I see this sort of request commonly since a lot of the games I play are reality-based, either in historical reality or in sci-fi that's fairly closely inspired by science. There's a continual demand for more realism, and the problem is that strategy games aren't history simulators. They're games. They're glorified mathematical models, if you think about it. These all have to be balanced around what is fun for the player.
Most 4X style turn-based games have some map tiles that are better than others, so you really feel like you're pressed to reroll until the map generator gives you "good land" to give you the best chance to win. Civ 6 has implemented a number of features specifically designed to try and make it so wherever you start has the potential to be "good land" if you play it well. In Civ 6, the disasters are (usually) set up so that it is a risk-reward calculation. You may settle in a disaster prone area like a floodplain or at the foot of a volcano. You'll get the benefit of some great tile yields for doing it, but it comes at a cost of having random events occur that kill off your population and damage your city. It could be very good land or very bad land if those zones are particularly active, but that adds to the fun.
One of my peeves about that design is things like tornadoes and droughts which are not marked on the map so you can't see that the areas are risky, disaster-prone regions. Further, these particular disasters only work one way, as a penalty. While they're certainly real and realistic, they don't have the same mechanical balance in the game that makes them interesting and engaging for the player. Adding things like earthquakes or solar flares would create the same problems. These don't add anything strategically interesting to the game, only frustration at the randomness of a penalty. I think the discussion on new disasters should consider the risk-reward trade-off and find ways to make those disaster pay off somehow so that a player might actually want to take the risk. If earthquake prone zones were also geologic hotspots where you might see geologic fissure tiles form, giving you a source of late-game electricity, that might be an adequate incentive, though you'd like to see something earlier in the game too, honestly.
As for the climate change mechanic, I'm going to have to respect the mods and not chime in on the scientific non-debate/browbeating. It's not a debate when only one side is allowed to speak freely anyway. But the mechanic is modeled after the theory so I have to at least acknowledge that in this post. The theory, as it is implemented in the game, is that CO2 is only caused by humans burning fossil fuels, never by natural sources. It acts as a global thermostat and disaster accelerator, but only in one direction: worse. If you use carbon capture to reduce CO2 to below baseline, you will not cause global cooling, sea level fall, or expansion of polar ice. You cannot reverse the warming. You cannot cause an ice age. The same is true of the deforestation multiplier. You cannot reverse it by planting forests. This makes the mechanic incredibly frustrating. It's a penalty with no counterplay except to completely avoid your tier 3 IZ building and never use a modern military. More than that, this penalty applies to you even if other players do take advantage of those things. They'll flood your land and cause you more disasters and there's no counterplay to this. You can't use diplomacy to stop it. You can't out-tech it to get to a near future economy and military that aren't subject to the penalty. The model in the game is an expression of the political theory, not any sound scientific theory, and it's not fun to play with because, like our penalty-only disasters, there's nothing strategic about it.
If you want to see any of that done, you'll have to learn and do it yourself.
