• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

Global Warming Hoax

Status
Not open for further replies.

BraveSirRobin

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
2
Location
Ohio
This game really needs some way to turn off global warming. It's not a matter that pollution is not a serious problem for societies -- it is. It is just that the designers of the game have been brainwashed by the ultra liberal pseudo-intelligencia and the ultra liberal media types into believing in the disproven goofey theory of Global Warming. Sure -- the earth has warmed -- and cooled -- over the ages -- but not because of pollution.

A better way of addressing the pollution issue would be in the form of a production tax on cities that produce pollution and even perhaps a population growth-rate penalty. That way too we could eliminate that most mundane task in the game -- having to send workers to clean up the stupid pollution. We are not playing this game to send workers to clean up pollution -- are we. Take it out!

P.S.-- I am a retired chemist with 9 US patents so I know a little about what I am talking about.
 
Are you telling me you've never seen a stack of workers run around your city cleaning up orange garbage??? ;)

Yea, I wish there was a way in the editor to change the chances of pollution appearing not just how long it takes to clean it.
 
Originally posted by BraveSirRobin
P.S.-- I am a retired chemist with 9 US patents so I know a little about what I am talking about.

I'm an environmental scientist with a masters degree, and I 'happen' to know that the Global Warming Hoax is a scientific problem which requires a multidisciplinal approach. Your statement is pretty inconstructive, and should be taken to the Off Topic Forum.

Civ related: the orange goo is not the effect of global warming. In the game, it turns tiles into tiles of a different type. It's an irreversible effect.
The game would be better if you could turn pollution and global warming off though.
 
Please, this is not the right forum to have a flame war on real world global warming... The issue is not the simple straightforward thing environmental activists make it to be, but neither is it just a hoax. Pollution does have an effect. Whether it is big or small is a matter I doubt anyone knows for sure.

But to get back to civ: You should be able to edit the effects of pollution. The reason being that global warming is not always appropriate. It is somewhat hard to suspend your belief when Zhentil Keep optimized to produce vast amounts of orc armies causes Faerun to suffer from global warming. :)

You should have several pollution effect options available in the editor. Like turning it completely off, only lose the production of the tile, or polluted tiles cause disease, unhappiness, or extra production penalties.
 
I think the major problem in the game is that it is impossible to negotiate how the AI handles it's own global warming. In fact, I believe that the origianl idea behind global warming was that it would be controllable not only through city improvement, but also through diplomatic treaties. Since the game was rushed out, this final implementation simply didn't make it in. I think the current Global warming setup is just about right if there is simply a way to negotiate with the AI to lower/control their own polllution.

And ofcourse, I would love to have more control over the effects of pollution. Not all pollution causes Global Warming. I think it would be neat to be able to throw the world into an Ice Age or turn the entire planet into a jungle.
 
Originally posted by Flak
I think the major problem in the game is that it is impossible to negotiate how the AI handles it's own global warming.

Give them Mass Transit and Ecology. That usually works.
 
Originally posted by BraveSirRobin
It is just that the designers of the game have been brainwashed by the ultra liberal pseudo-intelligencia and the ultra liberal media types into believing in the disproven goofey theory of Global Warming.

I think you are confusing the "ultra liberal pseudo-intelligencia and the ultra liberal media types" with the scientific establishment. All major scientific groups are in agreement on the fundamentals of the global warming problem.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
 
Not everyone is convinced it would be a problem, even if the average global temp was raised as much as 10-15 degrees a year. The American midwest would get hit the hardest, I'm afraid.

But the Sahara would likely become grassland.

But yeah, I hate it in the game. It's too devastating.
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Not everyone is convinced it would be a problem, even if the average global temp was raised as much as 10-15 degrees a year.

You'd better specify that you are considering a raise in Fahreneit...
Others could get confused... :confused:

I guess the formula was
Centigrades = (Fahreneit - 32)*5/9

Hence, applying F2 - F1 = (C2*9/5 + 32) - (C1*9/5 + 32)
You get C2 - C1 = (F2 - F1) * 5 / 9

hence, a raise of 10 to15 degrees F would roughly be equal to 5.55 to 8.33 C, which is still very high, no?
I guess it is far less.

