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, Ecology & Socialism (Split from Civ4)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AJ11, Aug 28, 2011.

  1. AJ11

    AJ11 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Melting ice caps? The average temperature of the Antarctic is -40C. It is -55C in the interior. Unless the world warmed +40C in the last year or so and I didn't notice, melting ice caps because of global warming is a crock of sh-!
     
  2. LeHam

    LeHam Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Pacific Coast
    Gah! MUST. NOT. ENTER. POLITICAL. DEBATE. ON. FAVORITE. WEBSITE . . . Oh, screw it, I'll try to explain it simply.

    Thermal expansion. What's really going to raise sea levels is NOT any melting polar ice caps, it is thermal expansion of the oceans.

    You see, as temperature rises, the heat causes the oceans' water to expand, thus raising sea levels. Basic physics.
     
  3. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,677
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    Like you , I don't want to get into this, but, I'd like to add a bit of common sence to what was said.
    The problem with this theory is everyone has seen the easiest test of this theory and knows it to be wrong.
    Take any glass of water place ice cubes in it and fill the glass up with water to the top.
    If, the ice melted and overflowed then, we could see that rational of water rising in the game. But it won't.
    The ice has more volume, due to the air trapped inside of it, so, when, the ice melts in your glass, the water level will actually go down.
    So, in Civ4 if they want to get it correct, they should lower the sea levels.

    Where this gets dicey, is when, one factors in the ice content on land, say, Antartica, Canada or Russia. When, that too is melted, the water level would only rise, when, the amount melted exceeded the amount lowered by the icebergs melting in the water and the increased humidity levels around the world.
    Which for game purposes basically would balance out and be irrelevant to the conquering of the planet during the short time span the game is being played.
    If, we started off as dinosaurs and rats and evolving for millions of years, sure, we could have seen something. The Laurentide Ice sheet (95,000-20,000 years ago) that melted and is believed to be what caused the Great Flood in the bible and other ancient documents, would be one example.

    I guess, that is why most see it as unnecessary to be included into the game. It "feels" like someone is adding politics to a game that is suppose to be about fun.
    Just like they added "Al Gore" invented the internet and giving Zero credit to the people that actually did the work. His gaff years ago, shouldn't earn him any fame for other peoples work. Political bias shouldn't be in games we play for fun. I can look up the history of certain politions if, I want to later, not, be subjected to it, because, someone at Firaxis has a certain point of view and might want to scare people to raise money, as Al Gore did with his movie sales and organizations. Nothing against him personally, just leave this sort of stuff out of my fun. :)

    Oh, I wanted to add something, before, I saw the post about GW.
    Banks that take 1000 years to build. What's up with that?
    It is annoying, when, I launch an early attack, conquer a few cities, then, have to stop, because, Joao, for example, expanded all over the place. I can't finish off all of his cities, because, my economy starts to crash. I discover the money buildings and have to sue for peace to build these to be able to afford to continue.
    The Mongolian Empire was huge around the mid 1200s. It increased most of it's size before cannons were all over in many empires. Yet, even on marathon this is difficult to do for a non-FIN or ORG empire.
    It would seem that on marathon, the build times of buildings were increased too much. The same could be said for armies. Aside from warriors, chariots and archers, everything else seems to take longer that it should. The point to marathon speed, I thought, was to be able to be submerged in those early eras and be able to fight massed chariot battles and swordsman clashes, not, to have to wait years to build so many units.
    In my current game, a maceman costs 140 production and has a built time of 10 turns. Perhaps, a 14 prod city is small, but, I am building in the low prod cities too, because, I had no uber prod city this game. 10 turns per city, in some cases longer, IMHO, is just too long to wait to be able to finish off that battle to capture one city, or, in my case 8 cities. Since, I hit a wall, it seems. :(
     
  4. Linkman226

    Linkman226 #anarchy

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,493
    I stopped reading when you made the ridiculous conjecture that a mere 4000 years ago, humans were writing about the melting of ice sheets that happened tens of thousands of years ago.

