Pounder
Phaethon was here
Another aspect of the Civ2 game that was lost in Civ3.
Bring back coastal flooding with global warming
- Thread starter Pounder
- Start date
Yeah, that was cool.
At very least, coastal plains, grasslands, dessert, and tundra could turn into swamp, and swamp could turn into water. That way, you could avoid having your city destroyed, since if it the tile it was on turned into a swamp, you could get workers to "clear wetlands" and restore the tile before further global warming turned the swamp to water.
Building cities on coastal swamps (or letting a tile under a city remain swamp if it changed because of warming) would open you up to the risk of city destruction, but that wouldn't really be any worse than building near a volcano.
At very least, coastal plains, grasslands, dessert, and tundra could turn into swamp, and swamp could turn into water. That way, you could avoid having your city destroyed, since if it the tile it was on turned into a swamp, you could get workers to "clear wetlands" and restore the tile before further global warming turned the swamp to water.
Building cities on coastal swamps (or letting a tile under a city remain swamp if it changed because of warming) would open you up to the risk of city destruction, but that wouldn't really be any worse than building near a volcano.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Not familiar with Civ 2 so not sure of how it worked. I do like the idea, even as I sit in my office hearing that my home is under a flash flood warning. 
Shyrramar
Warlord
They should just fix the global warming model first. Now the global warming can only be stopped from getting worse. Global warming should begin to reduce also. Then I would agree to this 
Furius
Prince
Their should be some sort of improvement, say "dykes" built in cities that would prevent the terrain of the city square from degenerating. However if global warming was allowed to go too far you could still end up with your coastal cities on islands as the waters rushed in.
Pook
Bloviating
I respectfully disagree. I believe the whole idea should be scrapped. Global warming is not a demonstrated fact- it's far more hype than it is science. Unfortunately, much of it is driven by a political agenda bent on destroying capitalism and eliminating private property. I do not believe that Civ 4 should reflect this agenda.
When I was in school in the 70s, I was repeatedly told that in 20 years, the polar ice caps would melt and New Orleans would be underwater. I was also told that by now, we wouldn't be able to go outside because of holes in the ozone layer. None of this has happened. All the dire warnings about an ice age, then about global warming, then about both, have not come to pass. The fact that they haven't come true has not been because we humans have tremendously changed our behavior- we dump more 'greenhouse gases' into the atmosphere now than ever before. We also have more population, that is better fed (30% of world's population is malnourished now vs 60% 30 years ago), and drinking cleaner water than 30 years ago. In my own country (the United States), there are more trees now than there were when Columbus arrived in the New World. The reality is that the planet is far less fragile than we've been told.
I remember the time in the late 90s that scientists got their hands on real data taken by a satellite that was specifically launched to measure temperature. This satellite's 9 years of data showed that earth's average temperature had DECLINED by .8 degrees F during that time. The response? Scientists threw out the actual data and used their computer models instead, showing that the earth was warming.
I know that Civilization is not real, but it is based on real events. I believe it should reflect real science.
I realize I'm going to get a lot of heat for this post. I would ask that you base your responses on evidence, not on politics. I know that the polar ice caps are thinner in some spots than they used to be. Ask yourself- is this because of mankind's activity, or would it have happened anyway because of natural forces? Politicians and special interests have all told us for over 30 years that unless we do something right now (usually in the form of paying higher taxes, reducing people's ability to work their own private property, or by punishing capitalist nations), disaster awaited us. I am tired of them crying wolf. We've had enough time to evaluate some of their 'scientific models', and the evidence is just not there.
No one hates the environment, no one wants to poison the water, no one wants to see coastlines flooded. Personally, I'm planting 56 trees around my yard this year. This is not because I'm afraid of global warming- it's because I love trees and the environment. I just don't believe the hype about global warming. Before you tell me that global warming belongs in Civ 4, I would ask you to look underneath the 'pseudo-science' and see the politics that drives much of it.