:crazyeye:

PS: sorry for the mathematics, but i could not get hold of a paper to write down the formula... had to be visual :)
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Not everyone is convinced it would be a problem, even if the average global temp was raised as much as 10-15 degrees a year. The American midwest would get hit the hardest, I'm afraid.

But the Sahara would likely become grassland.

But yeah, I hate it in the game. It's too devastating.

Ya, pity about the millions of asians who'd drown or be displaced by rising sea levels, but heck, they ain't even Amuricans so who cares, right.
 
Originally posted by Grashnak
Ya, pity about the millions of asians who'd drown or be displaced by rising sea levels, but heck, they ain't even Amuricans so who cares, right.

Good point...
Lots of countries will in fact be under water by 2050 (seems like bengla desh and others in the area...

Back to Civ, that would be nice to have (coasts being eaten up by sea, and poles turning into grasslands... or just water...
 
Originally posted by Globetrotter


You'd better specify that you are considering a raise in Fahreneit...
Others could get confused... :confused:

I guess the formula was
Centigrades = (Fahreneit - 32)*5/9

Hence, applying F2 - F1 = (C2*9/5 + 32) - (C1*9/5 + 32)
You get C2 - C1 = (F2 - F1) * 5 / 9

hence, a raise of 10 to15 degrees F would roughly be equal to 5.55 to 8.33 C, which is still very high, no?
I guess it is far less.

:crazyeye:

PS: sorry for the mathematics, but i could not get hold of a paper to write down the formula... had to be visual :)

Actually it could be even worse. What if he was talking Centigrade? Then 10 - 15 C equals a raise in temperature of 18 - 27 F degrees! Sorry, but that's getting just a bit too cozy to say that that wouldn't make any difference. There'd be hurricanes blowing across the newly formed North Russian deserts!

That would actually be kinda cool. If only we had more control of such things in the game...
 
Originally posted by Zachriel


Give them Mass Transit and Ecology. That usually works.

It's just that I've never spied an AI civ city and seen Mass Transit or a Recycling Center (when they had these techs). I've also never seen a foreign worker cleaning up their own pollution. This is ironic as I've had, on one occasion, a foreign allied Civ worker come over and clean my pollution!
 
Really, people, please don't feed the trolls. If "BraveSirRobin" thought his opinions could withstand substantive argument he wouldn't have posted them on a games forum. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Flak


Actually it could be even worse. What if he was talking Centigrade?

Then we would be all FUBAR!!! :lol:
No mass transit, no ecology, no anything mentioned above would be enough... :lol: err... :cry:
 
Originally posted by Flak
Actually it could be even worse. What if he was talking Centigrade? Then 10 - 15 C equals a raise in temperature of 50 - 75 F degrees! Sorry, but that's getting just a bit too cozy to say that that wouldn't make any difference. There'd be hurricanes blowing across the newly formed North Russian deserts!

That would actually be kinda cool. If only we had more control of such things in the game...
Sticking with the off-topic side here, let me point out an error in this calculation: 50 - 75F degrees is what 10 - 15C degrees relative to the freezing point of water. That is, if you look at a thermometer calibrated in both F & C, you will see that 10C = 50F. But 0C = 32F. So a change of zero degrees Celcius is a change of 32 degrees Fahrenheit? I don't think so.

The key is, a Fahrenheit degree is 5/9 of a Celsius degree. So a 10 - 15 degree change in Celsius = 18 - 27 degree change in Fahrenheit. Not insignificant, but not 70 degrees, either.
 
i think a better idea instead of using the editor would be to have less pollution on chieften, or have it easie to get rd of, creseing until in deity it would cover half your nation until you remove it.
 
Originally posted by thestonesfan
Not everyone is convinced it would be a problem, even if the average global temp was raised as much as 10-15 degrees a year. The American midwest would get hit the hardest, I'm afraid.

But the Sahara would likely become grassland.


Actually, this is perhaps a great misconception of what the real effects of global warming would be.

The effects would not necessarily be localized or even globalized climate changes or short periods of time (as is demonstrated late in the game). The real immediate effects appear to be more examples of drastic weather events caused by the additional energy of the atmosphere. This is actually a quite logical and experimentally sound assumption. Consider the following thought experiment.

................................

Take a small balloon full of air at room temperature. Now put in a special microwave that ONLY heats the air itself. You put it in, turn it on for a few seconds, take it out and quickly measure that the air inside the balloon is now ten degrees warmer than it was. You can feel with your hand the warmth coming thru. You have just given the air in this balloon a bit more energy. You may even notice that the balloon is just a bit wider because of the expansion of the air.

Now perform the same experiment with a balloon the size of a full-sized hot air balloon. Take this balloon, put it into the special microwave until it is ten degrees warmer, and take it out again. You will observe the same things: The warmth coming through surface, a modest expansion.

Consider: What would happen if you now took the microwave-induced energy (NOT THE AIR ITSELF!), just the additional energy from the air of large balloon, and put into the air of the smaller balloon. Likely, this sudden concentration of such a larger amount of energy would cause the surface of the smaller balloon to instantly melt, if not vaporize, and allow the air to subsequently 'explode'. This is a great trick for small family gatherings! :)

Now take a balloon large enough to contain all of the air in the Earth's atmosphere and do the same thing. Put it into the special microwave until it is ten degrees warmer. You would again notice the warmth coming through the surface and a modest expansion.

But if you were to take the microwave induced energy from this earth-sized balloon and put into either of the smaller balloons, you would probably observe (assuming you had some way of surviving this part of the experiment) that most of the air and the balloon itself would be converted into ultra-high energy subatomic particles. An explosion just doesn't quite cover the effect this would have.

Now take newly energized air put it around a planet. You suddenly add in aspects of convection, non-uniform surface flow, non-uniform heating and cooling, mixing, Coriolis, humidity, etc, etc....

................................


In real life this means not grassland becoming desert or Polar regions becoming grassland. It means more frequent sudden and sharp heat spells, droughts, flooding, cold spells and blizzards, increased number of thunderstorms and severity thereof (tornadoes, flash flooding), more hurricanes. Not only will such events occur more often and more randomly, but they will occur closer together. This is the real danger of Global Warming. Only over very long periods (decades, centuries) of time, would you on average notice the climatic changes over geographic regions.

Now if we were to implement this in the game, I would have more of these random events with various effects. For example:

Blizzard hits Moscow, City shut down, loss of revenues and production for one turn.

Flood hits New Orleans, courthouse washes away.

Typhoon strikes Bombay, population decrease of 2.

As Global Warming persists, increases or decreases, so too do these random events.
 
Ya, pity about the millions of asians who'd drown or be displaced by rising sea levels, but heck, they ain't even Amuricans so who cares, right.

I resent that ignorant, idiotic remark. I did not imply I felt anything anything like that. No need to be a jerk.

The truth is, we don't know anything about global warming. Global climate change is a nutural inevitability, and I fail to see the horror if mankind facilitates it slightly. It's going to happen anyway. People think that just because it's "natural" and occurs without the help of humans that it's all well and good. Tell that to the dinosaurs. For all we know, we are countering a massive global cooling. Cynical people love excuses to complain, and global warming is a very convenient one.

As for a rise in sea levels large enough to cover ENTIRE CITIES, that is something I'll have to see to believe. I've never seen a single convincing argument that it would ever happen. Can you imagine the amount of water it would take to raise global ocean levels by a mere foot? Keep in mind that even if all the ice was to melt at the poles, there is more ice underwater than above, and ice water takes up much more space than liquid water.

And for Siberia to become a blazing desert, we'd need to be many millions of miles closer to the sun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom