 million years, and it has consistently gotten warmer and the carbon dioxide levels have risen from 10,000 years ago.

How even if true it's not the whole world evenly, so it's obviously not an equal effect from carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide levels are lower in the tropics and at the equator than in most temperate zones, yet it is substantially warmer in these areas. It's likely the amount of carbon dioxide has little if any variation on these temperatures. This is due to the band of carbon dioxide existing beyond a certain amount having the impact; the amount of carbon dioxide does not matter, but it's distribution, and if it coats the mid troposphere entirely, albeit unevenly, the same general greenhouse effect will occur equally by reflecting radiation back down towards the earth, but water vapor and other greenhouse gases will determine how much is absorbed.


But what of Venus?

Venus has some odd 96.5% of their atmosphere being carbon dioxide, while at max earth is some 0.038% carbon dioxide (or 380 ppm). This automatically produces a 2540 times difference of carbon dioxide between Earth and Venus; considering that it's atmosphere is some 91 times denser, this puts the carbon dioxide levels at roughly 228,552, or 230,000 times more than earth. Assuming Venus is 800 degrees warmer (which it is less than this), this would only mean a .00347 increase in temperature for doubling the earth's carbon dioxide.[1]

It should be noted however that Venus's carbon dioxide likely came after the warming effect, when the oceans evaporated and dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen due to solar radiation, and that very little light reaches Venus's surface since it is reflected, the atmosphere is incredibly thick, and the impact of carbon dioxide is minimal.

Not that Venus is necessarily a good analogue for earth.


What to take from This
Global warming, being a significant trend to worry about, may be false; it's likely the earth is warming due to arbitrary weather patterns that cycle without much impact from human activity, if it's warming much at all.

However, gasoline and other fossil fuels are expensive and increasingly harder to get ahold of. Mercury levels in the ocean, predominately a result of burning coal, are so high that the FDA recommends lowering the amount of fish people eat due to the fear of mercury poisoning and mercury build up. All the pollution and materials we create go into the atmosphere to be breathed in and rained back down and absorbed into drinking water and habitats of animals we consume, not only hurting our ecosystem but potentially ourselves, as well.

We have maybe 40-60 years worth of cheaply available gasoline left, and 120 years of coal, at the current rate of consumption, which our rate of consumption is set to increase in the future, to potentially double these levels by 2050, compounding what little fuel we may have left by this time. If we don't switch our fuel supplies over to cheaper, less polluting and more available options, such as Thorium or burning gasoline in steam turbines and then using algae to capture the exhaust, for improved efficiency and safety, we may all suffer, economically, strategically, and with our health.

Even if global warming is untrue there is no detriment to improving our current energy situation and potentially having energy independence, potentially in the U.S. or country of origin, to be self reliant and not rely on foreign intervention or resources.

If the globe is warming, whether arbitrarily or by a result of some other mechanism, it is still  important to understand this so we can understand the effects.

Another important thing to consider is that the scientific institutions purporting global warming are not necessarily wrong. They may have proposed ideas, but it was only because of the evidence they provided that it was capable to potentially prove them wrong.The assessment of isolated individuals within these institutions going off of raw numbers is a potentially valid figure for what those figures would produce, however, when considering variables, such as the current temperatures of the oceans, their vastness, the method of carbon dioxide's warming, rather than equating an increase in heat or change based on a raw unit to unit variable, a more clear picture becomes available, and we advance our scientific understanding of the world.

It should also be noted that, not in fact "98% of scientists agree" with the assessment, so much as, according to individual assessments, there may be a 90% confidence rating (according to the IPCC), and that according to a American Geophysical Union (AGU) comprising two questions, basically do you think the temperatures have risen since the 1850's, and do you think human involvement was involved, which only some 80% responded with yes. However, climate change is not necessarily the same as global warming. A significant contribution, as compared to negligible, could be less than 1% considering what a massive impact it would be for humans to have affected the millions of years cycle. It should be noted that while humans have created roads, buildings, lights that practically blot out the earth when seen from space, turned land over into agriculture, wiped out, created and expanded multiple species, deforested, and created massive structures, this does not necessarily mean they have increased temperatures. In any case, "I heard that somebody heard that somebody heard" is not good evidence for scientific inquiries. 1000 years ago, many scientists "knew" the earth was flat, 500 years ago many people "knew" that the universe revolved around the earth, and 10 years ago we "knew" carbon dioxide was uniform throughout the atmosphere. Think of everything we'll know, tomorrow.

