Bring back coastal flooding with global warming

Interesting comments on this thread. Saved me having to start my own thread.

The remarks about global warming are approximately correct. That is because as a species we are not long-lived enough to perceive the effects of our activities. This is not to say that the effects of poor husbandry of our environment do not exist. You only need to consider the activities of the Mongols in the C13th. They slaughtered millions of people in Mesopotamia and destroyed the irrigation works that had been there for thousands of years. That part of the world has never properly recoverd. How about the over use of North Africa by the Romans, once considered to be the grain basket of the Empire. Of course a lot of things have happened since then (the Civ equivalent of I've slept since that happened, please re-educate me).

On climate in general, I would venture the opinion that we still do not fully understand how this works, but we have information that ought to have some bearing on how Civ works. We know that Ice Ages take water out of the oceans into the ice caps. The effect on sea level is fairly direct if you exclude the effect of uplift and plate settling. The range of sea levels associated with Ice Age melts and freeze ups seems to be between +50M and -200M based on present seas levels. The most recent Ice Age ended some 10,000 years ago. As a rule Ice Ages take a long time to build up to maximum glaciation and then rapidly (over a period of 10,000 years or less) move back to interglacial conditions. Work on determining the periodicity of the glaciation events points towards a link with orbital cycles although ocean current deserve an honorary mention for local climatological changes. Ice core samples taken from Greenland indicate that average global temperatures have changed by as much as 10C in less than 30 years.

The effect: well the Mediterranean has been land locked enough times in its history for the salt deposits from previous dry-ups to be identified. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that what we regard as continental shelf to have been part of the happy hunting grounds of our very distant ancestors.
I make that point 1: how about a rising sea level / inundation threat during the earlier stages, it will make that search for lebensraum even more poignant. Heck maybe you just lost eden to inundation (well I made that one up really)
Point 2: If we are capable of tipping the balance of the glaciation - deglaciation cycle with a good old fashioned bit of warming, we just need to think Volume of Ice in Ice Caps = amount to spread over the oceans and any low-lands. I would be fascinated with an end game that told you what was left in the Ice Caps and how far you were off from drowning some of your rivals. So please Mr. Civ 4 designer give it a whirl.
 
Unfortunately recorded history does not easily go earlier than circa 4,000 BC. Nonetheless I consider the factors introduced by climatological changes to have created the necessity of adaptive migrations. These migrations form the backdrop of the earliest phases of what we consider to be civilisation.
So really what I am asking for is a bit of a Pandora's Box of a climate during the pre-settling phase. Heck! did I say that - Pre Settling Phase - it almost makes me want to think of the Promised Land.
Nice graphics would be nice too, but they ain't gameplay. :)
 
I have to admit, I didn't have time to read the whole thread, so maybe someone already said this.

My experience with coastal flooding and rising sea levels mainly comes from SMAC, and it was one of my least favorite features. But on a positive note, they did include a very effective way to deal with it. You had the option of constructing a dome or something that would keep your city safe if the sea levels rose too high. Sure, you'd lose all your improvements under the water, but at least your city was still intact. If they brought back flooding with Civ4, I'd want to see a pressure dome included in the city improvements since losing your coastal cities could put you at a severe strategic disadvantage.
 
Our best understanding is that the inundations were gradual. It is unlikely there were any catastrophic floodings (with the possible exception of what is now the Mediterranean). This would fit nicely with game start up conditions where many game years elapse per game turn.

Which nicely leads to things like the effects of Ice Melt on habitability. For example we suspect that declining ice-melt run offs are part of the reason why the Harrapan / Indus civilisation failed circa 5000 years ago. It is quite arid there now so hanging about was not an option, mebbe they just upped sticks and moved closer to the Deccan plain. Nevertheless their cities are still knocking about in North West India / Pakistan, completely uninhabitable. This type of thing makes me quite interested in a climate model, however crude.

End of game scenario conditions are an entirely different matter as global warming IMHO should use a specific frozen water content in the Ice Cap which can then be spread over existing oceans and low lying land. This is the sort of thing for you to coldly calculate as you watch your enemies squirm.

I thought the coastal flooding on SMAC was cool. I only stopped playing it because the other factions were way too smart for me. Had to dum down the game to win, LOL.

For any budding CIV4 design team, here is the some recent thinking (from Britannica) on what the climatic activity seems to be related to. The record of cores from the deep ocean shows frequencies of climatic variation at essentially the same frequencies as the orbital cycles--that is to say, at 100,000 years, 43,000 years, 24,000 years, and 19,000 years. These results along with those of more recent analyses, provide firm evidence of a tie between orbital cycles and the Earth's recent climatic record. The variations in the Earth's orbit are generally considered the "pacemaker" of the ice ages.

If I was really mean, I would suggest that factors like planet size and land mass ratio should have a pretty significant bearing on climatic cycles; just be glad I haven't asked for calderas or asteroid strikes!
:)
 
Alireza, you again reply to a thread which is 1 year old :lol:
 
Hey I don't have a problem. Climate and catastrophe are just pet interests of mine. I think that the past can teach us a lot about ourselves.
 
Pook: planet is far less fragile than told; but the bridges and buildings you walk on are opened to public after they have been demonstrated to be capable of supporting atleast 10 times the allowed values of strain. We do not want to touch the limits, do we? Who knows the improbable may just happen!

Global warming is a good concept for game. In the game those countries should especially react who have cities on islands/coasts.
 
