1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Global Warming, Civil Wars, UN Peacekeepers, and Coalitions

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Prometheus1992, Jul 9, 2005.

  1. peanut35

    peanut35 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    MA, USA
    okay this is all nice and dandy, a slightly educated debate about global warming, my only comment to all of this is that they are removing pollution, so...........?
     
  2. Prometheus1992

    Prometheus1992 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    The game is not complete...yet, and there are still a few decisions to be made...
     
  3. Atrebates

    Atrebates Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Berkshire UK
    Very true, but don't bet on it, 90% of those studies are on dodgy ground (financed by oil companies, :lol: ) however you are right, solar cycles are influential on climate.
    I really doubt that boiling of the oceans is ever even remotely possible (as stated in previous post) but Venus shows that retention of heat can be vicious
     
  4. GeorgeOP

    GeorgeOP RF Bleachers

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,428
    Location:
    RF Bleachers
    As long as we're going to add "global warming", why not add other hypothetical (sp?) things? Maybe in a certain year in the future aliens land and create a new Civ to try to win by domination. Maybe at some point a deity from one of the religions decides to end his/her/their experiment. (couldn't think of a better word. please do not be offended, none is directed toward any or all religions.)

    These are all theories that have the same thing in common; lots of speculation with no proof one way or the other. Since the global warming and melting of the polar ice caps has yet to be proved to occur because of modern society, I think it is wrong to try to model it into a what if historical sim. Enviromental causes because of nuclear war, or limited polution from large production/population is resonable. Dramatic global changes are not.

    Would could easily make a sci-fi mod with this, though.
     
  5. peanut35

    peanut35 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    MA, USA
    actually the entire scientific community now does not dispute the existence of global warming, there was a summit by all leading scientists in the field that were both for and against the existance of it, at the end of the summit they decided it does exist, it is partially human driven, what they now dispute is its effect, the amount of human contribution, and how severe it will be
     
  6. apatheist

    apatheist Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    I think it's highly unlikely that they'd be making such changes at this time. They're probably polishing art, searching for bugs, refining the rules, and furiously at work on the AI at this point.
     
  7. Urederra

    Urederra Mostly harmless

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,310
    Location:
    Sea of tranquility
    well, there is a special issue of Nature about climate change. (And Nature is not a secondary magazine sponsored by oil companies ;) ) There are all flavors of articles, I copy down the url and some interesting (under my point of view) headlines.

    http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html

    -East Antarctica puts on weight. (acording to data recorded by satellite, Antarctica ice cap is growing)

    -Sea-level records reveal surprising choppiness. Fresh analysis shows that levels changed even between ice ages. (Did the dinosaurs used fossil fuels??? :lol: just kidding)

    -Past climate change questioned.Swings in temperature might be more common than though.

    -Internet project forecasts global warming. Biggest-ever climate simulation warns temperatures may rise by 11 ºC. (yeah, the simulations are as good as Civ III AI, Those guys that started studying the wheater in long term by simulating the Earth back 30 years ago didn't give up after their first predictions. In the 70's they predicted another ice age :lol: Now, they predict a 11 ºC increase of temperatures in 100 years. And they used those funny screensavers that takes the idle time of your computer to make the calculations. Of course, we are not going to be here to tell them that they were wrong. That's not science, Earth is too big to be simulated on computer and there is a lot of parametrization that simply you have to probe that is valid in long term. The short term parameters they use to simulate the wheater during 7 days are not valid when you run the simulations for 10 or 100 years, they commited that mistake 30 years ago and they are commiting the same mistake again. They touched the parameters and run the simulations again and again until they have the results that they want. That's not science, sorry.
     
  8. apatheist

    apatheist Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Fluid dynamics are too complicated to be simulated without approximations, but planes still fly. By your logic, you shouldn't attempt to model any physical process.

    Antarctica's ice pack increasing in mass is not a counter-argument. The operative word is average. Global warming is not uniform. Climate change is a less confusing term for the phenomenon.

    That said, "climate change due to human action" is a sticky subject which I will not claim to understand. I think it would be disingenuous for you to make such claims as well, unless you are a climatologist. It's obvious that temperatures have increased rapidly over the last century. It is not obvious that this is a problem, nor that it is due to human action.
     