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

Ways to improve the Standard U.S. firearm

In August 2010 the Individual Carbine Competition was formed to help provide Infantry with a newer, more modern weapon, and was cancelled March 19 2013, due to budget concerns, of which were about 1.8 billion dollars. [1][2] While this is silly for many reasons, the general basis will be discussed below.



On the aspect of cost

Since budget constraints, or money, seems to be the primary concern, I personally think it's an easily resolvable issue. The current U.S. firearm costs about 1500 dollars per unit, including a replacement barrel; I'm not entirely sure how many of these types of weapons have been bought by the U.S. military, but I know that only around 8 million firearms, of the type the U.S. military uses, have ever been created. Thus, the amount of firearms in the U.S. armory is probably less than this, as many other countries by the same weapon. Assuming the U.S. bought 10 million of these firearms, just for good measure, it would cost roughly 15 billion dollars, or 350 million dollars per year over the 43 years it's technically been in service (although it saw use as early as 1963).

For a rough comparison, the SR-25, a sniper rifle, roughly the same weight and size as the M16, but with a more accurate and powerful sniper round, capable of getting out to ranges of 1000 yards, compared to 600 yards, and with .5 MOA, double the accuracy of an M40 bolt action sniper rifle and 6 times the accuracy of the M16, and being semi-automatic with a 20 round magazine (compared to most 5 round manually operated sniper rifles), is generally a superior firearm in nearly every way to the M16 and in general, even modern U.S. sniper rifles. The weapon itself is of high quality, but expensive, at approximately 4000 dollars per unit. Assuming we had been using this weapon instead of the M16 for the last 43 years, at the same price, this would have been 40 billion dollars, or less than a billion dollars per year. To arm every person in the military, 3 million people, with 3.3 firearms, with the equivalent accuracy and firepower of a sniper rifle in an M16 sized package, with the versatility and rapid fire capabilities of the assault rifle, and roughly the same recoil due to the recoil buffer. To arm people, medics, general, officers, soldiers, with a personal defense weapon intended to protect them from enemy threats, usable by the entire military, would have cost less than a billion dollars per year, out of the 700 billion dollar budget.

Considering the impact the primary weapon for the military can have, especially for our deployed troops, the relative cost compared to the entire military and what it could provide for the entire military renders the aspect of cost largely irrelevant, imo. However!

Even if cost was a significant factor, in general, more durable and reliable firearms tend to last longer than less durable and reliable firearms. Logistically, most firearms are replaced when they have fired a certain amount of rounds; since most rounds are fired outside of combat, it is easy to assume that firearms are generally replaced when they wear out, which usually occurs through practice and training. Thus, the replacement of a firearm largely depends on how many rounds are fired through it, which is generally fairly consistent. The M16 is replaced about every 10,000 rounds, while it's barrel is replaced every 5,000 rounds, thus creating a 1,500 dollar package per every 10,000 rounds fired.

More reliable. and generally higher performance weapons, such as the XM8, FN SCAR, or HK416 (which performed in X way), are around 2000 dollars per rifle, but generally tend to last for 20,000 rounds, the barrels included. Thus, the weapons are more durable than the comparable M16. However, if compared in terms of cost, for every 20,000 rounds fired, two M16's would be required compared to the more reliable weapon's one; creating a situation in which the costs were similiar. However, due to the need for frequent barrel replacements, the M16's price would be 3000 dollars per two weapons, while the HK416, XM8, FN SCAR, etc. would be 2000 dollars. Thus, the weapons would, in the long run, be cheaper than the M16, and also more reliable, generally more accurate, and over-all higher performance firearms.

Thus, any issue relating to the cost of the standard U.S. firearm is largely moot. Any number of replacements would clearly be better, and even a 3000 dollar gun would not be prohibitively expensive, despite it's probably increased quality. A better firearm would not only be insignificant in terms of cost, but potentially cheaper, as well, due to it's increased durability and less of a need to be replaced.


