Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1032 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Frollo (1033 D)
17 Mar 13 UTC
Rules: What will happen, if...
Hello. Could you please explain, what will happen in the following case. There are 4 areas: 1,2,3,4, team A occupies 1 and 2, team B - 3 and 4.
Team A moves: Army at 1: move from 1 to 3; Army at 2: support move from 1 to 3. Team B moves: Army at 3: move from 3 to 2; Army at 4: support move from 3 to 2. What will happen: nothing? Or team B's army will move from 3 to 2, team's A army at 2 will be dislodged and team A's army will move from 1 to 3? Thanks for clarification.
18 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
16 Mar 13 UTC
Forum Spamming
I would just like to remind people the trouble Kestas went through to build a PM system. This means that if you have a message for an individual member, you can send it to them directly. Isn't that neat? Please stop spamming the Forum.
16 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2601 D(B))
14 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
Cheating Refund Policy
See below.
27 replies
Open
podium (498 D)
15 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
Holiday For Men
Yesterday was national steak and blowjob day.
Did you celebrate?
What other odd holidays do you celebrate?
89 replies
Open
damian (675 D)
14 Mar 13 UTC
150cc Weekend Diplomacy Club (Take 3)
Wish you could find high quality games, with no CDs? So do I. I want to try and get the 150cc club going again, but this time I have a twist that I think will help it actually get off the ground.
5 replies
Open
erist (228 D(B))
17 Mar 13 UTC
How would this change things?
Thread for the hypothetical proposal of variants and speculation on how it would change game dynamics
14 replies
Open
redhouse1938 (429 D)
16 Mar 13 UTC
Privatization
What kind of stuff that is mostly public can safely be privatized? Prisons? Highways? Hospitals? Discuss.
42 replies
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
17 Mar 13 UTC
EOG - You, me ... and TANKS!-3
Well...Germany royally screwed up what was setting up to be a great game by leaving.
4 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2601 D(B))
16 Mar 13 UTC
(+2)
Hey krellin
Do you know what "yes or no question" means?
109 replies
Open
blankflag (0 DX)
17 Mar 13 UTC
pirate internet
this isnt really news so im not putting it in my other thread. but who has considered pirate internet and how it could work to get around a tyranical government? precedents are the ussr fax machine network and of course pirate radio.
40 replies
Open
The Czech (39715 D(S))
17 Mar 13 UTC
Full Euro Pree
So who was everyone?
21 replies
Open
Ayreon (3398 D)
16 Mar 13 UTC
Metagaming or Double account in live game Rusty Fast
A very strange strategy in this game
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=112718#gamePanel
where Russia and Austria played as a single player... I ask to the developer of the site to verify the game and the position of the two players thanks.
1 reply
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
16 Mar 13 UTC
Why full press live games?
I've seen a lot of live games advertised that are 5 minute phases that, once I click on them, are full press. Why? I find it hard enough to get in gunboat orders in 5 minutes once the game gets going. What is the draw to such a game?
9 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
15 Mar 13 UTC
WTF? Why the hell would they do that?
More inside...
9 replies
Open
dubmdell (556 D)
16 Mar 13 UTC
Another suggestion on forum improvements
The forum automatically detects excessive posting and duplicate posting. Can it catch "live game" with a simple update? Provide a message and reroute to the live games thread? In that vein, can it catch various phrases regarding cheating accusations?
0 replies
Open
dirge (768 D(B))
16 Mar 13 UTC
RIP Allen Calhamer
The creator of Diplomacy, Allen Calhamer, passed away last week at the age of 81.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-03/news/ct-met-calhamer-obit-20130303_1_games-magazine-game-companies-diplomacy
2 replies
Open
Petraeus (0 DX)
16 Mar 13 UTC
Join Fast Game Live now!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=112708
0 replies
Open
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
13 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
New Pope
Don't know who yet; only know that they've got white smoke. Any last second guesses and, when the word does come out, reactions?
165 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
Science Weekly
I'd like a place where we can have serious, high-level discussions on scientific research. To that end, I've shamelessly stolen obi's idea for a Forum series. Please see inside for this week's white-paper, taken from the "Burning fossil fuels" thread.
Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
Humlum, Ole, et al. "The phase relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming," Global and Planetary Change, 2013. Available: http://tinyurl.com/bag3pfn

Abstract:

Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Jamiet99uk (808 D)
14 Mar 13 UTC
(+3)
"I'd like a place where we can have serious, high-level discussions on scientific research."

