Global warming mod

[soup567]

Rant of the first page by me effectively defeated by Afforess' smart linking.

I still believe there is a danger to our environment, just not as extreme as my earlier rant now.

However, I'm happy to see people finally focusing on the fact that we still need to be concerned about environment for various reasons. That would be really cool to reflect that in the game, if ever .
Still waiting on Resource Depletion refinements. That modmod is where I most strongly agree with Afforess about .

I agree with you os79. I am a firm believer in climate change, and I think it is a serious threat, but even if you don't believe in it; it's still good to care for the environment. I can't stand it when I see people who don't care about it at all, who just mindlessly litter or pollute.

 

[Afforess]

Well isn't this strange; we can be completely civil about something as partisan as Global Warming, but when we resurrect a decades old topic about Hitler, it turns into a total flame fest...

Awesome, just awesome.

 

[NBAfan]

Better sooner than later.

Sure, and I'm totally for cleaning up pollution. I have asthma, and going to Airports especially causes issues for my lungs. So, I have a vested interest in cleaner air.

I agree with you os79. I am a firm believer in climate change, and I think it is a serious threat, but even if you don't believe in it; it's still good to care for the environment. I can't stand it when I see people who don't care about it at all, who just mindlessly litter or pollute.

I agree, we should not dump trash in the oceans and so on. You just do not have to worry about whenever driving an SUV or using incandescent light bulbs is bad or not.

Well isn't this strange; we can be completely civil about something as partisan as Global Warming, but when we resurrect a decades old topic about Hitler, it turns into a total flame fest...

Awesome, just awesome.

Time to start flaming people.
At least that is what they do all the time in the OT fourm.

 

[civ_king]

Instead of Global warming can we have desertification as a result of deforestation? with nothing to hold the top soil in, it washes down stream making worthless land!

 

[NBAfan]

Instead of Global warming can we have desertification as a result of deforestation? with nothing to hold the top soil in, it washes down stream making worthless land!

Ahh, now that makes sense. That would make it so there is no reason to cut down forests though.

 

[Afforess]

Instead of Global warming can we have desertification as a result of deforestation? with nothing to hold the top soil in, it washes down stream making worthless land!

Ahh, now that makes sense. That would make it so there is no reason to cut down forests though.

I think you are on to something... What if you clear cut forests without putting anything on it, then desertification would occur. (That way clearing land for farms don't create a dustbowl. Farms often plan their own trees to stop erosion.)

 

[civ_king]

cool, I came up with a argument free concept in a partisan thread

 

[mail2345]

IIRC, there was an analysis of the ClimateGate emails that showed that while the data was correct, they were hiding it from the skeptics. Still bad science, but it doesn't invalidate AGCC.

Though I like the idea of deforestation induced desertification.

 

[Supercheese]

... AGCC...

That means "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change", right? I hope I'm not confused on the acronyms...

 

[twjr]

I think that in the time frame of the game there has been measurable climate change given that the game lasts nearly 10,000 years now. According to the EPICA ice core the earth was a couple of degrees warmer around 10,000-5,000 years ago. I think that even in the last few thousand years the Middle-East has become significantly more desertified than when human settlements originally formed there.

Not too sure how you would incorporate it into the game well and I certainly wouldn't play with it on as I would get very pissy if my nice lush grasslands became deserts. I do like the idea of deforestation leading to desertification though as you can control that by not removing vegetation. Not sure how the AI would cope though.

On the topic of anthropogenic climate change: I would consider myself to be a climate scientist of sorts although my main area of research was in air pollution not climate change. I think that what mail2345 said is probably closest to the "truth" regarding climategate. From what I have read/seen in the media (I trust them much less than the scientists) the data wasn't manufactured and that they were basically just being pricks to the sceptics because that is what the sceptics had been doing to them. I don't think it invalidates their science so much as it just makes them look like bad people.

I think it is likely that we are effecting the atmosphere. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are pumping more of it into the atmosphere than is being removed. There will be an environmental response to this increasing greenhouse gas. What we are as of yet unable to do is accurately quantify what this effect may be. When we get more powerful computers we will be able to run the climate models with far more accurate parameters. There is enough evidence now that the question is not "Are we changing it?" but "How significant is the change?". Change does not have to be large, nor does it have to be negative. I would certainly rather a warmer than cooler climate.

Unfortunately many governments have seen this particular issue as a very good way to make some money and that has degraded the image of the science in the public view. As soon as climate change became political the science was no longer relevant. I think that is dangerous and short sighted as the science was not robust enough to be making such sweeping political decisions. I don't think that we should stop investigating climate science just we need to remove this political element.

Also Afforess climate change can actually occur on short time scales. Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events create climate change on decadal scales. Sure they may not be as rapid or extreme as the day after tomorrow but the idea is similar. But I also understand you climate/=weather frustration. It is quite a hard thing for a lot of people to grasp despite being quite an easy idea.

