Global warming - a suggestion

Warlord Sam

2500 hours and counting..
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
379
If we include something like global warming, don't do it sloppily. I hate how another civ starts lobbing nukes and suddenly desert tiles are spawning all over my lands. That isn't realistic, nor is it fun! And ultimately we're all here to have fun, right?

So please please please, if you include stuff like global warming, implement it in a way that doesn't ruin the enjoyment of the overall game.

Thanks :)
 
Out of interest, what do you suggest?

I think the idea of rising sea levels (low lying land sinking into the sea) would be pretty cool, but I don't think the way the Civ maps work really lends itself to this. The way SMAC handled terrain heights would make something like that much easier, but the Civ style makes for a much prettier and more realistic world, but not really one that has any real "height above sea level" value for terrain.

What do you think would be the best representation?
 
As AGW is too political I suggest expanding deserts due to deforestation, this happens almost everywhere that the deforestation occurs except when the ground is almost immediately planted with something else
 
expanding deserts due to deforestation, this happens almost everywhere that the deforestation occurs except when the ground is almost immediately planted with something else

Not true at all. Most of Europe and Latin America was once forested (heck, most of the world - probably most of eastern China too?), clearing that did not turn the land into desert.

There has also been a recent scientific re-examination and partial debunking of the widespread belief that forests cause rainfall (and that deforestation reduces rainfall).

Rainfall is mostly due to temperature and temperature changes (and pressure).
 
As AGW is too political

It's only "political" because we live on a planet inhabited by extremely stupid people. Political in the same way that the sun being the centre of the solar system was "political".

I don't particularly mind whether or not the concept is included, as long as the reason it is removed is to improve the game rather than to avoid upsetting those who's idea of the scientific method is to stick their fingers in their ears and scream until the reality goes away.
 
I don't care if its included or not, but if it is included, then it should be implemented in a way that both makes sense and is fun.

Flooding would be excessively hard to represent on the map, but perhaps coastal cities could be hit with "flooding" and it would be an effect similar to a revolt? A turn or two with limited production, perhaps?

In any case, I'm not a game designer and can't really offer a lot in the way of suggesting alternatives beyond this: if it isn't fun, but *is* a big PITA for the player, then maybe it shouldn't be included. Especially when it isn't even the result of the player's actions.
 
I believe global warming should be in the game due to your pollution (not necessarily other nations pollution even if that makes it not as realistic)

The nuking issue is completely separate. NUKING does not cause GLOBAL WARMING! As you can see from the caps this is a pet peeve of mine of the civ games. It seems to me they got lazy and decided to include nuking effects with pollution effects as they didn't want to create another entirely new mechanism for it.

Well I'll take a stand here and demand they create a new mechanism for it. Nuking is not the same as global warming, and I'm tired of them being lumped together.

So what do we want? Certainly not a return to civ2 or was it civ3 with the constant pollution cleanup. That wasn't fun. Although that was more realistic. I did like the fact that nukes made the land pretty much uninhabitable until you cleaned it up. So what I'm advocating is nuking a city or an area should make the land unworkable until it is cleaned up. But I do not support pollution for high industry. I support something similar to current global warming mechanisms.
 
Nukes cause large areas to be rendered uninhatiable and economically useless. Deserts are a way of modelling this.

Who says its the same as global warming? Desert doesn't necessarily imply "hot".
(Antarctica is one of the biggest and driest deserts on the planet)

Sure, nuclear warfare is more likely to cause global cooling ("nuclear winter") than warming, but deserts aren't an inaccurate way of modeling that.

Having said that, it isn't fun. Which is the point.

Global warming in the game isn't fun either.

I think I'd prefer seeing the lategame evolve into NextWar than I would see it devolve into an environmental dystopia.
 
Civ IV global warming isn't fun. It's a random, unpredictable punishment, for (presumably) crossing an invisible threshold. I don't think it is explained in the manual, i'm not sure what actions can be taken to prevent/minimize it.

If there was a more robust climate modeling, as per Alpha Centari, it might not be so out of place as part of various ways the local climate can be effected. But it doesn't seem they are doing anything like that.

I say it can join "pollution" in the junkpile of old civ mechanics we won't ever miss.
 
I hated global warming in CIV. 4. It would completely destroy a good plot of land I was using. They need to revamp this.

