The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I'm sure the Dutch will agree with this, Ned. Have you accounted for low-lying areas around the world?
obiwan, I sorry if you did not understand what I was saying on sea level rise. Even if the world warms as predicted, we are not going to see a signficant sea level rise because most of the glacial ice that can cause a sea level rise is located in Greenland and in Antarctica. Nothing we can do will melt their glaciers for at least 50,000 years!
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Ned, I can only think of 1 US report that SUGGESTED global warming MAY help northern countries and it certainly didn't SHOW it or prove it. Also, I'm sure you realize that if a cold climate becomes more suitable for agriculture, there are many climates already suited for agriculture that will become less suited. Certainly in the US we'd probably have little net gain.
But, thats assuming that global warming means simply an all around rise of a couple of degrees. Many people suggest that it will also result in rapidly changing weather patterns, evidence suggests that the gulf stream would be disrupted, changing temperatures in the N Atlantic significantly, not necessarily making it warmer. The one thing that is certain is no one can predict the effect of global warming on the weather in local regions.
gsmoove, the general pattern of warming is that the further one is away from the equator, the greater the warming. Additionally, warming will primarily be in the form of milder winters and longer growing seasons. The summers will not be that much warmer, if at all.
So, given the pattern, we will probably not have a significant loss of arable land in areas currently arable. We will, though, have a lot more arable land as the North warms.
Additionally, a warmer world is a net wetter world. Why? Because the atmosphere holds more water. The US government report noted that the US West, which is now desert, will become rainier and increasingly arable without irrigation!
Perhaps you mean that those glaciers wouldn't disappear in 50,000 years, which doesn't mean that they couldn't be melting during that time, putting significant amounts of water into the ocean.
There is also the problem that water expands when it becomes warmer. If the oceans become significantly warmer this will also add to rising sea-levels.
Ned, the rising water levels are inconsequential. By the time we're flooded, there won't be much of humanity left to worry about it anyway.
The real problem is the pertubation of the steady state. Nature is essentially self-correcting. To many rabbits, and there will be more predators. Too few rabbits, and some of the predators will die. Likewise with CO2 - Increase the CO2 level and the growth rate of plants will increase.
But only to a certain extent. Humanity has shown over and over again that we are capable of ruining entire ecosystems by either introducing new species in an environment that can't handle them (lampreys in Lake Michigan, for example) or by killing all the natural predators (Alewives in the same lake).
Global warming follows the same lines. as long as the changes are small, nature will compensate for them. But with a large enough change, nature can't keep up, and disaster follows. If unchecked, global warming will most likely cause changes in sea currents (bye-bye northern europe), extensive flooding in formerly dry areas, draught in formerly fertile areas and so on. It's a small reprive to a farmer in Northern Russia that he has slightly higher temperature when he won't get rain. Or possibly get nothing but rain.
Well everythings turning up roses. I haven't read that report if you have a link to it. But, I've seen nothing supporting the assumption that areas further away from the equator get warmer. Plus there is no way that places that are already desert will get much more water unless there is a significant change in weather patterns. This is a distinct possibility but think of the adverse effects this could have like reducing rainfall in other regions. Remember its NET change we're talking about and many areas will get dryer or colder as well.
Originally posted by gsmoove23
CO2 emissions naturally occur on a large scale. The problem is that significant human emissions of CO2 upset the balance outpacing the natural CO2 sinks. Of course, cutting large swaths of CO2 sinks down also contributes to the problem.
You are forgetting the increases in CO2 which will occur if global warming occurs. Areas in the Artic and Antartic which are currently tundra will become grassland and/or forest and this new plant life will suck in CO2. thus the Earth has its own natural self buffering system.
Lastly, as a Geologist I can tell you that we are still in a cold period compared to the last 30 million years and the Russians shouldn't get to excited about global warming since to much warming can actually cause the onset of an ice age if global ocean currents change.
obiwan, I sorry if you did not understand what I was saying on sea level rise.
Global warming significant enough to turn Siberia into a grainbelt is insufficient to flood the Dutch dikes?
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
You are forgetting the increases in CO2 which will occur if global warming occurs. Areas in the Artic and Antartic which are currently tundra will become grassland and/or forest and this new plant life will suck in CO2. thus the Earth has its own natural self buffering system.
Lastly, as a Geologist I can tell you that we are still in a cold period compared to the last 30 million years and the Russians shouldn't get to excited about global warming since to much warming can actually cause the onset of an ice age if global ocean currents change.
Yet CO2 emissions are increasing at a rate faster then the globe can cope with slow natural process as we continue to strip land at an even faster rate all over the world. No dice.
Originally posted by gsmoove23 Well everythings turning up roses. I haven't read that report if you have a link to it. But, I've seen nothing supporting the assumption that areas further away from the equator get warmer. Plus there is no way that places that are already desert will get much more water unless there is a significant change in weather patterns. This is a distinct possibility but think of the adverse effects this could have like reducing rainfall in other regions. Remember its NET change we're talking about and many areas will get dryer or colder as well.
gsmoove, Here's bit from the 2000 report concerning the Western US.
"Effects on Agriculture and Ranching
Higher CO2 concentrations and increased precipitation are likely
to increase crop yields and decrease water demands,while
milder winter temperatures are likely to lengthen the growing season and result in a northward shift in cropping
areas.
There is the possibility that higher temperatures will also negatively affect crops by increasing heat stress,
weeds, pests,and pathogens. There is a possibility that increased flooding will reduce crop production.
In the ranching industry, there is a possibility that higher temperatures and increased precipitation will increase forage production and lengthen the growing and grazing
season.There is also a possibility that flooding and increased incidence of animal disease will adversely affect ranching."
If you look at the Canadian model, you will see a dramatically wetter West.
Your link and quote seem to suggest that the possible effects of climate change are all over the place. They certainly don't SHOW anything, merely suggest certain scenarios for local regions. It certainly doesn't show that temperature increase is greater as you move from the equator.
Here's a bit from the National summary of the current report:
"Food supply is secure -- At the national level, the agricultural sector is likely to be able to adapt to climate change. Mainly because of the beneficial effects of the rising carbon dioxide levels on crops, overall US crop productivity, relative to what is projected in absence of climate change, is very likely to increase over the next few decades. However, the gains are not likely to be uniform across the nation. Falling prices are likely to cause difficulty for some farmers, while benefiting consumers.
Near-term forest growth increases -- Forest productivity is likely to increase over the next several decades in some areas as trees respond to higher carbon dioxide levels by increasing water-use efficiency. Such changes could result in ecological benefits in additional storage of carbon."
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Your link and quote seem to suggest that the possible effects of climate change are all over the place. They certainly don't SHOW anything, merely suggest certain scenarios for local regions. It certainly doesn't show that temperature increase is greater as you move from the equator.
If you really want that link, I can get it for you. However, trust me. That is what the models predict. After all, the Earth once was as warm as it is predicted to become. We somewhat know what the temperature distribution was then, so we do not have to guess now.
For example, when the Arctic ocean was last free of ice, the temperatures on the Arctic coast were quite mild. However, the temperatures elsewhere, such as at the equator, were virtually unchanged. What happens, apparently, is that the areas of the "vortexes" that separate the various regions of the earth from each other move. The one around the equator moves away from the equator. The one's around the poles shrink or disappear altogether. The temperate zone also moves farther away from the equator, but may expand as the circumpolar vortexes also decrease.
Ned, any attempt to accurately predict what will be the result of climate change is doomed to failure as so many different factors come into weather patterns as to make it nearly impossible. The US report was blasted when it came out and doesn't hold much water, you don't find it funny that it came after Bush pulled out of Kyoto? Its a whitewash to support the presidents views.
Whats funny about the opposition to Kyoto and environmental policy is that its all over the place. First, people say anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist and if in fact global warming is happening it is because of a natural trend. Then of course they say global warming isn't happening because of course there are inconsistencies with how these temperatures are taken, changes in techniques over time, then of course the temperature information taken from satellite imagery or aerial temperature is different from ground...
But of course, if global warming is happening its highly exaggerated by scare-mongers and people who use inaccurate models to predict impossibly complex climate problems.
Now of course we have this report which states that global warming is happening, it might very well be due to human activity but in fact it will be beneficial to the US economy, just look at these models we used to predict it.
Oh and c'mon. You don't offer a link for your las gem?
Well everythings turning up roses. I haven't read that report if you have a link to it. But, I've seen nothing supporting the assumption that areas further away from the equator get warmer. Plus there is no way that places that are already desert will get much more water unless there is a significant change in weather patterns. This is a distinct possibility but think of the adverse effects this could have like reducing rainfall in other regions. Remember its NET change we're talking about and many areas will get dryer or colder as well.
Tweet
Comment