Anyway that's the end of my little rant. In summary: I think that there is climate change, though we are not able to quantify the change accurately yet and more research is needed. However, there is too much politics involved and the process is arse around with politics defining the science

 

[NBAfan]

I think it is likely that we are effecting the atmosphere. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are pumping more of it into the atmosphere than is being removed. There will be an environmental response to this increasing greenhouse gas. What we are as of yet unable to do is accurately quantify what this effect may be. When we get more powerful computers we will be able to run the climate models with far more accurate parameters. There is enough evidence now that the question is not "Are we changing it?" but "How significant is the change?". Change does not have to be large, nor does it have to be negative. I would certainly rather a warmer than cooler climate.

Nature produces a lot more CO2 then all of mankind can.

 

[Afforess]

I would certainly rather a warmer than cooler climate.

Agreed.

Also Afforess climate change can actually occur on short time scales. Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events create climate change on decadal scales. Sure they may not be as rapid or extreme as the day after tomorrow but the idea is similar. But I also understand your climate/=weather frustration. It is quite a hard thing for a lot of people to grasp despite being quite an easy idea.

Oh, I know. If a meteor the size of Texas smashed into the Earth, I suspect it would change our climate in a few short years, drastically.

Climate change is an impossible topic to discuss due to it's highly political nature, and the vast amount of misinformation on both side. Skeptics disagree on what they are skeptical about, and believers can't settle on a solution.

A larger problem is this:
If Climate change is real, then there is nothing we can actually do about it. Even if America reduced it's carbon footprint to pre-1900 levels, China and India would fill the void, while we ruined our economy. We can't put the industrial genie back into the proverbial bottle. We have tasted consumerism and we will never being going back. Talk about reducing CO2 is just that, talk. We will, (like so many other times in history) simply adapt, and respond to the changes as they come.

After all, it's not like there wouldn't be a lot of good things with a warmer climate. We could resettle those in flooded areas in Greenland; it will be a new, largely uninhabited mini-continent. There will finally be a Northwest passage, spurring ocean trade. I seriously doubt a warmer Earth would be as bad as much of the media paints it to be. Our planet is incredibly robust, with tons of negative feedbacks built in, slowing the effects of any changes.

Enough idle speculation though; as I still doubt AGW. It's incredibly easy to get models and data to support what ever you want. Just mess with the error margins, tweak the sampling size, or do other statistical shenanigans. Scientists shouldn't have to hide information from me to prove their theory. If it's true, simply give us all the facts, and it should be plain.

 

[soup567]

I would certainly rather a warmer than cooler climate.

But, think about the polar bears!!! They're all going to go extinct. And plus rising sea levels are terrible for places like the Netherlands and Manhattan.

 

[Afforess]

But, think about the polar bears!!!

Polar bears can swim up to 60 miles a day; I suspect they will adapt just fine.

And plus rising sea levels are terrible for places like the Netherlands and Manhattan.

Sounds like construction companies specializing in large flood barriers are worth investing in.

 

[soup567]

Sounds like construction companies specializing in large flood barriers are worth investing in.

But in many areas they would have to build them miles and miles across, that would costs hundreds of millions of dollars and take years.

 

[Afforess]

But in many areas they would have to build them miles and miles across, that would costs hundreds of millions of dollars and take years.

Compared to the alternative, that sounds like a steal. Heck, healthcare will cost more money and be less useful than that.

 

[civ_king]

1) I think that in the time frame of the game there has been measurable climate change given that the game lasts nearly 10,000 years now. According to the EPICA ice core the earth was a couple of degrees warmer around 10,000-5,000 years ago. I think that even in the last few thousand years the Middle-East has become significantly more desertified than when human settlements originally formed there.

2) Not too sure how you would incorporate it into the game well and I certainly wouldn't play with it on as I would get very pissy if my nice lush grasslands became deserts. I do like the idea of deforestation leading to desertification though as you can control that by not removing vegetation. Not sure how the AI would cope though.

3) On the topic of anthropogenic climate change: I would consider myself to be a climate scientist of sorts although my main area of research was in air pollution not climate change. I think that what mail2345 said is probably closest to the "truth" regarding climategate. From what I have read/seen in the media (I trust them much less than the scientists) the data wasn't manufactured and that they were basically just being pricks to the sceptics because that is what the sceptics had been doing to them. I don't think it invalidates their science so much as it just makes them look like bad people.

4) I think it is likely that we are effecting the atmosphere. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are pumping more of it into the atmosphere than is being removed. There will be an environmental response to this increasing greenhouse gas. What we are as of yet unable to do is accurately quantify what this effect may be. When we get more powerful computers we will be able to run the climate models with far more accurate parameters. There is enough evidence now that the question is not "Are we changing it?" but "How significant is the change?". Change does not have to be large, nor does it have to be negative. I would certainly rather a warmer than cooler climate.