 
Global Warming? Pu-LEASE...

MAYBE, just maybe I can understand global climate change....but really, weather changes: what's new?
 
Not true at all. Most of Europe and Latin America was once forested (heck, most of the world - probably most of eastern China too?), clearing that did not turn the land into desert.

There has also been a recent scientific re-examination and partial debunking of the widespread belief that forests cause rainfall (and that deforestation reduces rainfall).

Rainfall is mostly due to temperature and temperature changes (and pressure).

You may want to revise that statement on Eastern China. Having lived in South Korea for almost 6 years I am acutely aware of the environmental disaster that is happening in China. Every Spring South Korea and other countries would be showered with sand from the Gobi Desert which was mixed with heavy chemicals and toxins because they had blown over China's highly pollutant factories. These natural storms (It's actually how the Pacific islands get their minerals) which used to occur maybe once every 7 years, are now occurring several times a year.

Deforestation and overgrazing are the main causes of this.

Sandstorms hit Beijing
Sandstorms have hit much of northern China, leaving the capital Beijing in an orange haze and forcing workers in Tiananmen Square to cover their faces.


Published: 10:45AM GMT 20 Mar 2010

Sandstorms hit Beijing
There were few people out on streets where pedestrians could taste the dust.

Many of those who had ventured from their homes were wearing face masks, and some left footprints in the yellow film that had settled on the city's streets.

Tonnes of sand from deserts in China's interior blew into Beijing in the biggest sandstorm this year, shrouding China's capital in a yellow-orange haze that authorities warned made the air quality "hazardous".

There were few people out on streets where pedestrians could taste the dust.

Related Articles

*
China riots: worst outbreak of ethnic violence in 33 years
*
US calls for China to reveal dead of Tiananmen Square
*
Tiananmen Square 'ringleader' detained in Macau
*
Police flood Tiananmen Square ahead of anniversary
*
China's young leave Tiananmen in the past
*
Three set themselves on fire in Beijing protest near Tiananmen Square

Many of those who had ventured from their homes were wearing face masks, and some left footprints in the yellow film that had settled on the city's streets.

Beijing's weather forecasting bureau gave the air quality a rare "5", or hazardous, rating and added that it was "not suitable for morning exercises".

Parks and open spaces are usually packed from early in the day with enthusiasts doing martial arts, ballroom dancing and other activities.

The sandstorms underline the environmental degradation investors identify as one of the long-term constraints on growth in China, and concern about its impact has made a less resource-intensive model of growth a priority for Beijing.

China's expanding deserts now cover one-third of the country because of overgrazing, deforestation, urban sprawl and drought.


The shifting sands have led to a sharp increase in sandstorms – the grit from which can travel as far as the western United States.

The government has spent millions of dollars on projects to rein in the spread of deserts, planting trees and trying to protect what plant cover remains in marginal areas.

But the battle is being fought against a backdrop of rising average temperatures and increasing pressure on water resources after three decades of booming growth.

The sandstorm hit Beijing around midnight, carrying huge amounts of dust and heading south east, the official Xinhua news agency said.

In northern Changping district, the wind reached speeds of up to 100km per hour (60mph).

The swirling clouds of dust and sand had blanketed the interior provinces of Qinghai and Gansu, and western Xinjiang region, before sweeping over the capital, Xinhua said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7486542/Sandstorms-hit-Beijing.html

A Chinese scientific study on the subject.

Ecological crises in China persist regardless of the political system. Ecological crises occurred in Imperial China, Republican China, and Communist China.20

The most likely explanation for the spreading desiccation in China's north is deforestation in the south. Deforestation in the south increases run-off and reduces the quantity of moisture moving northward. Fortunately, this process can be at least partially reversed through afforestation efforts.

In the early 1990s, the steady trend of deforestation seems to have been supplanted by some growth in both forest area and quantity of growing stock. The four provinces of Guangdong, Fujian, Hunan, and Shandong assert that they have already afforested all potentially forestable lands in their respective regions. Other provinces claim to be following suit. Even if not completely trustworthy, these claims should be a source of some optimism regarding China's future environment.

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/state/chinaeco/forest.htm

Finally, deforestation affects us in many ways including the extinction of many species of animals and plants. Scientists argue over the exact number but is is very significant.
That is an unfortunate fact. Whether or not anyone believes deforestation affects rainfall patterns is irrelevant as it is an extremely important issue that can't be ignored any longer.

The water cycle can be disrupted by deforestation. Trees extract water from the earth through their roots and release it into the air. When forest is removed, the water can no longer be extracted efficiently and the region may become drier. Deforestation reduces the amount of water in the soil and moisture in the atmosphere. The removal of trees also cause erosion and can cause flooding or landslides. Aquifers are affected as well by deforestation. Deforested lands also lose the ability to intercept and retain precipitation properly and as a result water may pool more easily and cause rapid runoff that can cause flash flooding and more localized floods. According to one study, in deforested regions in north and northwest China, the average annual precipitation decreased by more than 30% between the 1950s and 1980s. About 30% of the Earth’s fresh water is produced by tropical rainforests.

Deforestation is affecting plant and animal life on a global scale and causing the potential extinction of many species directly. Species-area models are used to determine the impact deforestation has on plant and animal life, however, there are no significantly proven facts from these models, and it is hard to predict if there is, or will be, a large scale loss of species. Although, it has been estimated that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every day due to rainforest deforestation. This equates to 50,000 species a year. Predictions have been made that at least 40% of the plant and animal species in Southeast Asia could be wiped out in the 21st century. Other estimates say that these predictions are widely inaccurate and that most plant and animal species are widespread and stable.

Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about 50% of the United States land area was forest, that equals about 1 billion acres. For about 300 years land was continually cleared and for every person added to the population, 2 to 4 acres of land was cleared and cultivated. This trend slowed in the early 1900s when crop lands became abundant enough to sustain the population. As abandoned farmland reverted back to forest, the amount of forest land began to increase and in 1963 the United States had an estimated 760 million acres of forest. Since then, there has been a steady decrease of forest area. At the current rate of deforestation, an estimated 23 million acres of forest will be lost from 1998 to 2050.

Efforts have been attempted for many centuries to stop or slow deforestation as it has been known for a long time that deforestation can cause environmental damage sufficient enough in some cases to cause irreversible damage to society structure. In areas where “slash-and-burn” is practiced, switching to “slash-and-char” would help prevent rapid deforestation and degradation of soils. This charring method provides durable carbon emissions and benefit’s the soil greatly. It brings the creation of terra preta (a rich soil that is able to regenerate itself).

Reforestation and afforestation are increasing in many parts of the world despite the continued decline in forested lands in other areas. The amount of woodland has increased in 22 of the world’s 50 most wooded nations. Global forest cover is expected to increase by 10% by 2050. The Chinese government claims that 1 billion trees have been planted in China every single year since 1982. The people of China celebrate Planting Holiday every year on March 12. They are also trying to halt the expansion of the Gobi Desert by planting trees (the Green Wall of China-project). This project has not been successful as 75% of trees planted die off after planting. Despite this, the forest coverage of China has grown from 12% in the 1980s to 16.5% today.

http://www.redorbit.com/education/reference_library/environment/19/index.html
 
To avoid veering off into reaity debate land, here is what I propose.

nulear weapons use, high population, and certain buildings

should contribute to the hexes, somewhere in the world, getting "Environmental damage"

That would eliminate much of the food production from the hex

The "Environmental" damage would naturally go away over X turns (depending on the number of adjacent hexes that do not have environmental damage)

Certain Social settings would reduce a civs contribution to "Environmental damage" [those social settings would be the subject of UN Resolutions] and
Social settings/techs could also improve the repair rate. (Workers could not 'clean' environmental damage)

Forested hexes might be immune to it or be eliminated by it.
 
Not true at all. Most of Europe and Latin America was once forested (heck, most of the world - probably most of eastern China too?), clearing that did not turn the land into desert.

There has also been a recent scientific re-examination and partial debunking of the widespread belief that forests cause rainfall (and that deforestation reduces rainfall).

Rainfall is mostly due to temperature and temperature changes (and pressure).

:confused: how do forests cause rain? my concern is that with no trees left nothing holds the top soil down causing it to wash down stream, with no good soil nothing grows to hold the soil down, creating a vicious cycle
 
I'm not really a tree hugging hippy but I do care about the environment.

I think that Deforestation should have subtle effects in ciV. Random events could model this well. If you hack down all your trees then there should be a much increased chance of bad events like less productive farmland (say -1 food in a random farm hex) or maybe floods or erosion.

If its done right and in a "non preachy" manner then I think it will add something positive to the game.
 
You may want to revise that statement on Eastern China.
Uhhh... the statement that Eastern China was probably once mostly forested? Why would I want to revise that?

Deforestation and overgrazing are the main causes of this.
Deforestation, over-grazing, and the existence of the Gobi desert have indeed caused severe dust storms and particulate pollution in China.
How is this the same as saying that deforested land usually becomes desert? Is the entire eastern seaboard of China (not a highly forested area anymore) a desert? Its a high agricultural productivity area that feeds a billion people.

Deforestation can also spread desertification along desert fringes. And it has a ton of other negative environmental consequences.

how do forests cause rain? my concern is that with no trees left nothing holds the top soil down causing it to wash down stream, with no good soil nothing grows to hold the soil down, creating a vicious cycle

A desert is, by definition, an area with low rainfall. An area with no soil might have low agricultural productivity, but that isn't a desert.

But the claim that deforestation mostly leads to useless land is demonstrably false. Witness: Europe.

There has been significant scientific shift in the last few years away from the idea that tree cover affects precipitation levels, either in the local or aggregate area.
[And no, not by anti-science climate change deniers, but by hydrologists and climate scientists.]

Rainfall modeling is complex (the best climate models for climate change predictions have very little agreement even on the direction of change in regions, let alone magnitude), but surface coverage has little impact.

I think its likely to be very difficult to work environmental consequences of deforestation into Civ in a way that is actually fun. We don't want to end up with situations like earlier versions of civ global warming or pollution. And even from a realism perspective, while human-caused environmental devastation has had a major impact in a few niche cases, overall it hasn't had a major impact on aggregate productivity of human society. While climate change over the next few decades might really change that, the consequences to date of anthropogenic environmental impact are pretty small. Yeah, the dust storms in China are nasty and have health consequences that kill a lot of people... but not nearly as many people as, say, traffic accidents.
Should we start modeling traffic accidents in Civ?
We're talking about a fraction of 1% of GDP per year. Just not worth modeling in game, IMO.

Natural climate change over the last 7000 years has had a way bigger impact on humanity than have anything caused by humans (except for maybe the last couple of decades).
But I don't think in the 1400s tundra turning to grassland and then turning back again is something we should really be including. Not fun.
 
Uhhh... the statement that Eastern China was probably once mostly forested? Why would I want to revise that?


Deforestation, over-grazing, and the existence of the Gobi desert have indeed caused severe dust storms and particulate pollution in China.
How is this the same as saying that deforested land usually becomes desert? Is the entire eastern seaboard of China (not a highly forested area anymore) a desert? Its a high agricultural productivity area that feeds a billion people.

Deforestation can also spread desertification along desert fringes. And it has a ton of other negative environmental consequences.



A desert is, by definition, an area with low rainfall. An area with no soil might have low agricultural productivity, but that isn't a desert.

But the claim that deforestation mostly leads to useless land is demonstrably false. Witness: Europe.

There has been significant scientific shift in the last few years away from the idea that tree cover affects precipitation levels, either in the local or aggregate area.
[And no, not by anti-science climate change deniers, but by hydrologists and climate scientists.]

Rainfall modeling is complex (the best climate models for climate change predictions have very little agreement even on the direction of change in regions, let alone magnitude), but surface coverage has little impact.

I think its likely to be very difficult to work environmental consequences of deforestation into Civ in a way that is actually fun. We don't want to end up with situations like earlier versions of civ global warming or pollution. And even from a realism perspective, while human-caused environmental devastation has had a major impact in a few niche cases, overall it hasn't had a major impact on aggregate productivity of human society. While climate change over the next few decades might really change that, the consequences to date of anthropogenic environmental impact are pretty small. Yeah, the dust storms in China are nasty and have health consequences that kill a lot of people... but not nearly as many people as, say, traffic accidents.
Should we start modeling traffic accidents in Civ?
We're talking about a fraction of 1% of GDP per year. Just not worth modeling in game, IMO.

Natural climate change over the last 7000 years has had a way bigger impact on humanity than have anything caused by humans (except for maybe the last couple of decades).
But I don't think in the 1400s tundra turning to grassland and then turning back again is something we should really be including. Not fun.

maybe not render it completely useless, but you might want to read up on it, it cause many problems in Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Pre-industrial_history
 
Deforestation plays a part in desertification along with overgrazing and too high population levels in marginal areas.

What Causes Desertification?

:)A balanced ecosystem is a healthy ecosystem. In a healthy dryland ecosystem, relatively few animals and humans attempt to survive on the limited resources of the land, which include water, fertile soil and trees. Since rainfall is infrequent in semiarid regions, the land is not built to support huge fields of crops or supply grazing land for hundreds of thousands of cattle.

The root cause of desertification is poor soil conservation leading to soil degradation. Healthy, productive soil is rich with organic matter called humus [source: Ball]. Humus is formed when decaying organic materials like dead plants and animals are transformed by micro-organisms and fungi into soil that's rich in essential nutrients like carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur [source: International Institute for Sustainable Development].

Unsustainable farming methods also contribute to soil degradation. Crop rotation, heavy composting and responsible use of chemical fertilizer ensure that the soil has enough organic input to support vibrant micro-organisms. On the other hand, overuse of chemical fertilizers, failure to employ crop rotation and irresponsible irrigation practices rob the soil of the last of its nutrients. When topsoil is depleted of humus, it's either too loose or too compacted, both of which can lead to destructive erosion.

All life depends on the quality and fertility of the soil. Plants can't grow when soil is allowed to degrade. This means no food crops for humans and no grazing crops for animals. All the rain in the world won't help infertile topsoil. It will only wash away.

Perhaps the greatest cause of soil degradation and desertification is an explosion in world population, particularly in developing countries. Throughout the 1990s, dryland regions experienced a population growth of 18.5 percent, mostly in desperately poor, developing nations [source: GreenFacts.org]. In their daily struggle to survive, these expanding populations have put a deadly strain on their environment.

Grazing animals are just as bad. Grasses are essential to anchoring arid topsoil in a dryland region. When animals are allowed to graze recklessly, they remove all of the native grasses, exposing the topsoil to destructive erosion forces like winds and sudden thunderstorms.


Firewood is the fuel of choice for many people living in developing countries. This has led to unchecked clear-cutting of forests in dryland ecosystems. Trees play a crucial role in anchoring down topsoil and slowing down the force of winds. When too many trees are removed, windstorms and dust storms ensue.

Human activities also exacerbate the biggest problem of living in a dryland region: lack of rainfall. When land is cleared of plant life, either from overgrazing or logging, the bare surface of the Earth reflects more of the sun's light back into the atmosphere, creating even hotter temperatures. In semiarid regions, higher temperatures cause a higher rate of evaporation, which means even less rainfall. Also, all of the dust kicked up by cattle and the smoke created by wildfires introduces heavy particles into the atmosphere that make it more difficult for rain drops to form [source: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center].

Even political conflicts and war contribute to desertification. When war refugees flee from invading armies, they move en masse into some of the most marginal ecosystems in the world. They bring with them their native farming grazing practices, which can be highly unsuitable for their new home.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/desertification1.htm

As far as Europe goes, deforestation has had negative consequences too. Unless you consider peat bogs to be superior to forests as in the case of Great Britain.

Prehistory
An array of Neolithic artifacts, including bracelets, axe heads, chisels, and polishing tools.

Small scale deforestation was practiced by some societies for tens of thousands of years before the beginnings of civilization.[63] The first evidence of deforestation appears in the Mesolithic period.[64] It was probably used to convert closed forests into more open ecosystems favourable to game animals.[63] With the advent of agriculture, larger areas began to be deforested, and fire became the prime tool to clear land for crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain, shade-tolerant species such as oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration, resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm pollen across Europe between 8400-8300 BC and 7200-7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
 
Perhaps getting into too much realism here with this discussion. Civ5 doesn't need that much realism. Civ4 had ways of giving +health effects of forest I think are a decent incentive for keeping forests. Although I'd bump up the health benefit even more. Aside from that, I don't see how including deforestation mechanics into the global warming mechanism is needed.
 
Top Bottom