When I was in school in the 70s, I was repeatedly told that in 20 years, the polar ice caps would melt and New Orleans would be underwater. I was also told that by now, we wouldn't be able to go outside because of holes in the ozone layer. None of this has happened. All the dire warnings about an ice age, then about global warming, then about both, have not come to pass. The fact that they haven't come true has not been because we humans have tremendously changed our behavior- we dump more 'greenhouse gases' into the atmosphere now than ever before. We also have more population, that is better fed (30% of world's population is malnourished now vs 60% 30 years ago), and drinking cleaner water than 30 years ago. In my own country (the United States), there are more trees now than there were when Columbus arrived in the New World. The reality is that the planet is far less fragile than we've been told.
I remember the time in the late 90s that scientists got their hands on real data taken by a satellite that was specifically launched to measure temperature. This satellite's 9 years of data showed that earth's average temperature had DECLINED by .8 degrees F during that time. The response? Scientists threw out the actual data and used their computer models instead, showing that the earth was warming.
I know that Civilization is not real, but it is based on real events. I believe it should reflect real science.
I realize I'm going to get a lot of heat for this post. I would ask that you base your responses on evidence, not on politics. I know that the polar ice caps are thinner in some spots than they used to be. Ask yourself- is this because of mankind's activity, or would it have happened anyway because of natural forces? Politicians and special interests have all told us for over 30 years that unless we do something right now (usually in the form of paying higher taxes, reducing people's ability to work their own private property, or by punishing capitalist nations), disaster awaited us. I am tired of them crying wolf. We've had enough time to evaluate some of their 'scientific models', and the evidence is just not there.
No one hates the environment, no one wants to poison the water, no one wants to see coastlines flooded. Personally, I'm planting 56 trees around my yard this year. This is not because I'm afraid of global warming- it's because I love trees and the environment. I just don't believe the hype about global warming. Before you tell me that global warming belongs in Civ 4, I would ask you to look underneath the 'pseudo-science' and see the politics that drives much of it.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Hey Pook. Well thought out and understandable post.
I also do not believe in the global warming theory. What I just wanted to comment on was that I know this one woman who bought land in the West Virginia mountains because she wanted ocean front land when she retired.
I also do not believe in the global warming theory. What I just wanted to comment on was that I know this one woman who bought land in the West Virginia mountains because she wanted ocean front land when she retired.
Shyrramar
Warlord
Yes, well, there are many internet-sites and other studies of this, but you wouldn't probably be very convinced, so what the heck. It is of course true that the doomsday prophecies have not come true (which is good), but that of course is no argument. They have been saying that fusion powerplants are ten years away for thirty years now, and they are still 10-20 years away. It is very hard to predict anything that has anything to do with weather. It is known (and by known I mean that there are dozens of studies) that the temperature of Earth has risen steadily for a hundred or more years now. What causes this, there can be no certainty at this point. You say that there are calculations that disprove this. Well, I can't say anything to that, now can I, because the calculations don't exist anymore. I would rather trust existing sources than non-existing - but of course one should keep an open mind. You may have what opinion you want, that is not an issue here, but I would like to say something about the changes. They may be nothing but statistics, they may result from whatever causes, but these are the facts in Finland (that happens to be very tender to temperature-changes because of the Gulf-stream):
Last summer was the hottest summer in 500 years. In last decade, eight years have been considerably warmer than the average, the other two were average years. All the springs have become warmer and warmer in the last 10-20 years, this spring's mean temperature is about 5 degrees (centigrade) warmer than the average was 20 years ago. Those are just those that I remember by heart. They are only effects in a small region, in a small time frame, but they are real effects.
I would be careful before I dumped the whole problem of global warming. Atleast I have been shocked by the weather-events all around the world in the last decade. Antarctica's ice-caps ARE getting smaller.
The only question is how much of the warming is caused by men, and how much is normal changes in temperature.
About the ozone-layer: the chemicals that caused the thinning of ozone-layer have been reduced considerably. The ozone-layer's thinning has slowed and will return back to normal after a century or something like that. Now you may ask the Australians if they have had any problems with it, and they might give a whole different picture of it. One of the certain things we know is the thinning of ozone-layer, and luckily that is under control.
Pook
Bloviating
Evidence is what I'm looking for. If I use the scientific method, it seems to me that the Civ 2 hypothesis would be "human industrial activity causes global warming, with negative effects on earth." If I try to test this hypothesis, the evidence is scarce and often contradictory.
I don't know about politics in Finland. In the United States, we have a phenomenon called "watermelon politics"- green on the outside, red on the inside. After communism fell everywhere except North Korea, Cuba, and Berkeley, California
, the same people who were communists and socialists in years past now wrap themselves in environmental language. Their 'solutions' have not changed one bit. No matter what the issue or manufactured crisis of the moment, the answer is:
1) more government paid for by higher taxes
2) reduced individual freedom- "you can't drain that mosquito-infested swamp on your own property, it's a wetland"
3) punishment of capitalism- the Kyoto protocols would have devastated the economy of Western democracies while rewarding countries that produce more industrial pollution with fewer safeguards
Two other points I need to answer:
The satellite data showing that earth was cooling is still in existence. The problem with this raw data was that it:
1) didn't meet the expectations of the scientists
2) didn't meet the expectations of those funding the study
That's why they ignored it.
Regarding the ozone layer, volcanoes spew far more chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere than mankind. An example is Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines, which pumped over 1000 times more CFCs into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activity to that date put together. According to scientific models, this should have annihilated the ozone layer. Instead, it reduced the ozone layer by 20%, and earth recovered up to the normal level within three months. Something is clearly wrong with the model.
Summing up, I'm glad that global warming is not in Civ 3, and I don't want to see it reinserted into Civ 4.
I don't know about politics in Finland. In the United States, we have a phenomenon called "watermelon politics"- green on the outside, red on the inside. After communism fell everywhere except North Korea, Cuba, and Berkeley, California
, the same people who were communists and socialists in years past now wrap themselves in environmental language. Their 'solutions' have not changed one bit. No matter what the issue or manufactured crisis of the moment, the answer is:1) more government paid for by higher taxes
2) reduced individual freedom- "you can't drain that mosquito-infested swamp on your own property, it's a wetland"
3) punishment of capitalism- the Kyoto protocols would have devastated the economy of Western democracies while rewarding countries that produce more industrial pollution with fewer safeguards
Two other points I need to answer:
The satellite data showing that earth was cooling is still in existence. The problem with this raw data was that it:
1) didn't meet the expectations of the scientists
2) didn't meet the expectations of those funding the study
That's why they ignored it.
Regarding the ozone layer, volcanoes spew far more chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere than mankind. An example is Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines, which pumped over 1000 times more CFCs into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activity to that date put together. According to scientific models, this should have annihilated the ozone layer. Instead, it reduced the ozone layer by 20%, and earth recovered up to the normal level within three months. Something is clearly wrong with the model.
Summing up, I'm glad that global warming is not in Civ 3, and I don't want to see it reinserted into Civ 4.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Shyrramar: While last summer may have been the hottest in Finland over the last 500 years (your records go back that far - impressive) the past few winters over here in the States have been some of the coldest in recent memory.
Now, I am an enviromentalist (although not from Cal. Berkley
) and I firmly believe that mankind is having some effect on the global tempature of the planet, however I personally do not think it is as extreme as some extremist make it out to be.
In regards to including it in Civ 4, I really don't care but it needs to be done in a better manner than it is implemented now. How, I don't know. At least we should be given the option to turn it off.
BTW: Congradualations to both Pook and Shyrramar for having an interesting debate without resorting to flames and insults. That is a rarity in some forums.
Now, I am an enviromentalist (although not from Cal. Berkley
) and I firmly believe that mankind is having some effect on the global tempature of the planet, however I personally do not think it is as extreme as some extremist make it out to be.In regards to including it in Civ 4, I really don't care but it needs to be done in a better manner than it is implemented now. How, I don't know. At least we should be given the option to turn it off.
BTW: Congradualations to both Pook and Shyrramar for having an interesting debate without resorting to flames and insults. That is a rarity in some forums.
Pook: since you admitted you expected to "get a lot of heat" for that post, why not back up some of your assertions with links to references? You asked us to base our responses on evidence, not politics, but you did not provide any links to evidence yourself. This thread will probably quickly degenerate now into a "yes it is / no it isn't" argument with both sides claiming that the science supports their own argument, and that's all a big waste of time, especially if no one posts sources for their information.
For instance, can you provide some published source where I can look at the data on global temperatures that you mention contradicted scientists expectations?
It is my understanding that, by most methods of measurement, temperatures have risen over the last century - however, I can't point to any authoritative source for that off the top of my head, so I won't try to convince you of it. In fact, you could convince me of the opposite, if you can point me in the direction of a reliable source that says so. In the meantime, it is my understanding that the main debate is not whether global warming is real, but whether human beings are to blame. This is undoubtedly a debate with a lot of hype from both sides. However, I do take issue with you characterization of everyone who is "pro-environment" (politically) as being a closet communist. I'm sure its true that "watermelon politics" exists, but there are also a lot of well-informed, reasonable people who support capitalism and private property but are concerned about human greed overcoming common sense. Perhaps such people are misguided and are overestimating the fragility of the planet, but the easy counter argument is: better safe than sorry.
It is also my understanding that the majority of scientists believe that human activity has indeed had some effect on global temperatures. It is possible, as you say, that the majority of scientists are biased and hype the problem up, and that the minority who believe the opposite are in fact correct. However, I can't fault the Civ games for going with what the majority of scientists are saying, whether that turns out to be right or wrong. Sid and the other game designers have made their decision about who to believe: you may disagree and claim they're falling for an incorrect theory, but you cannot argue that they are falling for some obscure fringe theory that mainstream science has never heard of.
I am willing to consider the possibilty that my beliefs about the environment are wrong, but, since it is you who are suggesting a change to the game, I think the burden of "proof" should be on you. I feel no need to try to convince you you're wrong: since the game makes sense to me as it is, I'm not complaining. For that matter, if you convince me I'm wrong, it probably won't change the game either (you'd have to convince the game designers to do that ). But if you're going to post here asserting that the game is inaccurate scientifically, presumably you'd like a chance to convince us that that's the case.
As sealman says, good work on keeping the conversation civil so far: flamewars about political topics are all too common. Pook, you're a brave soul simply for bringing this topic up...
For instance, can you provide some published source where I can look at the data on global temperatures that you mention contradicted scientists expectations?
It is my understanding that, by most methods of measurement, temperatures have risen over the last century - however, I can't point to any authoritative source for that off the top of my head, so I won't try to convince you of it. In fact, you could convince me of the opposite, if you can point me in the direction of a reliable source that says so. In the meantime, it is my understanding that the main debate is not whether global warming is real, but whether human beings are to blame. This is undoubtedly a debate with a lot of hype from both sides. However, I do take issue with you characterization of everyone who is "pro-environment" (politically) as being a closet communist. I'm sure its true that "watermelon politics" exists, but there are also a lot of well-informed, reasonable people who support capitalism and private property but are concerned about human greed overcoming common sense. Perhaps such people are misguided and are overestimating the fragility of the planet, but the easy counter argument is: better safe than sorry.
It is also my understanding that the majority of scientists believe that human activity has indeed had some effect on global temperatures. It is possible, as you say, that the majority of scientists are biased and hype the problem up, and that the minority who believe the opposite are in fact correct. However, I can't fault the Civ games for going with what the majority of scientists are saying, whether that turns out to be right or wrong. Sid and the other game designers have made their decision about who to believe: you may disagree and claim they're falling for an incorrect theory, but you cannot argue that they are falling for some obscure fringe theory that mainstream science has never heard of.
I am willing to consider the possibilty that my beliefs about the environment are wrong, but, since it is you who are suggesting a change to the game, I think the burden of "proof" should be on you. I feel no need to try to convince you you're wrong: since the game makes sense to me as it is, I'm not complaining. For that matter, if you convince me I'm wrong, it probably won't change the game either (you'd have to convince the game designers to do that
). But if you're going to post here asserting that the game is inaccurate scientifically, presumably you'd like a chance to convince us that that's the case.As sealman says, good work on keeping the conversation civil so far: flamewars about political topics are all too common. Pook, you're a brave soul simply for bringing this topic up...
Shyrramar
Warlord
Originally posted by Pook
Evidence is what I'm looking for. If I use the scientific method, it seems to me that the Civ 2 hypothesis would be "human industrial activity causes global warming, with negative effects on earth." If I try to test this hypothesis, the evidence is scarce and often contradictory.
I don't know about politics in Finland. In the United States, we have a phenomenon called "watermelon politics"- green on the outside, red on the inside. After communism fell everywhere except North Korea, Cuba, and Berkeley, California
1) more government paid for by higher taxes
2) reduced individual freedom- "you can't drain that mosquito-infested swamp on your own property, it's a wetland"
3) punishment of capitalism- the Kyoto protocols would have devastated the economy of Western democracies while rewarding countries that produce more industrial pollution with fewer safeguards
Two other points I need to answer:
The satellite data showing that earth was cooling is still in existence. The problem with this raw data was that it:
1) didn't meet the expectations of the scientists
2) didn't meet the expectations of those funding the study
That's why they ignored it.
Regarding the ozone layer, volcanoes spew far more chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere than mankind. An example is Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines, which pumped over 1000 times more CFCs into the atmosphere than all of mankind's activity to that date put together. According to scientific models, this should have annihilated the ozone layer. Instead, it reduced the ozone layer by 20%, and earth recovered up to the normal level within three months. Something is clearly wrong with the model.
Summing up, I'm glad that global warming is not in Civ 3, and I don't want to see it reinserted into Civ 4.
Finland does not have such problems. It is actually the less corrupted nation in the world according to the latest study. We don't even have the same hysterical fear about communist conspirators
. There is no reason to suspect a global conspiracy theory behind all this - or atleast some information to back it up would be welcome. Why would most of the western democracies sign that treaty after careful examination, if it only caused them harm? If the study still exists, where may I find it and study it myself? There is little point advocating scientific method while there are absolutely no references in your post. If you want some of mine, I can provide a lot of those, but as they are available in abundance, you can get a hundred of those by typing "global warming" into google.
I am glad to see that you have a mind of your own and you don't simply acccept what scientists tell you. One should be careful though, that while asking for evidence to back up certain theories, one don't accept lightly the opposite evidence either.
EXACTLY my point. Global warming doesn't simply make all places warmer - they change the ecosystem causing rain where used to be dry, causing rising temperatures while lowering them in some places. Global warming causes abnormal weather. There have been record temperatures and other weather-effects all over the world lately. And what comes to our "records", there of course are none: do you think they know the temperatures 100million years ago because dinosaurs kept records?
As you may have noticed, I as just as much against extremists as are you. I am actually arguing against Pook because I see him as an extremist who claims that there is no such thing as global warming or atleast it is something that shouldn't be taken seriously. I am not advocating any doomsday-prophesies either. I think it should be studied, as there is no question nowadays that the phenomenon exists. It should be carefully researched what is the part of men in this, what will the long-term effects be and how can we influence it. Hopefully I have cleared sufficiently where I stand in this. If I have not, please do ask, and I try to explain!
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Back on topic, it isn't missing. Marsh, for example, turn to coastal.
Pounder
Phaethon was here
Is this true.
I have not seen this happen yet.
Does grassland also turn to marsh.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
No, grass->plain->desert. You can change what turns to what in the the editor.
Since Civ4 will be 3D, they could just raise the water level and let those areas that are now flooded, be underwater.
Since Civ4 will be 3D, they could just raise the water level and let those areas that are now flooded, be underwater.
Pounder
Phaethon was here
I don't know why a asked about grassland turning to marsh as I have seen it turn to plains a thousand times, I was having a brain cramp.
Now I am thinking that coastal grassland should be treated differently than interior grassland. I am thinking that coastal areas should first go wet (marsh/swamp/bog/etc...) as they start to flood and then as flooding worsens then area should go right under water.
Maybe this would give way for new terrain improvements like dikes.
Now I am thinking that coastal grassland should be treated differently than interior grassland. I am thinking that coastal areas should first go wet (marsh/swamp/bog/etc...) as they start to flood and then as flooding worsens then area should go right under water.
Maybe this would give way for new terrain improvements like dikes.
Jake5555555
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 149
Pook, do you have a link to where you got your "global cooling" information. I have seen sites that claim that this is true, but so far every single one has been discredited.
Pook: For one, I find it hard to believe that any sattelite could measure the average temperature of the planet that accurately. The only way one could measure any kind of temperature from up there is with infrared cameras, but that will only measure the tempurature of things that are visible(meaning not the air!) And even if it could, why bother when you can just get the information from all of the major cities in the world each day?
Furthermore, think about this logically for a minute: Most research Univesities, especially in the US, have no affiliation with the government, and no agenda except to show the facts. What do any of them have to gain by telling everyone that there is global warming, and why are none of them refuting this claim?
And what exactly do these political leaders have to gain by claiming global warming anyway? You say they just want more taxes, and converting to socialism. I'm not going to argue with you about the merits of Socialism, but needless to say, the US is pretty much the only country in the western world whose people don't actually support the idea. And even if it were just about the taxes, the government's budget is open for everyone to see, so it isn't as if they would be able to hide the fact that they aren't spending that global warming money on global warming.
Furthermore, think about this logically for a minute: Most research Univesities, especially in the US, have no affiliation with the government, and no agenda except to show the facts. What do any of them have to gain by telling everyone that there is global warming, and why are none of them refuting this claim?
And what exactly do these political leaders have to gain by claiming global warming anyway? You say they just want more taxes, and converting to socialism. I'm not going to argue with you about the merits of Socialism, but needless to say, the US is pretty much the only country in the western world whose people don't actually support the idea. And even if it were just about the taxes, the government's budget is open for everyone to see, so it isn't as if they would be able to hide the fact that they aren't spending that global warming money on global warming.
Pook
Bloviating
Greetings from the "extremist"
There have been lots of good points made in this thread. Yes, indeed, there have been areas of our planet that have warmed up in the last 100 years. There are also areas that have cooled down. Overall, the earth's temperature has increased by about 1 degree C in the last 100 years. Whether human activity had anything to do with it remains an open question. I say that because 2/3 of the increase occurred between 1920-1945. The increase in temperature over the last century may be just part of the warming trend that got earth out of the "mini ice age" that ran from about 1450-1850.
My whole point on this thread is that I'm glad that global warming is not in Civ 3 and I don't want it back in Civ4. My reasoning is that the hypothesis "human activity, particularly industrial activity, causes global warming with negative consequences" remains a long way from proven.
If someone took my comments about former communists and thought that I meant all environmentalists, I apologize. Watermelon politics is indeed alive and well, but that's a long way from saying that all environmentalists are closet communists- that was not at all my intent.
Many of you asked for sources, and rightly so. I would expect that for an issue as important as this, in order to convince people that I'm not a total wacko I have to show data.
I admit to one mistake: when I said that 8 years of satellite data showed the earth was cooling, I was wrong. It was 18 years of data from 1979-1997 (see reference 5 below).
The following general sources give a good overview of the science of the global warming issue. My thanks to Richard Derham, former president of the Washington Institute for pulling these sources together.