Too bad this issue (like so many others) has been politicized to such an extent that it's become "untouchable." For some reason every modern issue is either "Rightist" or "Leftist," and both sides can line up their scientists, just like lawyers can line up "experts" in court. Obviously, if you are a consortium of energy companies, you want your scientists to come up with one finding (the one that enhances your profit margin), and if your agenda is to use the environment as a wedge issue to redistribute wealth, you want your scientists to come up with a different finding.

The fact is that polar ice is disappearing at an alarming rate - on both poles, and tundra (that has remained frozen for thousands of years) is thawing. Whether or not the overall world thermometer is going up or down is almost impossible to detect. Depends where your thermometer is. Whether mankind's contribution, or normal global fluctuations, are the significant, governing factors, nobody knows.

But if the patient has lung cancer, isn't it prudent to tell him to stop smoking, even if you can't decisively, scientifically "prove" that smoking caused the cancer?

As far as the game goes, I don't want to see global warming. I get enough grief from barbarians.
 
More climatological thoughts

Thread-creep!/thread-drift! I suppose I ought to declare before you read on.

During the pre-civilisation phase, our remote ancestors were at the mercy of the elements, ie the climate as it was. So although the Ice Ages cycle and Climate Change is cool ( :) ) in telling us how we got to where we are; it occurs to me that the other stuff affecting how the climate actually was, is surely the the actual lay of the land.
Therefore hand in glove with the Ice Age cycle IMHO is Plate Tectonics. Plate tectonics provides the shape of the land on which to overlay climatological stuff. It handily determines where continents should appear, giving us geological action in the strike-slip boundaries, with added mountain ranges at convergent plate boundaries. Naturally from this we get precipitation patterns, water tables, rivers, deserts etc. This happy state of affairs also gives us rift valleys / tectonic basins, subduction zones, sea trenches and occasional landlocked seas aka the Mediterranean; and joy of joys, should give some pretty specific locations for that most finite of resources: petro-chemical deposits.

Enough already :crazyeye:
 
WIthout reading this or trying to recall too much science, I believe the ice cap melting is one of the weakest (at least slowest) response to global warming (which is still debatable in itself if forces other than man are responsible for the temperature variations). If I recall correctly, ice cap melting would be a very powerful result, but one that'd likely take 100's of years of response to occur measureably.
 
Pook:
After communism fell everywhere except North Korea, Cuba, and Berkeley, California

So cruel :(
 
Pity, as that would leave us with slow inundations. Hmm not sure that has quite the umph required for catastrophe style events. However I am sure that I have heard news reports commenting on the amount of bones / trunks and stuff dredged up from the North Sea bed by trawlers. Maybe there was a speeded up slow inundation at the time. :-) The jury is probably still out on this one.
 
Regarding climate change:

1. http://www.ipcc.ch/
2. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/index.htm

Anthropogenic forcing on the climate is a reality (positive and negative, with a net positive reaction), and we are witnessing actual increases of temperature in key areas of the world (glacier loss at altitude; ice thinning at poles; unusual weather events; warming seas; biological feedbacks, such as reef bleaching).

Also - I suggest you follow up on the Christie debate which is ongoing, especially with regards to differences in temperature measured at different atmosphere layers.

---

As for Civ4 the game, it ends automatically at 2050 (iirc), so barring profligate highest-end lifestyle for the majority of cities in the game, it is unlikely that the most dramatic realworld impacts of climate change will be fully felt. Especially considering Civ4 has no natural disasters, climatological, tectonic, or disease.

Personally, I think natural disasters should be brought back into the game, and I particularly like how CivIII: Conquest brought the Plague. Theoretically, drought and flooding could be replicated in the style of Alpha Centauri's "hail events" and "solar increase/decrease".

Regarding climate change, if one wants to pull in the more dramatic possibilities with the game...some of the more interesting things one could do:

- A river dries up

- The polar ice starts to move toward tropical latitudes...present a navigation hazard.

Also - it would be kind of interesting if they brought back soil fertility loss in the style of Alpha Centauri on farmland. Especially, imo, to do so for land irrigated without a water connection, and for land irrigated by water connection, but to a river that has been dammed by cities along its way (loss of natural flooding).

Interestingly, I think Civ4 does a very good job of demonstrating species loss (once human species becomes dominant, wild animal encounters quickly go to nil).
 
Well one of the things Global Warming Could do, especially if done well, is be used to make the Environmental Civ worthwhile. (plus rename it environmental degradation or something that is broader so that Nuclear events, etc. can still realistically contribute to it .... although Coal Plants and Population should probably be the dominant effects)

It would fit very well as an 'imposed' ie UN Civic one in which if you choose it, there is a net cost to you and a benefit to everyone else.... So the only reason anyone ever gets it is by imposing it on the whole world through the UN (to prevent Global Warming from interfering with getting your space ship off in time)

Admittedly it would have to be exaggerated to unrealistic levels, to be a reasonable consideration. Of course there a number of things for which that has been done in the interest of balance (Combat model for instance)
 
Regarding the Leipzig Declaration (1995 and 1997) ... consider some of the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Also notable the links with this particularly flagrant deception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Frankly, their rebuttals have not amounted to much in the way of any original research or analysis (economics or physics or chemistry) that add constructively to the issue at hand.
 
Back on the question of Global Warming in Civ3/4... evidently there ought to be the option to turn it on or off based on whether or not you believe it to be true!

For those who don't know, in Civ2 what happened was that about 40% of coastal squares turned into swamp. Which was good but didn't look like it was, because in those days swamp looked an awful lot like a blue jungle. But still.

Something similar in Civ3/4 would be good. In Alpha Centaurii, you could reverse the effects of global warming by planting forests - something similar here would be a good idea. Most importantly, global warming should not be a result of using Nukes! Radiation and Fallout has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom