GLOBAL WARMING BLUES - How to stop it?

[spa]

Oh sure global warming will be just great. Hooray for the glaciers disappearing from the Rockies and for Canada's Prairies and the American Midwest to become deserts. Hooray for spreading deserts globally. Hooray for heat wave deaths. Hooray for more frequent and stronger hurricanes. Hooray for more ice storms in Ontario and Quebec. Hooray for the permafrost melt in the Artic releasing tons of buried methane that will only speed up the process. Hooray for the destruction of the Inuit's traditional way of life. Hooray for tropical diseases being able to spread further North. Hooray for foreign ecosystem invaders spreading North while native species die off. Hooray for rising sea levels. Hooray for environmental refuges and the international security nightmare that'll result. Hooray for more severe weather and the huge amount of damage it'll do. Just freaking hooray.

As for the game, global warming has to be one of the worst implemented features. Dust from nuclear explosions would actually cause the climate to cool. A proper climate system would have industrial pollution and large cities causing global warming while nuclear explosians triggering ice ages.

 

[Multiplicity]

But I found this thread interesting because, in Civ III the first thing I modified was the pollution and Global Warming Crap, because the scientific evidence clearly indicates that Global Warming will be GOOD for the earth, not bad. There will be more water vapor, thus more rain, and the increase in temperature will be in the coldest parts of the globe, not in the hotter.

Hmm, I never heard that global warming is actually good for the Earth. Where did you get this information from? True, warmer temperatures can cause more water vapor in the air, but the form in which water comes in also depends on temperature. If the temperature is not cool enough, water vapor won't be able to form into liquid. Not to mention a change in temperature can drastically change the ecosystem. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like to see what kind of information supports your case.

 

[Kazper]

Maybe, if I can get my game to work properly, I can get to the point you folks are complaining about.

But I found this thread interesting because, in Civ III the first thing I modified was the pollution and Global Warming Crap, because the scientific evidence clearly indicates that Global Warming will be GOOD for the earth, not bad. There will be more water vapor, thus more rain, and the increase in temperature will be in the coldest parts of the globe, not in the hotter.

Obviously, the development crew on the game are PC correct Eco Wacko Kooks, wearing "green" clothing every day. What an unrealistic pile of crap!

Again, when I get the game running via some good patches, I intend to turn all that Sh!t off soonest!

As for the Nuclear Reactors, Pryion is correct. Meltdowns have nothing to do with global warming. In reality, only ineptness of the reactor crew could possibley cause a meltdown. Fuel pellets, placed in rods, are composed of approximately 6% U235(fissile) and the rest U238(not fissile). This prevents a runaway reaction, but generates a lot of heat. A coolant will keep things cool, and a containment cover will prevent the discharge of pollution in the unlikely case of a meltdown.

What is the developing crew going to put in the next generation game, when the new generation of reactors come on line, that are virtually impossible to meltdown? Will they still come out with more Eco Wacko BS.

In case you want to know what an Eco Wacko really is, read this great article, that will show you how to spot one of them.

What a load of wacko BS.

While the way Global Warming is implemented in Civ4 is ridiculous, your insane notions are even worse.

Global warming will indeed raise temperatures overall. Now an uneducated buffon would think it great that the temperature rises most on the coldest areas. Someone with a bit of knowledge knows that means melting ice-caps resulting in severe flooding around the world, more powerful hurricanes and - indeed still more desert and other barely habitable terrain in the warm parts of the globe.

Global warming was much better treated in Alpha Centauri with rising waterlevels. It was still simplistic - but at least it was more realistic than Civ4. What should happen is that the game should have swamps as a terrain type, and global warming would cause swamps along the coasts, followed eventually by flooding. There should be some desert spread - some plains spread over grasslands, and some tundra turning into plains, and ice into tundra.

Edit: And a nuclear reactor can certainly meltdown from more than crew error. The plant itself can be inproperly maintained (Chernobyl anyone?). Similarly terrorist action or natural disasters could concievably cause meltdowns. While the risk of a meltdown is indeed very, very small the question is if any risk is worth the potential damage a meltdown causes on a local/regional scale. That's something you will have to decide for yourself, as different people can reach different conclusions to that question.

 

[jdurg]

Edit: And a nuclear reactor can certainly meltdown from more than crew error. The plant itself can be inproperly maintained (Chernobyl anyone?). Similarly terrorist action or natural disasters could concievably cause meltdowns. While the risk of a meltdown is indeed very, very small the question is if any risk is worth the potential damage a meltdown causes on a local/regional scale. That's something you will have to decide for yourself, as different people can reach different conclusions to that question.

Chernobyl was caused by the operators who decided to turn off all of the safety backup mechanisms for an experiment they were running. During the experiment, something went wrong but the safety backups were not functioning so an even bigger Uh-Oh happened. Also, the design itself of the Chernobyl reactor was horribly done and just asked for an accident to occur. With a properly designed reactor, a major accident is virtually impossible. (The reactor cores of nuclear power plants have an insanely large shell built around them designed to withstand the impact of a fully fueled jet plane. The casings are amazingly big).