I don't want to seem like a troll, but my initial reaction to that is.... you're on the wrong website.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
Is there a question? By the way - kudos for this thread and attempt at an actual discussion re: climate change an the possibility that data exists that contradicts "prevailing theory/consensus..."
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
@krellin

I'm only 1/4 of the way through. When I've finished, I'm sure I'll have some questions.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
Here are my thoughts;

1) Unless they filtered their data wrong (it looked fine to me), I agree that there seems to be a very strong relationship between ocean temperature rising and lagging CO2 increases. This does, indeed, seem to contradict many popular Global Warming claims.

2) I do not understand how accurate the CDIAC is regarding anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If they are accurate, however, then it seems anthropogenic CO2 does not make up a significant portion of CO2 increases. Can anyone elaborate on this?

3) It seems clear that there is not a short-term relationship between CO2 and resulting temperature increases. However, I am still skeptical that CO2 plays no role in increasing temperature. I would be particularly interested in looking at data that spanned a least 100 years (rather than 3 decades) to see if CO2 had a more subtle effect on temperature.

Thoughts?
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
"I would be particularly interested in looking at data that spanned a least 100 years "
You can't because it doesn't exist, I believe.

Missing from this study is the influence of the Sun. I would like to see the temperature change correlated to sun activity/sun spot activity - to which I believe you will find a correlation.

I will concede, as well, that this study says nothing about "global warming" in general, but is a targeted study of a specific relationship. That being said, since that specific relationship (which this suggests does not exists) is always identified as the cause of "global warming", do you concede that it is probable, based upon this evidence, that global warming may be a flawed, if not outright incorrect, concept? And instead what we witness are natural cycles which (not surprisingly) play out over decades and/or centuries?

As for short-term versus long-term affect of CO2 - why would you believe CO2 has a long term affect on temperature increase, since it, in fact, seems to be a stunting factor in temperature rise, if anything, but most likely are 1. a by-product of temperature and 2. released/absorbed by a feedback cycle within the organic/natural structures of the earth (including life forms and liquid)?
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
"You can't because it doesn't exist, I believe."

According to the paper, we have rudimentary CO2 vs temp data based on ice cores for several thousand years. We also have reasonable data starting in the late 50's, but this paper only looks at 1980 on.

Yes, if there are papers that blame only CO2 on temperature increases, I would find them suspect after reading this.

The Earth changes very slowly and CO2 certainly has some effect, just like anything else. Looking at only the past several decades simply doesn't seem to paint an entire picture of the situation.



krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
" rudimentary CO2 vs temp data based on ice cores for several thousand years. We also have reasonable data starting in the late 50's, but this paper only looks at 1980 on"

I think it is the specific granularity of the data that makes it so compelling. "Rudimentary" data would not show the specific correlation this study demonstrates, which is an earth-based fluctuation, which is impacted by both season and geography. the data they have is specifically taken from all over the earth, not just ice cores, as well, meaning ice-core data alone does not work for the nature of this study.
FlemGem (1297 D)
14 Mar 13 UTC
If I read this correctly (sorry, not a super science guy, hope I'm still allowed on the thread) this study shows that CO2 increases show up *after* the oceans warm up - did I get that right?
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
@Flem

Yes, that's exactly right.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
"The Earth changes very slowly and CO2 certainly has some effect, just like anything else. Looking at only the past several decades simply doesn't seem to paint an entire picture of the situation."

CO2 has an affect...is IS an affect...
Does the hear of the fire cause the fire? No, but I agree that the heat fromthe fire may keep the embers hotter longer. That would perhaps be a CO2 affect....except there is indication that CO2 might cause temperature drops....but no clear indication they cause a rise in temperature.

In fact, in the very first graph, there is a leveling out of CO2 concentrations in teh latter part of the graph, and temps continue to increase regardless of CO2. i.e. CO2 seems to have no impact.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
@krellin

Yes, I understand that. My question is if there is some threshold after which CO2 does, in fact, begin to influence temperature more than temperature influences CO2. Maybe the data we have isn't good enough to figure that out.

krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
abge - I see. Don't know. You would have to truly understand both the mechanism by which "natural" CO2 increases and decreases, to start. i.e. the more "pressure" there is on the system (from increased CO2) is there a corresponding action to reduce CO2 -- i.e. in engineering terminology, and active feedback system? This could be, for example, plant life, both on the land and within the ocean as active control mechanisms that keep the system from going out of control. Hotter = more CO2 and fewer clouds -> more algae bloom --> more CO2 absorption.

Consistent with my belief that the earth is a remarkably resilient construct that defies most of man's attempt to "destroy" it...yes, I strayed in to "belief", but it is belief based upon scientific principle as described above.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
Once you understand the "natural" methods to control CO2 levels - specifically the ability to re-absorb CO2, then you would try to define a limit -- i.e. what is the maximum amount of CO2 that can be absorbed? From there if you can figure out what naturally increases CO2 on the planet, you can define a "hard limit" for how much CO2 man is "allowed" to contribute to the system with potentially destabilizing it.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
"withOUT destabilizing it", that is...
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
In any case, I found this to be an interesting read, but I don't think it's really the damning evidence against Global Warming that some websites have claimed it is.

Unless someone can produce counter evidence, it doesn't really seem like CO2 is affecting temperature much (at least in the last 30 years), not does it seem like fossil fuels are accounting for a large percentage of CO2 increases.

With that being said, it doesn't mean that temperature and CO2 increases aren't bad. Even if we aren't causing them, it's likely to be something we have to deal with.
FlemGem (1297 D)
14 Mar 13 UTC
"In any case, I found this to be an interesting read, but I don't think it's really the damning evidence against Global Warming that some websites have claimed it is.

Unless someone can produce counter evidence, it doesn't really seem like CO2 is affecting temperature much (at least in the last 30 years), not does it seem like fossil fuels are accounting for a large percentage of CO2 increases."


abge - aren't these paragraphs contradictory?
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
I agree with Flemgem. If "global warming" is *always* stated to be a CO2 problem (both natural and man-made) and this destroys the connection between CO2 and "global warming"...then any temperature increase is caused by something else "unknown" (cough...cough...THE SUN...cough cough...) and there is little that can be done about what is most likely a very natural cycle of the earth....SCRATCH THAT...the Solar System we live in...

Solution...bring back freon, it was a much better coolant than RS-32...because we will need it if global warming is real...

...except recent data shows an overall cooling in the last decade....thus casting doubt even upon the idea of global warming anyway...but that's another topic.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Mar 13 UTC
@Flem

No.

1) The Earth is clearly getting warmer. The data in this paper clearly shows that. Even we aren't the cause, it's still happening.

2) CO2 is not the only product humans release into the environment. Just because CO2 isn't harming anything, doesn't mean other things aren't.
jimgov (219 D(B))
14 Mar 13 UTC
The EPA has a great website that explains climate change. What causes it. Where it it headed. What can be done.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/joint-letter-nasa-administrator-blasts-agencys-policy-ignoring-empirical-evidence

Bunch of NASA scientists that disagree with global warming. Read "scientists"...not political advocates.

"With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
Information not to be heard on the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR...

...just sayin'..

More info to be found here from *real* climate scientists, if you are so inclined to spend a little time hearing another point of view.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/

Sorry...here's the link.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
jimgov -- did you read the article Abge posted?
jimgov (219 D(B))
14 Mar 13 UTC
@krellin - are you saying that the EPA site is flawed in some way? That the science is proven wrong?
jimgov (219 D(B))
14 Mar 13 UTC
If you look at the EPA site, they show that it is NOT just CO2 that is the problem.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
jimgov -- I am saying that the epa site is *directly* contradicted by the evidence presented in the scientific research that Abge posted a link to.

I am saying that yes....<gasp>....the government is ill-informed and (maybe even) lied.

Say it isn't so, I know...

Do yourself a favor and open up the article ...don't even read it, just look at the pictures if you want. It's pretty obvious.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
jimgov -- better question: Do you believe EVERYTHING the government tells you?????
jimgov (219 D(B))
14 Mar 13 UTC
@krellin - What I said is that the EPA has a great site that explains global climate change. Because some people are so misinformed that they probably should bet a little background that doesn't come from a conservative thinktank. No need to get your panties in a wad.
krellin (80 DX)
14 Mar 13 UTC
jimgov -- CO2 is demonstrated to *not* be causing temperature rise (read the article) and is 84% of the "green house" gases according to the EPA. and CO2 makes up about 0.06% of the atmosphere overall. So...CO2 is not causing temp change....so you are suggesting that this other stuff...about 0.005% of the atmosphere...is causing the problem?

Or.....maybe there isn't a problem at all, since they got the *biggest* advocate wrong...

Maybe...just maybe...your government is wrong...

Page 1 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

104 replies
krellin (80 DX)
16 Mar 13 UTC
Hey 2ndWhiteLine
YES OR NO: "Do bo-sox and jimgov still have blueballs because they miss you so much, or is the answer no because you gsve them their release?"

Come on, pal, it's a simple question! Yes or No! In your world ALL yes or no questions are answerable...so come on, chump!
1 reply
Open
jimgov (219 D(B))
16 Mar 13 UTC
Fast Europe 25 EOG
Crappppp! Good game, guys. I really screwed up a few orders there in the last few years, but you kept me from getting the solo.
9 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
16 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
He 2WL
Why are you so obsessed with following jimgov around and seconding his emotions? Are you that hard up for an original thought?
0 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
16 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
Hey JimGov
Are yo just another government lapdog that believes everything the government tells you?

Why can't you read a scientific paper that *Abge* posted and admit the science is correct, and that maybe your precious government is misinformed?
0 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
16 Mar 13 UTC
(+1)
Hey Bo-Sox
Do you know the definition of PLAGIARISM?

Why do you plagiarize other people's work and post it on WebDip as if it's your own?
0 replies
Open
Timur (673 D(B))
15 Mar 13 UTC
Stoned Agin!
Why don't we all go back to the old 60's hippy vibe for a game?
(See below.)
35 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
15 Mar 13 UTC
(+2)
Nashville, Tennessee: Anyone lives here?
Does anyone live in or near Nashville, TN?

Also, (Native HOT) Pad Thai food is the way to go, not "American" hot.
When you go to a Thai restaurant, be sure to ask for native hot. You won't regret it!@!
8 replies
Open
Mnrogar (100 D)
16 Mar 13 UTC
Quick Game in 20 mins
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=112664
0 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
16 Mar 13 UTC
1988 Predicts Los Angelas 2013
http://gizmodo.com/5990791/what-1988-los-angeles-thought-itd-look-like-in-2013

Interesting read....got some of it right...but I still don't have a robot to do my dishes.
0 replies
Open
trip (696 D(B))
15 Mar 13 UTC
This is a fucking travesty
See inside...
67 replies
Open
FlemGem (1297 D)
15 Mar 13 UTC
(+3)
dog poop thread
Krellin, I love you, but could you please discuss dog poop in this thread instead of in the "nice things" thread?
9 replies
Open
Page 1032 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top