  9. Urederra

    Urederra Mostly harmless

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,310
    Location:
    Sea of tranquility
    I agree with that, and I leave the discussion as it is. cos it is driffting off topic.

    As I said, I don't mind having climate changes in Civ IV. I spent a good time playing SMAC where the sea levels rise and fall 200 meters or more. It is unrealistic, but, it is fun to play, and that's at the end, what matters.

    Edit: I model physical processes that take nanoseconds to happen, that is why I said that parametrization for simulating climate changes is impossible to do, It takes too long. You cannot finetune the parameters and see if they are correct physically.
     
  10. froglegs

    froglegs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    I am not making this post to debate the merits or demerits of the "Theory of Global Warming". I am just saying that there needs to be an on-off button for it. Liberals can turn it on. Conservatives can turn it off.
    Political Scientists can turn it on. Real Scientists can turn it off.

    All I want is the choice. I am Pro-Choice on this matter? Anybody see a problem with that?
     
  11. 10Seven

    10Seven Intolerant of Intolerance

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    1,412
    I would like pollution and a global warming system put into Civ4 - I think it would be interesting.

    Probably Firaxis took it out because they're just trying to avoid controversy - or someone there decided they're now a top scientist and know all the answers.

    For interest, as to global warming:

    1. The non-executive Chairman of Shell Corporation recently stated/asserted in public conference that - to quote approximately, 'we have to do something about global warming and pollution now rather than later, as only if we do so now do we have the chance to prevent it from becoming much worse.

    2. The US Pentagon has a number of studies into the affects of global warming, and, particularly, it's implications of US industry/economy and military activity.

    It seems, along with accepted scientific evidence, that global warming is fact - the debate now is not as to that, but, rather, whether we are responsible or it is natural.

    With regards to Civ, as it is fact that global warming and cooling is a reality - and I'm not talking about any human factor - it would be a realistic and interesting addition.

    After all, the middle east used to be covered in forest - now it's largely desert.

    A climate model in Civ4 would be cool - but they won't add it - if only for the desire to concentrate on other areas.

    This would be an excellent opportunity for some modding :goodjob:

    Let's nut it out :)
     
  12. Atrebates

    Atrebates Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Berkshire UK
    There are some real scientists who would go mental over that, as they fight political scientists who state there is no global warming. Not all scientists agree but 95% of financially independent scientists do and generally they have very solid science on their side.
    (I hate doing further GW arguing now that it looks off topic, but models are sketchy (1 of several reasons of course) because no-one is certain of the cooling effect of particulate matter in the atmosphere, secondly increased Antarctic ice mass is due to increased rain and cloud cover in the area which is likely due to Global Warming (in New Scientist special on GW after the big meeting + in other sources)
    Anyway :lol: post and good point
     
  13. froglegs

    froglegs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Why are you debating me when I cearly posted that I do not want to debate this issue. Just give me the stupid on-off button.

    Geese! What is your problem? The whole topic is off-subject anyway so shut up about it! I only said that I would like to have the choice. What is wrong with that? I learned years ago not to argue with liars or fools. :)
     
  14. apatheist

    apatheist Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    On/off buttons are a slippery slope. You can't have one for everything because the development, test, and balancing effort scales exponentially with the number of options. I think it's reasonable to be a little ornery when someone suggests making a behavior optional.
     
  15. cfacosta

    cfacosta Praetorian

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    103
    Whether or not the global warming theory identifies an actual problem, correctly assigns cause, and acurately suggests solutions is irrelevant. In addition to the fact that they are removing pollution in civ IV, consider how the game would handle global warming inclusion....

    For it to even be considered, the concept (global warming, in the case) would have to add a decision element to the game. The most common method, and the one that global warming lends itself to, is causing the player to trade off between two other elements. In other words, the player must spend money or lower production in order to improve global climate. If there is an uber factory that produces the most and doesn't pollute then there isn't even a reason to continue with adding global warming.

    So if you have to choose between better production and the "healthier planet" jazz, consider how the AI has to be programmed. Each opposing AI player needs to address the issue of global warming aswell...don't forget the actual game making process. This is what really kills the global warming idea. There are four general scenarios.

    1.) All the AI opt for mega production. Well, assuming that the negative effects of global warming are large (and if they aren't...why include the damn concept) then you are screwed no matter what. If you are a good steward, either the AI build 20% more than your handicapped ass and owns you...or your good heart isn't enough to save the world from the other pollution crazy civs. End result....global warming is always a negative on the game.

    2.) All the AI opt to be stewards (and remember that I only mean they are more planet friendly...they don't have to neuter their factories). If this is the case then you have no other real choice then to take advantage of the extra productivity over your oponents. The name of the game is still to win and most of the win conditions require you to create more of something...troops spaceship parts cultural buildings....than the AI. Any global warming effect will, by definition, affect all players in a similar fashion. Proportionally you still come out ahead. The only choice here is whether or not you want to make victory easier....is this really a good game element?

    3.) The AI adopts a mixed approach depending on the current planet condition. In this case, the decision is even easier...as you pollute and reap production benefits, they neuter their factories. The fact that they might be programmed to get mad and ally against you would be the only equalizer. Despite this, you still gain the production advantage....and were probably in tense or war relations with them to begin with.

    4.) The AI adopts an approach based on their civ. This would...unless you stack your opponents...produce a mixed amount of pollution. Essentially, the global condition is predetermined by the civs playing....a terrible AI method and another thumbs down for global warming as a good game element.

    Sorry for the length...I just tried to be exhaustive. The end result is that, in my opinion, global warming is not a valuable game element...independent of its validity as a climate change theory.
     
  16. apatheist

    apatheist Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    That's a roundabout way of describing the prisoner's dilemma, a classic game theory problem, or the "tragedy of the commons." If we're both good, we both benefit. If I'm good and you're bad, I'm screwed. If I'm bad and you're good, you're screwed. If we're both bad, we're both screwed.

    There are numerous strategies for working through this situation. One is the tit-for-tat strategy (assuming multiple rounds), which means I do to you what you did to me in the last turn. Another option would be an alliance with other non-polluters to take out the polluters, or at least to force them to behave better. There are several ways that you could punish AIs for harming the common good, with war, trade, diplomacy, and other standard civ tools being well-suited for the purpose.
     
  17. cfacosta

    cfacosta Praetorian

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    103
    I would reccomend you rethink the comparison to the iterated prisoner dillemma. Remember that in that scenario, if we are both "good" as you put it, we both benefit. In a computer game, where the goal is to defeat your opponents, maintaining status quo does not move you towards the goal...you need to gain an edge somehow. Since global warming encompasses everyone equally...having the "everything stays the same" scenario where noone pollutes does not move you ahead. By polluting, when your opponents don't, you gain comparative advantage. And if everyone pollutes or everyone doesn't....what has the concept added?
     
  18. Superkrest

    Superkrest Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Location:
    michigan, united states.
    if global warming is some how included..lets just hope that not everything on the map turns drier and hotter...in actuallity...some areas would become super cold..some super hot..some super dry..and some super wet.. ...im just not sure exactly how an accurate model would be made that would appease the global warming caused by humans...or natural causes crowds(i for one am a natural causes fan. the artic ocean was a hot freshwater pond at one point...there were no cars or steal mills) but oh well. ill let some one smarter figure out how to do it. just my usual 2 cents worth :crazyeye:
     
  19. apatheist

    apatheist Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    cfacosta, that's a good point, but I don't think it sinks it. Consider trading resources or alliances. Yes, you're competing with the other civ, but you're also cooperating. You recognize that failing to stop a common threat may sink both of your chances of winning. Perhaps climate change could become serious enough that nobody could win the game. All land turns to desert, the sea levels rise and drown the coasts, your population plummets, your infrastructure is destroyed, and the game ends. For that to happen, though, you'd have to be able to regress as well as progress, but in civ, you can't lose culture, techs, or the like, so you can't have a Dark Ages like that.
     
  20. cfacosta

    cfacosta Praetorian

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    103
    Honestly, I had not considered the noone wins scenario... That would definately provide the additional element required to make the iterated prisoner dilema function. Another point I realize that I didn't address was that noone has stated global warming needed to affect the whole planet evenly. If global warming were to create more extreme weather in areas of high pollution (I don't know how scientifically sound any of this crap is...) then the polluting civ would actually have a proper balancing decision to make. Additionally, if polar regions actually became more habitable due to global temperature increases...then forcing global warming might actually be a viable strategy depending on your location.

    I guess there are several approaches that might make this work. My personal opinion, however, is still that global warming would not be a great game element.
     

Share This Page