    That's called quack history.

    And you missed his point that the water would expand as well. Not to mention the fact that most of our ice is ON LAND. The ocean can't support much beyond the stray iceberg.
     
  5. plasmacannon

    plasmacannon Emperor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,677
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    There are people all around the world, India, middle east, china, everywhere, that have ancient documents that refer to a time of flooding in the past.
    It is only in recient times, when, scientists have figured out that we had a huge ice sheet covering much of Canada and down into the Great Lakes region of the U.S.
    Their theories of it melting and possibly being the origin of the flood myths, is what I am referring to. You can look it up on the internet or watch example television shows on the History channel. :) I am not making this up. LOL.
     
  6. Linkman226

    Linkman226 #anarchy

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,493

    There are also stories all over the world of a girl abused by her step mother but who later married into royalty. Conclusion: Cinderella was a real person that traveled the world.

    And again, your missing the point that writing DIDN'T FRICKIN exist.

    Not to mention that the History Channel was never a History Channel. It's real name is the Conspiracy Theory channel, or the How Much [excrement of male bovines] Can We Put Out Channel
     
  7. Linkman226

    Linkman226 #anarchy

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,493
    No of course I believe ice ages happened. Just not that they are the subject of flood myths.
     
  8. AJ11

    AJ11 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    The ENTIRE nothern icecap is a free floating ice pan. The only massed ice on land is in the Antarctic, which is why I specifically mentioned that the temperature there precludes a melting ice cap.

    This is not politics. This is SCIENCE.

    Try again.
     
  9. AJ11

    AJ11 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    1. -40C. Look it up. Ice do NOT melt at -40C, or even -10C. Assuming pure water, you need to hit 0C for it to START melting, at which point two somethings called thermal mass and the latent heat of fusion will kick in. For contaminated water, this can be anywhere up to 4C. This is basic primary school physics.

    2. I specifically did NOT mention anything about expanding water in my original post for a very good reason. Who are the ones that keep talking about ice caps melting and drowning everyone? Who are the ones that keep flashing pictures of polar bears on small pieces of ice? Who are the ones that keep talking about shrinking ice caps? That's right. NOT the ones skeptical about global warming.

    Now, for some REAL science (warning, very long)
    Spoiler :

    Aside 1: The Argo buoys state that the ocean temperature has NOT been rising. One linky (amongst a few dozen others). There goes your assertion of thermal expansion of the oceans.

    Aside 2: In the interest of SCIENCE, I am forced to agree with and support those who are engaged in the collective FANTASY called global warming. BUT only to a point. Water DOES expand when heated. In fact, the densest point of water is at about 4C. Above and below that, it is less dense. HOWEVER, ice still floats on hot water (before they melt, that is). Anyone who has dumped ice into their hot Chinese tea will know this. In other words, ice is still less dense than hot water, and therefore will take up more volume than hot water.

    In a closed system (where the ice is not allowed to float on the water, but is forced under the water), ice will take up more volume than hot water, especially if the "hot" water is the couple of degrees more that global warmists believe the oceans will rise by (which is not happening; see Aside 1). This completely shoots down the assertion that ocean volume will rise if the ice melts and hot water expands. In fact, the other way around is the likely scenario.

    In an open system, there will be NO DIFFERENCE. Here is an experiment to try: Half fill a glass with water (use a see through glass to make things easier on yourself). Put a piece of ice in the water so that it floats there (i.e., it doesn't touch the bottom nor is held up against the sides). Now, mark off the level of the water in the glass (I would recommend a piece of paper taped to the side to indicate the level). Wait for the ice to melt and then note the level of the water.

    Why is there no change in the water level? Simple. It is a basic principle of science called "displacement". What displacement state is (very simply) that a body will float in any liquid at a level where the weight of the liquid displaced by the object will be equal to that of the weight of the object.

    I won't go into the calculations of it (it will make your head explode), but do the experiment a hundred times, and you will get the same result.

    THIS, by the way, is one of the very, very, very basic principles of science. To be qualified AS science, the hypothesis/experiment needs to be repeatable (this is the one I just alluded to), measurable (the piece of paper will do for this experiment) and verifiable (I did that by asking you to do it yourself, and not just me doing it).

    Global warming is NOT science because it has never been repeated. Just find me a model that works; there is none, not even the one put forward in Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR4 report (I should know, I kicked one of the authors of Chapter 8 up the butt with it and have the emails to prove it).

    Global warming is NOT science because it has never been measured. Nothing that the global warmist have given us is above the margin of error. In other words, they are saying that the temperature has risen +0.1C when the margin of error is +/-0.5C. How could they tell? They can't. The rise is too small for their instruments to pick up. There is no instrument that is accurate enough to the degree that they are claiming the global temperature to be rising. You can see this in the graphs that they produce, where you get a very noisy graph, and they draw a line through it that somehow made it seem as if the temperature is rising. You can do the opposite and draw a line in the same noisy data and show that the temperature is going down if you so desire. It is all smoke and mirrors.

    Global warming is NOT science because it has never been verified. Global warming data only seem to show a warming in the hands of people advancing the cause of global warming. It has not shown the same thing in the hands of a skeptic. Think about that for a second. Think of the massive potential for fraud that this indicates. And realise why science DEMANDS verification. Verification is not a "good to have". It is a "must".

    Global warming is a con, and the damage it is doing to the reputation of science, true science, is as reprehensible as it is criminal.
     
  10. Linkman226

    Linkman226 #anarchy

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,493
    I'm not a scientist, so, while you bring up some good points, I can;t answer. But I'm just puzzled as to who benefits by perpetuating a lie like global warming, and why a large body of scientists would do so.
     
  11. AJ11

    AJ11 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Money.
    How much has been poured into the global warming "research" over the years? Trillions.
    How much do you think Greenpeace has gathered over the years? Millions to billions.
    The UN wants all developed countries to give it 0.7% of their GDP in order to combat global warming. Money that the unelected people of the UN will administer and not be held accountable for.

    Power.
    Greenpeace gets to issue stamps of approval as to which producer (especially of timber and other agricultural products) is sustainable and who isn't (and therefore to be pilloried), all for a nominal sum.
    Political parties garner support by jumping on the green bandwagon.
    The UN wants all developed countries to give it 0.7% of their GDP in order to combat global warming. Money that the unelected people of the UN will administer and not be held accountable for. This is also power.

    Prestige.
    Think of all the celebrities hitching their wagon to the global warming crusade.


    For scientists, it is mainly the money (or, as they call it, "grants").

    However, if I were you, even if you are not a scientist, I would try out the experiment I outlined above in order to prove to yourself that what I have described is true. Do NOT take my word for it. Try it out yourself.

    That is another basic principle of science (i.e., a true scientist MUST ALWAYS approach any hypothesis with skepticism) that the global warmists have turned around and insisted on being a bad thing. They think that the word "skeptic" is a swearword and has bad connotations. To a true scientist, it is a badge honour, as it shows that he is being true to science and not some human wishful make believe.
     
  12. Linkman226

    Linkman226 #anarchy

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,493
    I would, nonetheless, contend that it is important that polar bears are losing space, regardless of whether the sea levels rise.
     
  13. AJ11

    AJ11 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    But are the polar bears losing space? The answer is "No". Remember, the ice caps are not melting, at least not in the way that the global warming people insists they are. This had been proven many times.
     
  14. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,876
    Well, the world certainly warmed up when the ice age ended. Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

    You make good points, especially in the spoilers...however from a GAMEPLAY standpoint, GW has even less grounds; it fails both sniff tests, not just realism. It literally serves no point in the game except to annoy. Deliberate troll mechanic from the developers directly? Part of me wants to APPROVE :p, but its basis is so fundamentally stupid I can't do that. GW has no place in any civ game whatsoever. Civ operates on the scale of the timeframe of known history (more or less). Things that are only significant for a few years, or are only significant over periods longer than the game lasts, don't mesh well with the game's sense of scale. GW is one of those things.
     