Some potential Designs

There are a wide variety of potential designs available for the replacement of the M16. The XM8, HK416, FN SCAR, all seem like suitable candidates; something interesting would be to take these designs and make them bullpup. While the M16 has a long buffer tube in the back, thus preventing a bullpup from shortening the weapon by no more than a few inches, the piston driven systems tend to have the capacity for a folding stock, or to remove the stock all together. Thus, the weapon can be shortened by 8-10 inches without losing functional capabilities; making the design bullpup could remedy any ergonomic issues, thus allowing for a full length barrel in a carbine sized weapon. Going by the length of the FN SCAR with a folded stock alone, you could shorten the over-all length of the weapon by 10 inches by making the weapon bullpup instead, which would help out in close quarters by being relatively small and easy to fit through openings or doors.

Regardless of the case, short stroke gas pistons tend to be the ideal design. Similar in recoil to the direct impingement system, currently in use by the M16, they are significantly more reliable, and generally possess a simpler operation. Rather than gas being filtered down the gas tube, the piston rod cycles back and forward in the same space, the gas acting on the piston, and acting on the rod. The advantage of this system compared to the Direct impingement system is that while the direct impingement system empties gases directly on the receiver, which fouls and heats up the receiver, which needs a high and low pressure system, that inevitable heats up faster than an ordinary rifle, the short stroke system empties the gas near the barrel and the gas exits the weapon relatively quickly, thus eliminating potential problems with recoil, including the gas tube or receiver being clogged with materials, such as water or sand.

The best barrels 

Knight versus Samurai!

Knight versus Samurai! 

Samurais and Knights share many similarities; both had a strict moral code, developed during a time of feudalism, used similiar equipment and weaponry, from highly idolized swords and spears to full body armor, and fought both for honor and their commanders. The Knight with a strong Christian basis, and the Samurai with Bushido, both warriors had a strong sense of honor and duty. Both warriors usually came from relatively wealthy backgrounds, utilizing the best training, armor, and healthcare that was offered during the day, including being well fed and taken care of from a young age, providing both with general healthy backgrounds that allowed them to prosper as a high status warrior class. These elite warriors were at the forefront of their day, both revered and feared, as well as respected, even across multiple, even warring factions.

Both would have surely enjoyed the chance of glorious, single combat with each other, but who would have won?!

Aspects of their armor, weapons, gear, strategies, tactics, and philosophies will be analyzed to see who would most likely be victorious!


General Overview

Obviously, one has to consider the setting in which they fight to determine the outcome. The terrain, vegetation, general characteristics of the battleground, and under what conditions; multiple soldiers, single combat, a fight for a test, or to see who's the strongest and decide who is victorious; a fight for honor, land, or all honor? A fight to determine who's society is the greatest society, sending out their best warriors instead of risk total combat?

Or just for fun? Both warriors were well known for their skill on horseback, and utilizing other potential forms of transportation, and the fight could easily end there before they would engage in combat on foot, which they were also generally well versed in. The time period is also important; guns began to arrive in Japan by the 14th century, and by the 16th century their sword making skills were so legendary that most swords in China were imported from Japan. Additionally, Knights increasingly were weakened over time, with various rules and decelerations hindering their capabilities (such as the pope banning crossbows in X time period), until large mercenary armies took over, with Knights largely being phased out due to the growing middle and working class, and the ease of hiring large quantities of soldiers.

Since both Japan and Mid-Eval Europe had large, open grass fields, in which combat could take place, and both warriors frequently fought on horseback, the basic scenario will be divided into four groups, on horseback, horseback vs. foot, and foot attacks. The time period will be between the 11th-12th century, when the warriors were still iconic but perhaps more evenly matched. As well, the combat will be, in general, glorious, single, open, combat! The battle will largely be a fight to the death, but with the warriors themselves seeing it as a fun sparring competition.



Knights



Samurai

Metallurgy
The Japanese, in general, had better metallurgy than the Europeans, with higher strength multiple fold steels capable of providing a stronger, composite material, and 

Armor 

Comparatively, the 

Weapons


Tactics and Strategies

Ultimate Conclusion