Dams/Hydro power and such...

[Napalm102]

A dam is an ecological disaster, so yeah hydro power is not that good for environment. It doesn't polute sure, but it wreaks havoc on ecosystems upriver from it.

Solar, thermal or wind power plants are the best environment wise. But thermal is rare, you need a thermal went for it. Solar and wind demand large areas and have high cost.

Me, I'm all for further development of safer nuclear power.

 

[Joe Harker]

then it isn't going to do any damage.

Dare i say it, CO2 emissions maybe

 

[Howard!]

A dam is an ecological disaster, so yeah hydro power is not that good for environment. It doesn't polute sure, but it wreaks havoc on ecosystems upriver from it.

Solar, thermal or wind power plants are the best environment wise. But thermal is rare, you need a thermal went for it. Solar and wind demand large areas and have high cost.

Me, I'm all for further development of safer nuclear power.

What about down river... Massive impact!

 

[Howard!]

Dare i say it, CO2 emissions maybe

May I say that the oceans haven't heated in 3 years, sunspots are down... Oh and the world cooled by 0.7°C last year bringing the global average temperature back to the same levels as the 1930s and conclusivly showing that solar variation (sunspots and other solar proxies) have a much higher coralation than CO_2 does.

I'd rather actually help the environment!

 

[Soduka]

40 years after the chernoble meltdown wildlife has returned to the area, so the effects may not even be as disastrous as we might think.

Chernobyl happened on 26 April 1986, in fact today is the anniversary, 22 years.

 

[Howard!]

Chernobyl happened on 26 April 1986, in fact today is the anniversary, 22 years.

Good point, when are they going to build that concrete dome around it.

The only reason Chernobyl isn't that bad anymore is because is dispursed, not because it degraded. Anyhow, people still don't live near Chernobyl anymore...

 

[Soduka]

I believe Nuclear power is an excellent way to go for energy, I was just pointing out to the guy he is way off on when Chernobyl occurred. Chernobyl happened because the staff was untrained and they were using a reactor design that wasn't made for energy production, it was made to build bombs. It wasn't properly built and the staff was doing safety exercises and forcibly turned off nearly all the safety features to prevent it from blowing up. But of course average Joe American is now all scared of Nuclear power just because an improperly built, improperly used, and improperly manned one exploded 22 years ago.

I partly blame those hippie groups saying nuclear is bad and we're going to kill the planet. Really, is it that bad compared to coal and oil? We're already killing the planet, we could at least "do it" (In their minds) in a way that doesn't foul up our air.

 

[Howard!]

I believe Nuclear power is an excellent way to go for energy, I was just pointing out to the guy he is way off on when Chernobyl occurred. Chernobyl happened because the staff was untrained and they were using a reactor design that wasn't made for energy production, it was made to build bombs. It wasn't properly built and the staff was doing safety exercises and forcibly turned off nearly all the safety features to prevent it from blowing up. But of course average Joe American is now all scared of Nuclear power just because an improperly built, improperly used, and improperly manned one exploded 22 years ago.

I partly blame those hippie groups saying nuclear is bad and we're going to kill the planet. Really, is it that bad compared to coal and oil? We're already killing the planet, we could at least "do it" (In their minds) in a way that doesn't foul up our air.

As I've said over and over again, as long as you scrub the emmisions for sook and Sulfar compounds then it isn't that terrible, but it is true that Nuclear power is cleaner and most importantly can produce a lot more energy.

 

[Joe Harker]

As I've said over and over again, as long as you scrub the emmisions for sook and Sulfar compounds then it isn't that terrible,

Soot and smog created by coal fires used to affect Britain terriblely, about 4000 people died in London in the Great Smog of 1952.

May I say that the oceans haven't heated in 3 years, sunspots are down... Oh and the world cooled by 0.7°C last year bringing the global average temperature back to the same levels as the 1930s and conclusivly showing that solar variation (sunspots and other solar proxies) have a much higher coralation than CO_2 does.

The world has cooled partly due to the affects of the La Nina which is happening in the South Pacific currently.

 

[Howard!]

Soot and smog created by coal fires used to affect Britain terriblely, about 4000 people died in London in the Great Smog of 1952.


The world has cooled partly due to the affects of the La Nina which is happening in the South Pacific currently.

First of all, I completly agree about the smog thing, that's what the scrubbing is for and has reduced massively.

As for what you have said about the La Niña, that is just plain bollocks! Greenhouse gasses are said to have increased the Global Average temperature around 0.7°C, and last year the Global Average temperature dropped 0.7°C. That hasn't happened in the numerous La Niñas that have happened in my life, or in my parents. This is a way that they are trying to ignore a massive hole that has just been blown in a theory! Solar Variation and most importantly Sunspots have a much greater (and more logical) coralation with the temperature record and the temperature rise and fall over the last century. Does anyone know what the Maunder Minimum was? Now, with the sunspots dropping off and the temperature dropping massively (I cannot stress this enough!) the only logical explination remaining is that this coralation that we have known since Galileo started recording sunspots might actually be the major driving force and not an inert and secondary greenhouse gas!

 

[Rusty Edge]

Let's start with a more literal game effect, such as transforming the upstream floodplains within the fat cross into freshwater lake tiles.

 

[Howard!]

And removing all flood plains downstream.

Also, completely removing Global Warming from the game! Not only is Global Warming in the game completely unrealated to the theory, but...

 

[Soduka]

And removing all flood plains downstream.

Also, completely removing Global Warming from the game! Not only is Global Warming in the game completely unrealated to the theory, but...

Right now I really enjoy the Climate Change scripting in the World Peace mod. Not only is it much more accurate, but it is real as shown by Earth's past. Removing an entire forest (4 tiles x 4 tiles) will cause floods and new water tiles to appear, for example, without all that vegetation to suck it up.

 

[Howard!]

Explain it to me, because if coal plants cause the planet to heat up in it, it's bollocks!

 

[Soduka]

Explain it to me, because if coal plants cause the planet to heat up in it, it's bollocks!

There haven't been coal plants for the past 600 million years have there? Climate change occurs when the sun increases or decreases its energy output, or the Earth's magnetic field can sometimes toy with how much Solar Wind we get. It's also just down to heat collection. If there is no forest, it can't absorb water and give off oxygen. If it can't do that, lakes form. Water is a dark color, therefore the Earth absorbs more sunlight. When that happens, the Earth heats up. As it heats up, ice melts. Ice is white, a natural light bouncer to keep some of the sun's waves off of Earth. If the ice melts, more water.

Once again, water is dark. The Earth heats up more. The more Earth heats up, the more deserts form, the more life dies, the more carbon dioxide in the air from no forests. It's a complex cycle but it isn't "bollocks" it's scientific and based on very simple concepts. Dark colors absorb more heat, light colors bounce it off.

 

[Infantry#14]

Solar plant is definitely feasible, it just needs open and hot lands...ideally cities that place next to deserts.

Why doesnt power plants effect stack in civ 4 anyway? You should be able to have all powerplants operating in the city, at a cost of pollution, but you should get higher yield.
So the first powerplant gives power, the subsequent should give +25% yield (so +50% w/ power).

Solar Plant should be make available at refigeration or at ecology. The requirement would be the city needs to build next to a desert tile.

 

[AfterShafter]

I think the idea is that once an object is powered it's powered. My electric toothbrush doesn't work with little to no power... But it wouldn't work any better if I were to hook a combustion engine up to it. A factory only needs so much power to work at peak efficiency. It's assumed that, once you have a power plant, ample power is supplied and more isn't needed.

I quite like the solar plant idea though... A clean power plant that requires few hammers to build that you only get access to when the city is on or beside a desert. Finally give deserts a perk

 

[Soduka]

You should be able to build it as an improvement ON the desert!

 

[Howard!]

There haven't been coal plants for the past 600 million years have there? Climate change occurs when the sun increases or decreases its energy output, or the Earth's magnetic field can sometimes toy with how much Solar Wind we get. It's also just down to heat collection. If there is no forest, it can't absorb water and give off oxygen. If it can't do that, lakes form. Water is a dark color, therefore the Earth absorbs more sunlight. When that happens, the Earth heats up. As it heats up, ice melts. Ice is white, a natural light bouncer to keep some of the sun's waves off of Earth. If the ice melts, more water.

Once again, water is dark. The Earth heats up more. The more Earth heats up, the more deserts form, the more life dies, the more carbon dioxide in the air from no forests. It's a complex cycle but it isn't "bollocks" it's scientific and based on very simple concepts. Dark colors absorb more heat, light colors bounce it off.

It's much more complex than that. Another point is that there are always going to be deserts, they form nomatter the Global Temperature, infact both Australia and the Sahara were forests and Jungles when the Global average temperature was much higher than it is now, at the same time the Amazon was a desert. Things don't just work as Cool--> Good and Warm --> Bad.

Most of our current climate models are bollocks too, they don't take into account so many factors rendering them completly useless.

CO_2 does have a history with temperature rise, but as a lag indicator of that rise, 800 year lag indicator infact. CO_2 is a by product of heating, not a cause of it. Over the last few Millenia (our most accurate climate record) there has been one thing that has been proven to drive the Earths temperatures up and down, THAT GIANT FUSION REACTOR IN THE SKY! Now, some quick questions, does anyone here know what a cepheid variable is? Or has anyone ever heard of the Maunder or Oort Minimums? If not go find our what they are and then rethink what the current cooling over the last year and the stagnant temperature over the last decade really means.

Also, for future notice phytoplankton take up more CO_2 than the entire Amazon... Copping down forests creates deserts, not lakes! Without the trees there to create seed particles (pollen mostly) and release mousture then the rain won't fall there!

 

[Joe Harker]

Copping down forests creates deserts, not lakes!

If you cut a massive area then yes, but on a localised level he is right as trees take up water and stop the run off of water into lakes.

Right let's get this straight.


Some links showing that as far as i can see, sun spots have little effect on temperature on earth.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
(Sunspot activity over last 20 years)

http://gc3.cqu.edu.au/newsletters/2...warming/images/average-global-temperature.gif
(Average air temperature over the last 150 years)

http://www.planktos.com/educational/images/CO2.gif (CO2 levels over the last 1000 years)
Right, from those three graphs i can't see how sunspots activity and therefore activity of the sun correlates with the current trand in temperature. The temperature should have been going before THIS YEAR for your conclusion to be valid it hasn't. Also this year could be a buck in the trend, they do happen. The cooling this year doesn't prove a thing, what would prove your hypotheisis is if it had been successive years of cooling.

I agree that sunspot activity and what they causes them on the sun may well affect temperature on earth, the little ice age, the period between the 1940s and mid 1970s but it doesn't entirely explain the current trend in temperature rise.

There had been a general increase in temperature over the last 30 years, also there has been a general upward trend of CO2 levels. Don't you think there may be a connection of some sought, if not please explain it.