  15. K.Murx

    K.Murx Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Germany
    *raises eyebrow*

    Yes, floating ice does not raise the sea level. The shrinkage of the northern polar ice cap is just a very nice illustration of (on average) rising temperatures.

    However, there is plenty of "continental" ice up in the north (Greenland), and also down here (Switzerland - although most of the glaciers are almost gone).

    And the water from that ice does raise the sea level.

    See also this nice little summary:
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

    [edit] Btw, I am a condensed matter physicist, and not "after the grant money" :lol:

    I will not comment further on this discussion, because I lack the time currently. However, very likely rebuttals to all further "arguments" by AJ11 can be found here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com
     
  16. AJ11

    AJ11 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,013
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Yes, yes, yes. The sea will rise by 100m, 20m, 10m. Any takers for 1m? How about 50cm?

    I don't know about you, but the prediction 10 years ago that Manhattan will be underwater by last year... well, I don't think they were talking about Irene.

    The fact that not a single catastrophic global warming prediction had ever come true doesn't really matter, does it? Oh no, just keep the fear alive. All the better to control the sheep with.

    Seriously, people need to read Michael Chricton's State of Fear. It illustrates perfectly why certain people like to spruik global warming: Power, money, control.

    To me, there is basically no difference to global warming advocates and the leaders of the Middle East. Both like to keep their subjects dumb and stupid to have endless numbers of "martyrs for the cause". And both use forms of religion to do it.
     
  17. Ataxerxes

    Ataxerxes Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,073
    I believe in global warming but it gets blown out of all proportion. Global warming and cooling has been a constant in history. The high middle ages (1000-1300 generally) had better crop returns in part because it was warmer at that time than before or after. The ice ages came and went without human involvement.

    In CivIV terms I'd have to go along with TMIT. It's a ridiculous mechanic that shouldn't be in the game. All it adds is annoyance. I don't care for it in III either. A number of people mod it out of the game it's so bad.
     
  18. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Not specifically tied to global warming, but what about empirical observations of rare natural phenomena, like supernovae? That's hardly repeatable at will...
     
  19. K.Murx

    K.Murx Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Germany
    Sorry to non-interested parties that I continue to derail the thread :)
    It's roughly 3 cm per 10 years. Oh, and the models predict this very well. See the first graph here:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
    Or this article
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
    (I really need to donate to the owner of that website...)

    Btw., there are no catastrophic GW predictions. All that scientists say is that the likelihood of catastrophic meteorological events, and their average strength will increase. As always with statistics, we will need a large number of observations to test that prediction.
    Sadly, each observation is coupled with human suffering, destruction of property, etc.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm

    Also false
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
    Yes. However, the current changes are due to us, and we can do something about it. And we should do something about it, because the current climate is better for us (at least if you're not Russian ).
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
     
  20. karadoc

    karadoc AI programmer

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,568
    Location:
    Australia
    Here's a link with some Arctic ice data. Apparently you're wrong about ice not melting up there.

    Also about the ice floating in water etc. I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that when a floating chunk of ice melts, the water level will go up. We all know that it will stay the same. However, it is worth noting that when land ice melts, the water will run off the land and into the ocean - and this will cause a rise in sea levels. As for holding ice underwater and having it melt like that... you're right that it would cause a drop in the water level, but I have no idea why you are mentioning it. It doesn't seem relevant to this discussion at all. But whatever, the main cause of rising sea levels is the expansion of the water as it heats up.

    [edit]
    Setting the limit to some high number works fine (as you know), but you might also be interested to know that if you set the number to -1 then it disables the limit entirely.


    -
    As for my own pet peeves... I've been fixing them all in my mod. :p
     

Share This Page