Removal of Global Warming

Abegweit said:

Certainly there is. That's what science is all about.

Click to expand...

You don't know many scientists do you?

Anyways, I'll come back with a few articles....may not be until tomorrow (it's getting late here and I need to press on with lecture prep).

snapple232 said:

Global warming is an issue that only surfaced in the last two decades.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the Vikings... who thrived during the global warming period around 1000 A.D., and then had to give up lots of settlements due to global cooling.

I had originally thought of using JSTOR articles but since:

A) You probably won't be able to access them

and

B) Neither you nor I would be able to properly understand them (as they are scientific articles whose target audience is other scientists)

I've slightly revised my strategy here.

In terms of freely available material one place to start would be the first full report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (from 1990). Being the first 'complete' and succinct report on the issue it is the logical starting place:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If you want more I'm happy to provide.

logintime said:

Global Warming might be a well-documented and verifiable problem, but that doesn't mean it is a fun game mechanic. On the contrary, since we can't do things like move cities or alter the terrain (building/removing hills, working mountains, reclaiming land from the sea, planting forests, etc.) it always seemed an annoying thing when your terrain tiles suddenly turned to desert. Also unrealistic; some areas would get dryer, sure, but others would get wetter and more tropical, while some places would just be flooded over.

Click to expand...

That's why Civ 2 is still the best game in the series: terraforming! Global warming in Civ 2 would flood some coastal squares, turning them into swamps, as well as the plains-into-desert stripe. But you could repair the damage with your engineers, who could turn mountains into hills, etc. Why they ever took this feature out, I don't know...

Why the heck are mountains impassable in Civ 4 & 5?

Quasar1011 said:

Why the heck are mountains impassable in Civ 4 & 5?

Click to expand...

This is a very good question.

I have to believe for gameplay issues (and it is kind of cool in that respect)....it helps model thigns like the Himalayas or other major mountain ranges which have isolated cultures from each other in one way/time or another.

You don't know many scientists do you?

Click to expand...

Certainly I do. They have names like Newton, Darwin and Einstein. They are nothing like the hacks who infest academia today who have spent many years learning not to think for themselves. Incidentally, you know, Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong. Newtonian physics is simply a special case of Einsteinian physics.

jjkrause84 said:

In terms of freely available material one place to start would be the first full report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (from 1990). Being the first 'complete' and succinct report on the issue it is the logical starting place:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If you want more I'm happy to provide.

Click to expand...

Oh Good Lord! The Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel? This piece of bureaucrat-written crap is the best you can do? FWIW, I have already read it. Apparently you aren't aware that the wording was changed by the bureaucrats AFTER the scientists, such as they were, had already signed off on the report. Two of the paragraphs they removed said "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases". and "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ... man-made causes."

Wonderful, eh?

It's at least better than the 2007 piece of IPCC crud in which they provided the "Executive Overview" before the wrangling over what would be in the "consensus" was even complete!

I notice that you have had nothing substantive to say about anything Ive pointed out. You even admit that you don't understand climate science. Well, here's another little tidbit for you: real science is accessible to the intelligent laymen. Darwin, Newton and even Einstein wrote comprehensible theories. The modern hacks don't make theories at all.

jjkrause84 said:

I had originally thought of using JSTOR articles but since:

A) You probably won't be able to access them

and

B) Neither you nor I would be able to properly understand them (as they are scientific articles whose target audience is other scientists)

I've slightly revised my strategy here.

In terms of freely available material one place to start would be the first full report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (from 1990). Being the first 'complete' and succinct report on the issue it is the logical starting place:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If you want more I'm happy to provide.

Click to expand...

IPCC 1990 has the medieval warming period with temps comparable if not superior to the current ones

page 200 said:

Observational and palaeo-climatic evidence indicates that the Earth's climate has varied in the past on time scales ranging from many millions of years down to a few years. Over the last two million years, glacial-interglacial cycles have occurred on a time scale of 100,000 years, with large changes in ice volume and sea level.

During this time, average global surface temperatures appear to have varied by about 5-7°C. Since the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 BP, globally averaged surface temperatures have fluctuated over a range of up to 2°C on time scales of centuries or more. Such fluctuations include the Holocene Optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago. the shorter Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century. Details are often poorly known because palaeo-climatic data are frequently sparse.

Click to expand...

Check also page 202.

AGW theory is based on Mann "results" ( his algorithym would produce the same graph even with random input, so it is not exactly a reliable basis ) that take the medieval warming period out of the equation and irons the Holocene as well... If you don't consider Mann results valid ( like IPCC 1990 does not, by obvious reasons ), you can't correlate CO2 ppm with temperature as good as that.

In fact the IPCC 1990 data is not enough to base AGW given that the rise in temperature in the XX century printed there is not enough of a spike above the Holocene optimum or even the medieval period levels to sustain a theory based on CO2 induced Global warming . At best it has data that clearly indicates a average rise in temperature since 1800 , with some bumps on the way ( like the 1950-60 period ).

