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
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent
I'll bite on this. I agree on all three, but will you accept the fact that CO2 is only a minor contributor as a green house gas ?
Why should he, given that CO2 the single largest radiative forcer, and by itself approximately equals the contributions due to all other greenhouse gases (other than water vapour)?
The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. Note that it is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[3] [4]
(Although the article also says that mankind's activities do not affect the amount of water vapor in the air but that, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide has greatly increased.)
Last edited by Zkribbler; December 17, 2006, 23:13.
Although the article also says that mankind's activities do not affect the amount of water vapor in the air
We do, but only indirectly. Water vapour has a very short lifecycle. Direct contributions do little. Changing wind patterns and temperatures is the only way we have to significantly alter water vapour concentrations.
Why should he, given that CO2 the single largest radiative forcer, and by itself approximately equals the contributions due to all other greenhouse gases (other than water vapour)?
It is common knowledge that CO2 isn't a major contributor of greenhouse effect. Check any reasonably reliable site about climate and they all agree.
The discussion is really about the posibillity that the manmade change in CO2 is enough to have an impact on the climate that are distinctive from natural variations.
I read your link (wich by the way, I don't grant any reliability since it's wikipedia) but can't find what you claim. Please quote what you think supports your claim.
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.
Originally posted by BlackCat
It is common knowledge that CO2 isn't a major contributor of greenhouse effect. Check any reasonably reliable site about climate and they all agree.
The links above all disagree with you.
And I notice you have posted any links.
The links above all disagree with you.
And I notice you have posted any links.
Yeah, I haven't provideded any links, but really, any sensible site about this subject will either prove my pov or give links to sites that do - why should I prove the obvious ?
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.
Because you're in the vast minority of people who believe that human activity is NOT causing global warming, and because the sites you are afraid to link to either do not exist or are crackpot sites.
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.
It is common knowledge that CO2 isn't a major contributor of greenhouse effect. Check any reasonably reliable site about climate and they all agree.
You are completely wrong.
The discussion is really about the posibillity that the manmade change in CO2 is enough to have an impact on the climate that are distinctive from natural variations.
You confuse the manmade greenhouse with greenhouse. CO2 is the major contributor to the current level of greenhouse effect outside water vapour. Your statement was that CO2 is not an important greenhouse contributor. That is completely untrue. It becomes less significant when talking about manmade greenhouse (since there is a level of diminishing returns in effect) but it is still a major source of marginal radiative forcing.
I read your link (wich by the way, I don't grant any reliability since it's wikipedia) but can't find what you claim. Please quote what you think supports your claim.
The table which lists the radiative forcings of different components is right there, dude. CO2 at current levels adds ~1.5 W/m^2. Learn to read.
And I don't particularly care what you think of wikipedia. I've performed the calculation myself and arrived at reasonably similar numbers. It's not very difficult.
Yeah, I haven't provideded any links, but really, any sensible site about this subject will either prove my pov or give links to sites that do - why should I prove the obvious ?
It's not obvious. In fact, what you are claiming is blatantly ridiculous. If you had any physics knowledge you would be able to see that for yourself.
The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.
Comment