Also, you will never see a nuclear explosion happen from a nuclear power plant. It is physically impossible. A nuclear power plant uses fuel pellets made of uranium oxide and not pure uranium metal. The oxide allows enough neutrons to be absorbed by U-235 atoms to fission and release energy, but also prevents a chain reaction from happening which is what causes an explosion. You can have a critical mass of nuclear fuel without having an explosion happen. Critical mass simply implies the amount of the material needed to result in a self-sustaining fission reaction. If your mass is subcritical, you have to input neutrons in order to keep the reaction going.

A power plant also uses control rods which are made of a metal alloy which readily absorbs neutrons. By abosorbing the extra neutrons, the control rods lower the amount available for fission which lowers the energy output. If the control rods are removed, then all the available uranium will be fissioned by the neutrons moving around, and this will cause a great increase in the temperature of the reactor. At this point, the problem you face is that of superheated water which can form a steam bubble which may rupture the containment chamber. While a melted core will cause damage, it's not going to melt through miles and miles of earth. It will SEVERELY contaminate the surrounding area, but once it has escaped the reactor chamber it will quickly disperse and the heat will quickly dissipate as a critical mass will no longer be available.

So why won't a nuclear power plant explode like a bomb? Density. It's as simple as that. In a bomb, you have two subcritical masses which are forcefully pressed together by conventional explosives. The masses are made of pure uranium metal (in a uranium bomb) with a concentration of U-235 in the high 90% area. The explosion of the chemical explosives forces the two masses together instantly creating a supercritical mass that is compressed together under extreme pressures by the chemical explosives. This causes the neutrons released from the 'seed' in the middle of the mass to instantly be absorbed by a U-235 atom which then decays and releases more neutrons. Because there are no contaminants in the area to soak up the neutrons, and because the metal is pressed together so densely because of the normal explosives, the fission reactions get out of control and a nuclear explosion happens. No matter what the situation is, there is no way you can achieve that density of nuclear material in a normal power plant.

 

[karadoc]

I think by 2050 we wouldn't be using nuclear power or nukes. Certainly we'd find much better ways to wipe ourselves off the planet.

Yes, but in reality nuclear power is quite clean and safe. _Much_ cleaner than burning fossil fuels. The main problem is the bad press. (this is coming from a physicist)

 

[Pyrion]

And somewhere to store the waste.

 

[Colossian]

Are you looking for "Katrina"?

There is no option. Nothing we can do for this.
Maybe it'll be fun. "Disable Disaster Option" - Simcity4

 

[Multiplicity]

Global warming will indeed raise temperatures overall. Now an uneducated buffon would think it great that the temperature rises most on the coldest areas. Someone with a bit of knowledge knows that means melting ice-caps resulting in severe flooding around the world, more powerful hurricanes and - indeed still more desert and other barely habitable terrain in the warm parts of the globe.

This just reminded me which I should have added in my previous post. Venus is a great example where many greenhouse layers reside. These many layers is the reason why Venus is very hot (600 degrees fahrenheit I believe?). Indeed, the greenhouse layer help heat the entire planet up, just not the cold regions.

 

[pmoney]

I haven't been following this thread, but can spies cause nuclear meltdowns? maybe you have fallen victim to an intense espionage campaign? does any civ hate you a lot?

 

[Xerxes_Pi]

I think they put global warming in there as 'the' game ender.

Nukes have nothing to do with global warming (mostly a natural cycle of nature). You can tell the devs are on the eco-nut side of things.

Of course, it cannot be good to pollute the earth too much beyond its capacity to absorb CO2 and such into the ocean, that is why Venus went south -no ocean to abosrb/lock and turn it into carbonate limestone on the ocean floor. Seen soda pop?

I take it as gameplay. It will occur no matter what, using nukes makes it worst and faster to occur.

I survived by having my cities on the coast, I could still live by fishing the ocean. It does not affect it. I watched the other civs die off.

If the sea water level would rise though with global warming, my city coast would be flooded and THAT would be the ultimate game ender. ala Alpha Centauri mentioned above.

 

[Dominico]

Nukes have nothing to do with global warming (mostly a natural cycle of nature). You can tell the devs are on the eco-nut side of things.

As far as I knew nukes messed with global temps. I was taught in school (i was not taught in America as i know they have a different policy there due to economics) that nukes and atom bombs have a likelyhood to cause drops in temperature.

Its known volcanic explosions cause loss of global temperature (as much as 1 degree for one volcanoe in some cases) and so its highly likely a nuke will do a similar thing from the dust thrown into the air.

Enough nukes are dropped and the global temp would likely drop. Though this would result in more icy tiles ingame rather then desert.

 

[Roland Johansen]

The only thing I could find about global warming in the XML-files were the following lines:

<Define>
<DefineName>GLOBAL_WARMING_TERRAIN</DefineName>
<DefineTextVal>TERRAIN_DESERT</DefineTextVal>

within the file GlobalDefines.xml

Does anyone know how to change these lines in order to stop global warming?
If Global Warming is not defined, will this then result in an error? If DefineTextVal is undefined, will the terrain not change?