1. Green, Kenneth, "A Plain English Guide to the Science of Global Change," Reason Public Policy Institute, 1997.
2. Hamer, John and Parks, Mariana, "Global Warming is Globaloney," Eastsideweek, Dec 10, 1997
3. Jones, Laura (ed.), "Global Warming, The Science and the Politics" The Fraser Institute
Some more specific references:
4. According to Vincent Gray, the surface temperatures since 1851 have varied as follows:
1851-1879 increased 0.2 degrees Celsius
1879-1919 decreased 0.3. degrees Celsius
1920-1945 increased 0.65 degrees Celsius
1945-1978 decreased 0.2 degrees Celsius
1978-1990 increased 0.3 degrees Celsius
Vincent Gray Climate Change, 95: An Appraisal, pg. 11-13, (The Heartland Institute, Sept 10, 1997)
On page 9, Gray also points out that temperatures fell 0.2 degrees Centigrade from 1945 to 1978 while atmospheric carbon dioxide rose 9%.
5. From 1979 through April 1997, satellite measurements show a cooling of 0.09 degrees Centigrade. Robert Balling, Jr., "Calmer Weather: The Spin on Greenhouse Hurricanes," Competitive Enterprise Institute, May 1997, pg. 14.
6. Statement of John Cristy, a scientist who heads NASA's Temperature study: "We don't see any global warming in our data and our satellites monitor the entire world, not just urban areas like the ground temperatures show." Quoted in Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on Earth, Viking Press, pg. 280
7. Dixy Lee Ray: "Environmental Overkill: What Ever Happened to Common Sense", 1992, pg. 19-20. Dr. Ray notes that citrus fruit used to grow as far north as the Carolinas and now cannot grow north of Orlando, Florida.
8. Referring to the 1970s fear of another Ice Age:
Nigel Calder, "In the Grip of the New Ice Age," International Wildlife, July 1975; Douglas Colligan, "Brace yourself for Another Ice Age," Science Digest, February 1975; "Are We Headed for a New Ice Age?" Current, May/June 1976.
9. Also on the Ice Age, I would mention a quote from Dr. Kenneth E. F. Watt to a crowd on the first Earth Day in 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000."
10. Referring to glaciers growing in Alaska in the 1990s
Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on the Earth pg. 293. After shrinking during the 1980's, the Bering Glacier in central Alaska began growing, reaching a growth surge of as much as 300 feet per day.
11. Robert C. Balling, Jr., "Calmer Weather: The Spin on Greenhouse Hurricanes," Competitive Enterprise Institute, May 1997. The author cites several studies confirming that hurricane frequency and intensity have not been increasing in recent decades.
12. A 1991 poll conducted by The Gallup Organization, for the Center of Science Technology and Media asked the meteorologists two questions: whether they think that average global temperatures have increased in the past 100 years and whether, if so, they believe it is within the range of natural, not human induced, fluctuation. Only 19% said temperatures had increased due to human activity. Letter to the Wall Street Journal, by Harry E Cotugno, Vice President, The Gallup Organization, Dec. 18, 1997.
13. A conference of 60 climatologists in Leipzig, Germany produced the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change in Nov. 1995 . the statement states: "t has become increasingly clear that --- contrary to conventional wisdom --- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from the rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."
There have been lots of good points made in this thread. Yes, indeed, there have been areas of our planet that have warmed up in the last 100 years. There are also areas that have cooled down. Overall, the earth's temperature has increased by about 1 degree C in the last 100 years. Whether human activity had anything to do with it remains an open question. I say that because 2/3 of the increase occurred between 1920-1945. The increase in temperature over the last century may be just part of the warming trend that got earth out of the "mini ice age" that ran from about 1450-1850.
My whole point on this thread is that I'm glad that global warming is not in Civ 3 and I don't want it back in Civ4. My reasoning is that the hypothesis "human activity, particularly industrial activity, causes global warming with negative consequences" remains a long way from proven.