Whether or not you people as individuals as people believe that Global Warming is real, unreal, exaggerated, or so forth really doesn't matter. What does matter is how it would be possible to implement it that it doesn't end up controlling the game and is fun to play with. That's my problem with it being included as a feature.

Sonereal said:

Whether or not you people as individuals as people believe that Global Warming is real, unreal, exaggerated, or so forth really doesn't matter. What does matter is how it would be possible to implement it that it doesn't end up controlling the game and is fun to play with. That's my problem with it being included as a feature.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely true. Removing was one of the few good things they did in Civ5. Of course, it was really nothing but an irritant in previous games. In Civ4, the effect was largely to make nuclear power unusable. Annoying but scarcely a game breaker.

Sonereal said:

Whether or not you people as individuals as people believe that Global Warming is real, unreal, exaggerated, or so forth really doesn't matter. What does matter is how it would be possible to implement it that it doesn't end up controlling the game and is fun to play with. That's my problem with it being included as a feature.

Click to expand...

SMAC has a very decent GW system ( water level rises, some areas get more moisty other more dry ... ) that even gave you more "UN" ( Planetary concil ) resolutions to vote ( like trying to stop GW by launching a shade on the higher atmosphere ) and interesting gameplay options ( like promoting GW for making your land better while sinking others ) , but just because SMAC has a actual climate model inside. IMHO putting GW without a climate model was the reason it never worked in civ games....

I'm glad it was removed. I found it rather dull in Civ 4.

I am hoping for some kind of climate model/system but I don't see it happening soon.

I do think the discussion of GW isn't for this forum or this topic. But it is real, hard to deny it really.

I give up, you've out-shouted me.....

The anti-intellectuals win.

People go and get mind-boggling amounts of training through many years of intense academic study yet can't think for themselves. This is absolutely true.

Maybe the answer is to somehow shoot for yet more transparency? People tend to have an underlying distrust or disregard for academia and the sciences....how can we remedy this? CAN it be remedied? Maybe people will simply choose what they want to believe and that's that? The 'Historical Immersion' thread is certainly proof for it.

Maybe, as Nabobalis says, it's simply the wrong forum? The internet levels the playing field....perhaps to our detriment. I can rememebr several heated arguments I've had over the years about the popular memory of WWI. It seems that without a suit and a classroom my arguments don't work on these people (even WITH they don't always penetrate....).

It's a strange world indeed.

If you need me I'll be in the ivory tower....

r_rolo1 said:

SMAC has a very decent GW system ( water level rises, some areas get more moisty other more dry ... ) that even gave you more "UN" ( Planetary concil ) resolutions to vote ( like trying to stop GW by launching a shade on the higher atmosphere ) and interesting gameplay options ( like promoting GW for making your land better while sinking others ) , but just because SMAC has a actual climate model inside. IMHO putting GW without a climate model was the reason it never worked in civ games....

Click to expand...

The other problem is that there's no elevation. There's only three levels of elevation it seems and one of those are inaccessible.

jjkrause84 said:

I give up, you've out-shouted me.....

The anti-intellectuals win.

People go and get mind-boggling amounts of training through many years of intense academic study yet can't think for themselves. This is absolutely true.

Maybe the answer is to somehow shoot for yet more transparency? People tend to have an underlying distrust or disregard for academia and the sciences....how can we remedy this? CAN it be remedied? Maybe people will simply choose what they want to believe and that's that? The 'Historical Immersion' thread is certainly proof for it.

Maybe, as Nabobalis says, it's simply the wrong forum? The internet levels the playing field....perhaps to our detriment. I can rememebr several heated arguments I've had over the years about the popular memory of WWI. It seems that without a suit and a classroom my arguments don't work on these people (even WITH they don't always penetrate....).

It's a strange world indeed.

If you need me I'll be in the ivory tower....

Click to expand...

I hope you aren't talking of me I just pointed you that IPCC 1990 can not be used as a document defending AGW

r_rolo1 said:

I hope you aren't talking of me I just pointed you that IPCC 1990 can not be used as a document defending AGW

Click to expand...

No I wasn't talking about you.....

I just thought the first IPCC report would be a good starting place from which to pursue the evolution of the research we currently have. There is nevertheless a strong undertone of humans' ability to impact climate (one way or another) which belies the belief that humans are wrapped up in it in one way or another.

As with any complex situation, there are probably multiple reasons for the recorded increases in temperature and attendant phenomena (retreating of glaciers, etc.).

To an extent, whether it is a result of AGW (partially or wholly) or not is irrelevant so long as humans can impact climate. If the process is even 98% natural the report is very clear in asserting the power of humans to impact the change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the positive benefits for doing so.

jjkrause84 said:

No I wasn't talking about you.....

I just thought the first IPCC report would be a good starting place from which to pursue the evolution of the research we currently have. There is nevertheless a strong undertone of humans' ability to impact climate (one way or another) which belies the belief that humans are wrapped up in it in one way or another.

As with any complex situation, there are probably multiple reasons for the recorded increases in temperature and attendant phenomena (retreating of glaciers, etc.).

To an extent, whether it is a result of AGW (partially or wholly) or not is irrelevant so long as humans can impact climate. If the process is even 98% natural the report is very clear in asserting the power of humans to impact the change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the positive benefits for doing so.

Click to expand...

That might be true ( no reason why it can't be and it actually makes sense ), but the data published there is not enough to justify the current AGW theory or even to put the industrialization as a climate changer in terms of warming, since there was no industry in the holocene and the holocene is considered in IPCC 1990 as a almost equal to the end of XX century In other words, that conclusion is not suported by the data. Call it a bet, a educated guess ...

You will have to bring more recent IPCC to see there a more clear suport for AGW. But again , the ironing of the Holocene and of the MWP was a necessary step ( via Mann ) and that is not exactly consensual even between climatologists. OTOH Mann algorythim has the issues I already mentioned ...

I find it interesting how Poe's law reigns supreme, even after I satirized the position in this thread. People are still bringing up Climate Fairies without realizing the immense folly of their position.

The planet got warmer in the past at times... so what? You guys aren't asking the more important question which is WHY was the planet getting warmer. All you've done is purport a magical explanation for the planet suddenly getting warmer. You never consider that there are factors which can be measured today and from all the data only the obvious Greenhouse effect would be responsible for the latest warming trend. It isn't just a guess either, there's ample evidence of sunlight being trapped in the atmosphere. Everything points to a Greenhouse warming caused by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is pushing more warming as water vapor is released.

Furthermore your behavior becomes simply foul when you proceed to attack the character of almost every Climate Scientist on the planet and claim there is a world-wide conspiracy on their part to get "the mad moneys". I mean seriously, have you seen what these people are paid on average? It's extremely ironic given that the people fighting against the scientific position of AGW are the ones being granted a sizeable amount of wealth for their voice. But what really makes this Conspiracy Theory laughable is that the origin of AGW began at the end of the 19th Century... so apparently there's a conspiracy that has been going on for over 100 years... and them dirty Climate Scientists were in on it the whole time! Except they weren't... Between then and now there were several legitimate challenges to the theory. It's only recently that the science has finally solidified to the point where it is overwhelmingly considered a truth about our universe among Climate Scientists.

The only liars here are those who distort the truth and create "Climate Gate" scandals to keep their anti-science horde at the throat of human progress. Try seriously investigating your opposition and you'll find they not only have rebuttals for your oh-so-incredible evidence of a false AGW but have tossed them about like the rag dolls they are. Your side doesn't even present anything interesting anymore. It's the same method of quote-mining, trumpeting distortions, and failing to understand the science time and time again. It is predictably droll by this point.


As for the topic of Global Warming in the Civ series...

I'd prefer a Climate Model to be implemented before the feature sees a reintroduction. Even then it's more fitting for the near-future scenarios as it hardly has time to come into play in the traditional Civ timeline. Neither are current Civ mechanics geared towards its more interesting aspects, such as the ability for nation-wide famine to arise due to old farmlands being ruined, which should then lead to conflict as starved nations will be more likely to invade others in order to survive.

jjkrause84 said:

I give up, you've out-shouted me.....

Click to expand...

No. I didn't out-shout you. You have never said anything at all. How is it possible to out-shout nothing. Or, more accurately, what does it even mean to out-shout by saying nothing? BTW, not only did you never say anything, you have never responded to anything I said.

People go and get mind-boggling amounts of training through many years of intense academic study yet can't think for themselves. This is absolutely true.

Click to expand...

I realise this is supposed to be sarcasm but unfortunately it is absolutely true. They learn not to think for themselves. You quite clearly are a prime example. You cite authorities that you freely admit you don't understand. You reference documents that you have never read.

Maybe the answer is to somehow shoot for yet more transparency?

Click to expand...

Oh indeed, this is needed. Get rid of the hidden data, the hidden models, the hidden talk. What I am curious to know is why you use this strange phrasing of "yet more transparency". There has been roughly zero transparency in the past.

People tend to have an underlying distrust or disregard for academia and the sciences....

Click to expand...

Bullcrap. People have far too much trust and far too much regard for hacks who pretend to be scientists.

It seems that without a suit and a classroom my arguments don't work on these people (even WITH they don't always penetrate....).

Click to expand...

Yeah. IOW, when you don't have power over people, it seems that they discount what you say. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Hmmm?

Global warming is an engineered agenda with believers behind its momentum.

This is the kind of personality you get from warmies:
Moderator Action: *snip* that's not appropriate for a family friendly forum.

I loved global warming in civ4, because it was tied to your NUKES.
And it just made it feel as if the world changed, instead of being static.