 

[Dominico]

Dont know but from that it would be quite easy to make the global warming create icy tiles instead Which would be cool. I might have a go at that.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Oh, and the following file seems to dictate the random explosions of Nuclear Plants:

Civ4BuildingInfos.xml

Changing the number 1000 into 0 in the line:

<iNukeExplosionRand>1000</iNukeExplosionRand>

within the part of the file that defines the Nuclear Power Plant will probably stop nuclear plants melting down. (The value is 0 for the other power plants and 1000 for the nuclear power plant.)

I haven't tested this.

 

[Sunwolf]

I can see the mod now, Nuclear War cools planet and can cause nuclear winter. And of course the solution to Global Warming. Got problems with Global Warming, nuke a rival civ to cool the planet down, all the other civs should love you for helping to preserver the environment.

Oh yeah been lurking for a while and figured it was time to post something.

 

[Abaddon]

once its screwed up- there is no gonig back

 

[gatorforest]

Do you even know what a meltdown involves? It's not a nuclear explosion. A meltdown does exactly what it sounds like. If a nuclear reactor runs too hot and the control rods are forced in to try to slow down the reaction, there's the chance that the control rods themselves will melt (whereas you get a nuclear explosion if the control rods AREN'T inserted), and by then, the entire reactor assembly melts, gravity takes hold and the whole thing keeps going until it hits the water table deep underground (or until it cools, if you're lucky). Your water supply is effectively screwed for a very long time, but you don't get a nuclear explosion. If you're extremely unlucky, you MIGHT get a steam explosion to send fallout into the atmosphere, but then what? It doesn't stay in the atmosphere. That's why it's called "fallout" -- it "falls out" of the atmosphere.

But hey, you can't even spell my name right, so I wouldn't expect you to know this.

Hell, for that matter, even nuclear explosions wouldn't cause global warming. You could nuke every city on Earth and all you'd do (besides killing off the human race) is you'd send Earth into another ice age.

Couldn't agree more. One futher thing...why does everyone assume that global warming (regardless of what may have caused it natural or unnatural) will make desert? Hello, there is a whole polar cap down there (on earth anyhow). It could become an exotic forest. And is it that far fetched to have a planet that is say oh I don't know 70 some odd percent water have some massive jungle action going on somewhere? I mean look at what schools teach us these days about the dinosaurs. Hmmmm, the climate was.....well WARM and MOIST (and full of fern type things that LOVE moisture). Freakin imagine that! So my vote is to either fix global warming to potentally make useful squares as well as non-useful ones or ... just get rid of the effect all together. P.S. What ever happend to terraforming?

 

[ohioastronomy]

The biggest problem with the implementation of global warming is that it is utterly wrong scientifically. Fossil fuel burning adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. There is very solid science (I'm an astrophysicist specializing in theoretical studies of the Sun and stars) that this traps heat and is leading to global warming from a variety of indicators. However, nuclear power does nothing to the atmosphere and simply can't cause global warming. Neither would meltdowns. Nuclear winter was an interesting idea, but unlike global climate change it did not withstand scientific scrutiny. The early circulation models were too coarse and drastically overestimated the effect of nuclear weapons on the atmosphere. Therefore the usage of nuclear weapons in a scientifically plausible game should lead to local fallout (probably permanent) but not any kind of climate change.

It looks to me as if they were looking for an in-game way to punish the usage of nuclear weapons and hit upon an inappropriate concept to do it.
Fix this please, oh developers - it doesn't make sense even given that the science behind global climate change is solid.

 

[Nilrim]

Fix this please, oh developers - it doesn't make sense even given that the science behind global climate change is solid.

What cracks me up is how we are so sure that man is effecting the over all 'climate change' in even a minor way. We KNOW that over the history of earth the climate has changed in major ways from tropical, no or little ice caps to a mostly ice covered world MANY times and this was LONG before man ever came on the scene. The climate of the earth IS ALWAYS changing and always will with or without man. Can we effect our local environment in bad ways? Sure we can but to what degree and for how long before natural effects 'clean' it up? Men are so arrogant to think that we actually have that kind of power even with today’s technology, to me it is really laughable. Even with some kind of super tech where we managed to totally kill our self’s off, the earth will continue to change and evolve tell the sun goes dark.

Besides isn't man a product of nature? So it is ok for nature to blow the top off a mountain and change the local and global environment with a volcano but it is not ok for man, who is a product of nature to do the same thing? I just wish I could come up with some kind of "the sky is falling the sky is falling' theory and have the governments of the world pay me millions and millions to research it.

 

[BlackMage]

Ahem.

Back on topic a bit.

10 meltdowns is extreme. I think the randomness factor is worse than in Civ3, because in Civ3, reactors would only melt down when a city was in Civil Disorder. With that factor out, nuclear reactors are more of a gamble.

The same with global warming in general. At a certain point in a Civ3 game, global warming would start on its own, usually during the Industrial Era, when everyone is spamming factories.

2 good features taken out.