If someone took my comments about former communists and thought that I meant all environmentalists, I apologize. Watermelon politics is indeed alive and well, but that's a long way from saying that all environmentalists are closet communists- that was not at all my intent.
Many of you asked for sources, and rightly so. I would expect that for an issue as important as this, in order to convince people that I'm not a total wacko I have to show data.
I admit to one mistake: when I said that 8 years of satellite data showed the earth was cooling, I was wrong. It was 18 years of data from 1979-1997 (see reference 5 below).
The following general sources give a good overview of the science of the global warming issue. My thanks to Richard Derham, former president of the Washington Institute for pulling these sources together.
1. Green, Kenneth, "A Plain English Guide to the Science of Global Change," Reason Public Policy Institute, 1997.
2. Hamer, John and Parks, Mariana, "Global Warming is Globaloney," Eastsideweek, Dec 10, 1997
3. Jones, Laura (ed.), "Global Warming, The Science and the Politics" The Fraser Institute
Some more specific references:
4. According to Vincent Gray, the surface temperatures since 1851 have varied as follows:
1851-1879 increased 0.2 degrees Celsius
1879-1919 decreased 0.3. degrees Celsius
1920-1945 increased 0.65 degrees Celsius
1945-1978 decreased 0.2 degrees Celsius
1978-1990 increased 0.3 degrees Celsius
Vincent Gray Climate Change, 95: An Appraisal, pg. 11-13, (The Heartland Institute, Sept 10, 1997)
On page 9, Gray also points out that temperatures fell 0.2 degrees Centigrade from 1945 to 1978 while atmospheric carbon dioxide rose 9%.
5. From 1979 through April 1997, satellite measurements show a cooling of 0.09 degrees Centigrade. Robert Balling, Jr., "Calmer Weather: The Spin on Greenhouse Hurricanes," Competitive Enterprise Institute, May 1997, pg. 14.
6. Statement of John Cristy, a scientist who heads NASA's Temperature study: "We don't see any global warming in our data and our satellites monitor the entire world, not just urban areas like the ground temperatures show." Quoted in Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on Earth, Viking Press, pg. 280
7. Dixy Lee Ray: "Environmental Overkill: What Ever Happened to Common Sense", 1992, pg. 19-20. Dr. Ray notes that citrus fruit used to grow as far north as the Carolinas and now cannot grow north of Orlando, Florida.
8. Referring to the 1970s fear of another Ice Age:
Nigel Calder, "In the Grip of the New Ice Age," International Wildlife, July 1975; Douglas Colligan, "Brace yourself for Another Ice Age," Science Digest, February 1975; "Are We Headed for a New Ice Age?" Current, May/June 1976.
9. Also on the Ice Age, I would mention a quote from Dr. Kenneth E. F. Watt to a crowd on the first Earth Day in 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000."
10. Referring to glaciers growing in Alaska in the 1990s
Gregg Easterbrook, A Moment on the Earth pg. 293. After shrinking during the 1980's, the Bering Glacier in central Alaska began growing, reaching a growth surge of as much as 300 feet per day.
11. Robert C. Balling, Jr., "Calmer Weather: The Spin on Greenhouse Hurricanes," Competitive Enterprise Institute, May 1997. The author cites several studies confirming that hurricane frequency and intensity have not been increasing in recent decades.
12. A 1991 poll conducted by The Gallup Organization, for the Center of Science Technology and Media asked the meteorologists two questions: whether they think that average global temperatures have increased in the past 100 years and whether, if so, they believe it is within the range of natural, not human induced, fluctuation. Only 19% said temperatures had increased due to human activity. Letter to the Wall Street Journal, by Harry E Cotugno, Vice President, The Gallup Organization, Dec. 18, 1997.
13. A conference of 60 climatologists in Leipzig, Germany produced the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change in Nov. 1995 . the statement states: "t has become increasingly clear that --- contrary to conventional wisdom --- there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from the rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."
Similar threads
