Jharii
King
Irony is delicious. Maybe it's a Halloween thing.
Removal of Global Warming
- Thread starter Zechnophobe
- Start date
- Status
Irony is delicious. Maybe it's a Halloween thing.
You understand that it is satire? It is written by Richard Curtis. Who is a comic writer and has worked on Blackadder?
When I said wrong forum, I forgot to mention wrong sub forum. The science sub forum would be a better place for this discussion.
Nuclear weapons would cause the earth to cool and bring in a nuclear winter, It wouldn't make GW worse it would have the opposite effect.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
No, it really isn't. Science is about noticing trends, and then making predictions based on input. Whichever 'trend' is the strongest we assume will continue. When it does not, science gets excited and tries to figure out why not.
Certainty is a construct that people crave so that it can validate their actions. Without validation, we feel lost. I think this is why a lot of people have weird misconceptions about the idea of science.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
Newton, Darwin, and Einstein are people. People are not always right. Why do we teach so much of the work of these people? Because they have made claims that have withstood an incredibly amount of testing. It isn't gospel, it isn't a priori information.
The same rigor should be taken to all such ideas. That doesn't mean that by questioning a claim you are saying it is not true. I see a lot of the latter, and very little of the former.
Citation required.
This is so incredibly not true I don't even know how to respond. The three laws of motion or, all things considered, the easy part of Newton's work. He also codified Calculus. Are you now going to say that all lay people should know calculus?
More often, people have grasped some few basic concepts, and run with it like they know the entire topic. Just look at how often 'quantum' is misquoted, just as 'relativity' was back in the day of its inception.
I don't even know how to respond to your huge lasso statement about 'modern hacks'. Are you insinuating that, like, all scientists now are hacks? Or just the ones who aren't republican?
Well, you have Science and you have Science. It's too simple what you say here, Zechnophobe. Certain area's of Science are pretty much became "common knowledge" ; So to say that they "only" notice trends and making predictions is way to simplified and simply not true.
Water boils at 100c, that's a scientific fact. See, gotcha. And there are million other scientific facts.
Water boils at 100c, that's a scientific fact. See, gotcha. And there are million other scientific facts.
bananamana
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
- Messages
- 44
Blackadder is great. This is the opposite.
Well, here's part of my thinking. Mankind is incredibly powerful. Oh, maybe not in the past. Maybe not right now. But we're exponentially growing in power. We're adding population, we're adding education, and we're adding ever-growing technological capability to this educated population. We're going to take the stars, someday, if we play our cards right.
So, with this power curve, it becomes quite possible that some day we'll be powerful enough to 'accidentally' change the climate. We change the albedo of lands and the natural hydration patterns. We've completely outshone the natural nitrogen cycle. So, since it's quite possible for us to be 'accidentally' that powerful, then the question is whether we're that powerful now. I see good reason to think that we are. Heck, we're sequencing genomes at less than $100,000 each. We've got a super-collider that is so large that we have to factor in the location of the Moon when constructing it. And we're pulling fossil fuels out of the ground at casual rates
So, we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? So, that part is not in debate. And that we're pumping masses of CO2 is not really in debate, either.
And we've pumped a LOT. The ocean scrubs some of the CO2. Not very quickly, but it does. Well scrubbing CO2 changes the pH of water and makes it more acidic. The acidity of water changes the way it handles acoustics. And now whale song travels 10% further than it used to, because of the change in ocean acidity due to our CO2.
Whale song. 10%. From fossil fuels.
Yeah, that's not 'global warming', but it shows that our CO2 is having an actual impact. So, yeah, we're powerful enough to accidentally change the climate.
Anyway, here's one of the best discussions regarding ocean acidity I've seen in a long-time. It's part of a seminar series held at the University of California (the other talks are really good, but more specialised to other aspects of ocean science). Yeah, it's a professor talking about his field. But it's really good, and that's how education happens, listening to professors. He's very clear on the actual science, and talks in the way scientists are supposed to.
In one hour, you can really augment your knowledge of ocean acidity. Most people can't be bothered, but one hour is a very small investment. It vastly increased my knowledge.
Perspectives on Ocean Science
So, with this power curve, it becomes quite possible that some day we'll be powerful enough to 'accidentally' change the climate. We change the albedo of lands and the natural hydration patterns. We've completely outshone the natural nitrogen cycle. So, since it's quite possible for us to be 'accidentally' that powerful, then the question is whether we're that powerful now. I see good reason to think that we are. Heck, we're sequencing genomes at less than $100,000 each. We've got a super-collider that is so large that we have to factor in the location of the Moon when constructing it. And we're pulling fossil fuels out of the ground at casual rates
So, we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? So, that part is not in debate. And that we're pumping masses of CO2 is not really in debate, either.
And we've pumped a LOT. The ocean scrubs some of the CO2. Not very quickly, but it does. Well scrubbing CO2 changes the pH of water and makes it more acidic. The acidity of water changes the way it handles acoustics. And now whale song travels 10% further than it used to, because of the change in ocean acidity due to our CO2.
Whale song. 10%. From fossil fuels.
Yeah, that's not 'global warming', but it shows that our CO2 is having an actual impact. So, yeah, we're powerful enough to accidentally change the climate.
Anyway, here's one of the best discussions regarding ocean acidity I've seen in a long-time. It's part of a seminar series held at the University of California (the other talks are really good, but more specialised to other aspects of ocean science). Yeah, it's a professor talking about his field. But it's really good, and that's how education happens, listening to professors. He's very clear on the actual science, and talks in the way scientists are supposed to.
In one hour, you can really augment your knowledge of ocean acidity. Most people can't be bothered, but one hour is a very small investment. It vastly increased my knowledge.
Perspectives on Ocean Science
Jharii
King
Simply stating there is "overwhelming evidence" does not make it so. Please present some actual evidence for this forum's consumption.
katipunero
Prince
What you said.
I can't believe some people here still take the position that there's nothing at all to climate change. that it is all part of this great conspiracy concocted and spread by large corporations and ruling political groups to earn a peak rise in sales or get panic votes into office. three named posters in this thread really just stand out to me for earning the distinguished merit for gross ignorance and pure demagoguery. Moderator Action: Flaming gets infracted here! but as a game mechanic, though, gw needs a lot of work. i am not against having gw implemented in the game. it's annoying, yes, but it does give you pause about what may be the future of this planet.
The problem is that any proper evidence would probably take about an hour to present. There're cycles within cycles within the climate, and any proper model needs to describe these cycles and show how they're factored into the evidence.
The best way to learn about the topic is repeated exposure. Science and Nature are two of the world's most respect science journals (it's where scientists try to publish their data). They each have podcasts that discuss science articles with the authors, and these podcasts go back a couple of years. I recommend downloading and listening to these podcasts, focusing on the episodes that discuss climate change.
Remember, the debate at the 'mainstream' level is remarkably naive. We're still seeing objections like 'volcanos spew CO2' and 'Mars is warming too!' from mainstream commentators. But a regular monitoring of the actual scientific press will show that the consensus is very strong. How couldn't it be, since it's really true that CO2 is a GHG.
I really recommend my youtube link, up above. The ability to hear university seminars is something that should be encouraged.
The best way to learn about the topic is repeated exposure. Science and Nature are two of the world's most respect science journals (it's where scientists try to publish their data). They each have podcasts that discuss science articles with the authors, and these podcasts go back a couple of years. I recommend downloading and listening to these podcasts, focusing on the episodes that discuss climate change.
Remember, the debate at the 'mainstream' level is remarkably naive. We're still seeing objections like 'volcanos spew CO2' and 'Mars is warming too!' from mainstream commentators. But a regular monitoring of the actual scientific press will show that the consensus is very strong. How couldn't it be, since it's really true that CO2 is a GHG.
I really recommend my youtube link, up above. The ability to hear university seminars is something that should be encouraged.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
The scientific basis is really straightforward.
The Earth emits as much energy as it receives from the Sun (internal heat is a pretty small source.)
For our distance from the Sun, most of the light put by the Earth is in the infrared, where the atmosphere can absorb it; most sunlight is visible and the atmosphere lets it through.
Different molecules absorb IR radiation, trapping the heat and warming the Earth. Small amounts can matter a lot, just as only a little bit of ink can make water look black.
People are burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the air; we can measure this because fossil fuels have different isotope ratios than near-surface sources. From the above, we know that CO2 traps heat.
So, basically, the no climate change camp is postulating that nature will somehow wash this out. This is profoundly radical, not conservative, and it runs counter to both theory and data. It actually appears that there is positive feedback - for example, warming temperatures melt ice, which means less reflected sunlight, which means more warning.
But you don't need to get into the weeds to recognize the basic nature of the problem.
Back to Civ - it wouldn't surprise me at all if they had political pressure to remove GW from the game. I thought it was an interesting game device, but can see how it might be annoying (as a game mechanic) to others.
The Earth emits as much energy as it receives from the Sun (internal heat is a pretty small source.)
For our distance from the Sun, most of the light put by the Earth is in the infrared, where the atmosphere can absorb it; most sunlight is visible and the atmosphere lets it through.
Different molecules absorb IR radiation, trapping the heat and warming the Earth. Small amounts can matter a lot, just as only a little bit of ink can make water look black.
People are burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2 into the air; we can measure this because fossil fuels have different isotope ratios than near-surface sources. From the above, we know that CO2 traps heat.
So, basically, the no climate change camp is postulating that nature will somehow wash this out. This is profoundly radical, not conservative, and it runs counter to both theory and data. It actually appears that there is positive feedback - for example, warming temperatures melt ice, which means less reflected sunlight, which means more warning.
But you don't need to get into the weeds to recognize the basic nature of the problem.
Back to Civ - it wouldn't surprise me at all if they had political pressure to remove GW from the game. I thought it was an interesting game device, but can see how it might be annoying (as a game mechanic) to others.
Jharii
King
What you said.
Please note that there is a difference between "climate change" and the theory/science that is "global warming."
Climate change has been going on since the dawn of this planet. Even the latest 8.8 magnitude earthquake in Chile that happened in March of this year reportedly shifted the Earth's axis by 8 cm (about 3 inches), according to NASA. These axis shifts have been going on just as long as climate change, and contribute to it quite significantly.
One can also be environmentally conscious yet still not buy into global warming. And simply because someone does not believe in the "evidence" presented that man can impact the planet at a catastrophic and global level (nuclear warfare notwithstanding), does not make them "grossly ignorant." And if you don't think that the government or businesses take advantage of people's fears about this topic (whether those fears are warranted or not), then I am fairly certain that this "ignorance" is on both sides of the coin.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Bah, i was going to make a lenghty post on how AGW != climate change and how the temp of a planet is not a direct function of how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere 
Ok, on topic :
Like i said before, IMHO the biggest mistake of GW in civ IV was the fact that was a messy feature that gave uniformy unfun results, impossible to revert and that , due to the way the AI was coded ( that is, completely unaware of it's existance and consequences ) added to the fact that it was always a global variable, punished the player that actually tried to avoid it in games that took long enough for it to be a realistic outcome. The fact that it was not a consequence of of a actual climate model inside , but of a completely player-centric ( player = human or AI ) mechanism didn't helped either.
All of this issues must be solved before GW deserves to be a game feature of any civ game... so i really don't expect to see it for a very long time. And good riddance ....
Ok, on topic :
Like i said before, IMHO the biggest mistake of GW in civ IV was the fact that was a messy feature that gave uniformy unfun results, impossible to revert and that , due to the way the AI was coded ( that is, completely unaware of it's existance and consequences ) added to the fact that it was always a global variable, punished the player that actually tried to avoid it in games that took long enough for it to be a realistic outcome. The fact that it was not a consequence of of a actual climate model inside , but of a completely player-centric ( player = human or AI ) mechanism didn't helped either.
All of this issues must be solved before GW deserves to be a game feature of any civ game... so i really don't expect to see it for a very long time. And good riddance ....
katipunero
Prince
^ yeah, that's true. as a game mechanic in 4 the gw was totally out of whack. it's unrealistic and a constant annoyance and fails in all respect to add value to game balance and enjoyment. the effects are worse for me when i play on marathon and intend to draw things out for a time victory. at the later stages of the game, it seems to me that the only viable way to survive is to switch my empires focus to corps and feed on seafood. if all things fail, wage a protracted war with friends and allies to claim whatever scarce food resources are left to help maintain and fuel growth for my cities.
Edit: Nah, now im no longer interested in discussing nuances of gw IRL. i have enough of that at work and i just want to have fun in this here forums.
Edit: Nah, now im no longer interested in discussing nuances of gw IRL. i have enough of that at work and i just want to have fun in this here forums.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
