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
(1) Increasing the content of carbon dioxide in a planet's atmosphere has been proven to raise intra-planetary temperature
(2) Humans are releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into this planet's atmosphere every year
It's really quite simple, and that's why I don't bother with these Odin/Berz/PA/che/dannubis/Ogie spin wars where each side tries to outspin the other with their scientific or pseudo-scientific (and mostly irrelevant) babble which's only function is to prove the writer's supposed absolute authority and thus "prove" with this argument from authority that the writer must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Even if global temperatures would be going down and every other person in the world would be calling me a lunatic because of the theory in question, I would not be ashamed the least to claim that humans are increasing Earth's temperature with their actions. Unless you're trying to dispute either (1) or (2), it's formal logic.
Originally posted by VJ
(1) Increasing the content of carbon dioxide in a planet's atmosphere has been proven to raise intra-planetary temperature
(2) Humans are releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into this planet's atmosphere every year
It's really quite simple, and that's why I don't bother with these Odin/Berz/PA/che/dannubis/Ogie spin wars where each side tries to outspin the other with their scientific or pseudo-scientific (and mostly irrelevant) babble which's only function is to prove the writer's supposed absolute authority and thus "prove" with this argument from authority that the writer must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Even if global temperatures would be going down and every other person in the world would be calling me a lunatic because of the theory in question, I would not be ashamed the least to claim that humans are increasing Earth's temperature with their actions. Unless you're trying to dispute either (1) or (2), it's formal logic.
We are also releasing gases which are proven to reduce temperatures - aersols for example - the so-called "negative radiative forcing" gases.
Human release of CO2 represents only 4% of all release of CO2.
Another irony is that water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas of all - with far more effect on atmospheric temperature than CO2. Human generation of water vapour is not even measurable in comparison to natural generation of water vapour.
We had several ice ages that lasted millions of years each. They ended, and glaciers melted at alarming rates. Not one human around. Who caused THAT global warming?
We are also releasing gases which are proven to reduce temperatures - aersols for example - the so-called "negative radiative forcing" gases.
Human release of CO2 represents only 4% of all release of CO2.
Another irony is that water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas of all - with far more effect on atmospheric temperature than CO2. Human generation of water vapour is not even measurable in comparison to natural generation of water vapour.
We had several ice ages that lasted millions of years each. They ended, and glaciers melted at alarming rates. Not one human around. Who caused THAT global warming?
Apart from "human release of CO2 represents only 4% of all release of CO2" (I was under the impression that CO2 levels of Earth's atmosphere have gone up by way more than 4% during the time humans have existed when compared to long-term average) I've known all of these for years. All of them are also completely irrelevant to my point, which is that humans cause global warming with their CO2 output period. What are you trying to say?
humans cause global warming with their CO2 output period
Why period? Why try to stop the debate there and shut out other factors which you dismiss with a single wave of the hand as "irrelevant"?
strawman with an out-of-context-quote alert
the "humans cause global warming with their CO2 output period" was "my point" as I said. More specifically, it was the point of this post:
(1) Increasing the content of carbon dioxide in a planet's atmosphere has been proven to raise intra-planetary temperature
(2) Humans are releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into this planet's atmosphere every year
It's really quite simple, and that's why I don't bother with these Odin/Berz/PA/che/dannubis/Ogie spin wars where each side tries to outspin the other with their scientific or pseudo-scientific (and mostly irrelevant) babble which's only function is to prove the writer's supposed absolute authority and thus "prove" with this argument from authority that the writer must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Even if global temperatures would be going down and every other person in the world would be calling me a lunatic because of the theory in question, I would not be ashamed the least to claim that humans are increasing Earth's temperature with their actions. Unless you're trying to dispute either (1) or (2), it's formal logic.
IOW, I presented debatable information in this post of mine, and the point is that if you agree with the information (like I currently do), "humans cause global warming with their CO2 output period". You can disagree with my point if you disagree with my post, which means you have to either dispute (1) or (2). I am welcoming all debate and new factors and knowledge with open arms, that's why I posted here.
Oh, and I'd like to see the source for this:
Human release of CO2 represents only 4% of all release of CO2.
You can disagree with my point if you disagree with my post, which means you have to either dispute (1) or (2). I am welcoming all debate and new factors and knowledge with open arms, that's why I posted here.
The answer is that the two-point model is too simplistic and needs revising. How does it explain global cooling between 1940 and 1970? It can't, which suggests that the model is somehow incomplete. This is not to dispute points (1) and (2) but to suggest that points (3) and (4) and maybe others need to be incorporated.
According to the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase. (1)
If we were releasing plenty of C02 between 1940-1970 and 1998-2005, but there was no temperature increase, then clearly the 'Warming is proportional to C02 output' equation is not sufficient. Not according to the data, anyway.
VJ, the real strawman here are you. You set up two points wich no sane person will dispute the truth of, and then you concludes that current climate change is caused by human activity and that there are no reason to look for other causes.
You forgot two things in your "proof". 1) how much CO2 are needed to explain current changes and 2) has human activities added that much to the atmosphere. That is the minimum just to make it plausible that there is that connection. After that you have to make it plausible that other factors such as water vapor doesn't interfere in the scenario.
Edit : Dammit CH. you beat me to it
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The answer is that the two-point model is too simplistic and needs revising.
Yeah, the exact point of it is to be as simplistic as possible. KISS, so to speak. Please don't spin and confuse, the very issue is whether humans are causing global warming, meaning whether humans are raising the temperature of earth's atmosphere with their actions. It doesn't need to "explain" any cool or warm times since the very extra-human activities which people like Ogie have been trying to spin/explain to cause the current century-long warming may have caused every cooling/warming effect you can think of, including that one between '40 and '70.
We don't need to take a look at temperature graphs to see whether temperature has gone up or down because it's irrelevant in trying to prove my conclusion from (1) and (2).
This is not to dispute points (1) and (2) but to suggest that points (3) and (4) and maybe others need to be incorporated.
no
you don't need points 3 or 4
(1) Increasing the content of carbon dioxide in a planet's atmosphere has been proven to raise intra-planetary temperature
+
(2) Humans are releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into this planet's atmosphere every year
=
By releasing carbon dioxide into the planet's atmosphere, humans are raising intra-planetary temperature every year
According to the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase. (1)
This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set TaveGL2v was used. The most recent documentation for this data set is Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A. (2003) "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate, 16, 206-223:
1998 was a peak year. Notice how the article you cited paints a completely different picture from the raw data (temperature value for every year) while providing you only with few cherry-picked years from the raw data? That's because it's a spin article sponsored by a **** newspaper with a clear political agenda. It took me two minutes to search this image, or IOW the raw data of the very same study your source used to without presenting it properly, from Wikipedia. I suggest you stop reading The Daily Telegraph.
Originally posted by Cort Haus
Did or did not the planet cool between the 40's and the 70's?
I distinctly remember being frightened of the coming ice-age when I grew up in the seventies.
No, the warming just plateaued for a while, it was actually cooler in 1910s then it was in the 1960's. That plateau was just natural variation imposed on the general warming trend
VJ, the real strawman here are you. You set up two points wich no sane person will dispute the truth of, and then you concludes that current climate change is caused by human activity and that there are no reason to look for other causes.
no
here is what I "concludes":
Originally posted by VJ
(1) Increasing the content of carbon dioxide in a planet's atmosphere has been proven to raise intra-planetary temperature
(2) Humans are releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into this planet's atmosphere every year
It's really quite simple, and that's why I don't bother with these Odin/Berz/PA/che/dannubis/Ogie spin wars where each side tries to outspin the other with their scientific or pseudo-scientific (and mostly irrelevant) babble which's only function is to prove the writer's supposed absolute authority and thus "prove" with this argument from authority that the writer must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Even if global temperatures would be going down and every other person in the world would be calling me a lunatic because of the theory in question, I would not be ashamed the least to claim that humans are increasing Earth's temperature with their actions. Unless you're trying to dispute either (1) or (2), it's formal logic.
Originally posted by VJ
strawman with an out-of-context-quote alert
the "humans cause global warming with their CO2 output period" was "my point" as I said. More specifically, it was the point of this post:
IOW, I presented debatable information in this post of mine, and the point is that if you agree with the information (like I currently do), "humans cause global warming with their CO2 output period". You can disagree with my point if you disagree with my post, which means you have to either dispute (1) or (2). I am welcoming all debate and new factors and knowledge with open arms, that's why I posted here.
Well, if you only want to make the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that humans are emitting that, then why bother to mention that at all ? Noone disputes that. You could just as well say that day follows night.
Since I guess that you don't post your claims to do that, then your point must be that human activity has a great impact on climate wich certainly makes my claim valid.
You may be more literate than me in english although I doubt, but you obviously forget the activity called thinking.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
No, the warming just plateaued for a while, it was actually cooler in 1910s then it was in the 1960's. That plateau was just natural variation imposed on the general warming trend
This graph is a bit disturbing to me. It says that there are anomalities considering the temperature for a 140 year span.
Can you tell me what is the normal temperature that this graph refers to and why this temperature is supposed to be the normal ? Especially why 1940 is considered the normal.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Tweet
Comment