Unfortunately many governments have seen this particular issue as a very good way to make some money and that has degraded the image of the science in the public view. As soon as climate change became political the science was no longer relevant. I think that is dangerous and short sighted as the science was not robust enough to be making such sweeping political decisions. I don't think that we should stop investigating climate science just we need to remove this political element.

Also Afforess climate change can actually occur on short time scales. Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events create climate change on decadal scales. Sure they may not be as rapid or extreme as the day after tomorrow but the idea is similar. But I also understand you climate/=weather frustration. It is quite a hard thing for a lot of people to grasp despite being quite an easy idea.

Anyway that's the end of my little rant. In summary: I think that there is climate change, though we are not able to quantify the change accurately yet and more research is needed. However, there is too much politics involved and the process is arse around with politics defining the science

1) Yes the Middle East is VASTLY drier than it used to be, blame the massive cutting down of trees, with nothing to hold the topsoil down it washed down stream...
2) Grasslands wouldn't really be affected because the grass (imagine that) holds the topsoil down
3) IIRC the scientists said they were stalling was because they spent so much time doing FIA, and not enough time actually doing science, over about a decade they got really pissed off
4) yes a warmer climate is better than a cool one... the climate changes somewhat slow to a human so it doesn't seem like it matters

Nature produces a lot more CO2 then all of mankind can.

Correct! BUT
Assume nature is balanced scales with 770 pounds on each side right? now add 32.3 pounds to one side, it will start to tilt, 32 pounds isn't much but any unbalancing causes effects

Agreed.



Oh, I know. If a meteor the size of Texas smashed into the Earth, I suspect it would change our climate in a few short years, drastically.

Climate change is an impossible topic to discuss due to it's highly political nature, and the vast amount of misinformation on both side. Skeptics disagree on what they are skeptical about, and believers can't settle on a solution.

A larger problem is this:
If Climate change is real, then there is nothing we can actually do about it. Even if America reduced it's carbon footprint to pre-1900 levels, China and India would fill the void, while we ruined our economy. We can't put the industrial genie back into the proverbial bottle. We have tasted consumerism and we will never being going back. Talk about reducing CO2 is just that, talk. We will, (like so many other times in history) simply adapt, and respond to the changes as they come.

After all, it's not like there wouldn't be a lot of good things with a warmer climate. We could resettle those in flooded areas in Greenland; it will be a new, largely uninhabited mini-continent. There will finally be a Northwest passage, spurring ocean trade. I seriously doubt a warmer Earth would be as bad as much of the media paints it to be. Our planet is incredibly robust, with tons of negative feedbacks built in, slowing the effects of any changes.

Enough idle speculation though; as I still doubt AGW. It's incredibly easy to get models and data to support what ever you want. Just mess with the error margins, tweak the sampling size, or do other statistical shenanigans. Scientists shouldn't have to hide information from me to prove their theory. If it's true, simply give us all the facts, and it should be plain.

If an asteroid the size of Texas smashed into Earth we would be in big trouble, first it would cause massive shockwaves and heat from entry, then when it hit the planet and kick up a massive dust cloud cause massive plant deaths, in other words, we would be ed!

Polar bears can swim up to 60 miles a day; I suspect they will adapt just fine.



Sounds like construction companies specializing in large flood barriers are worth investing in.

The northwest passage is open in the Summer these years
Well, the amounts of polar bears drowning has been increasing over time

 

[twjr]

Compared to the alternative, that sounds like a steal. Heck, healthcare will cost more money and be less useful than that.

I'm sorry but the rest of the world gets along just just fine with socialised healthcare. I guess most Americans just see socialised=communism you know like weather=climate

Also all of the models predicting ice mass that have included the southern hemisphere actually predict an increase in ice mass. What warmer climate means more ice you say? Basically Antarctica currently gets very low levels of snowfall as cold air can't hold much moisture. So long as the warming does not go above 0 degrees on average Antarctica will experience greater snowfall. Of course due to the rather Northern Hemisphere centric way of this world only a fraction of the studies done look at the Southern Hemisphere ice mass.

Yes polar bears might be ed, they need the sea ice to feed, but it may not be all bad. So long as Antarctica stays isolated we are safe for a while.

NBAFan sure nature might produce more but it also absorbs much more too. Besides the increasing trend towards obesity what other carbon sequestration do humans due?

 

[Randomness]

I am not saying that climate change, ect. exists or does not. However, I find that as a spicies, we do all we can to prevent change to the world we live in. An animal is going extinct, we try to save it. Never mind that one of the main devices of evolution is survival of the fittest. The climate changes, we try to fix it. I presonally believe that the climate is changing, but I find this interesting.

 

[civ_king]

I am not saying that climate change, ect. exists or does not. However, I find that as a spicies, we do all we can to prevent change to the world we live in. An animal is going extinct, we try to save it. Never mind that one of the main devices of evolution is survival of the fittest. The climate changes, we try to fix it. I presonally believe that the climate is changing, but I find this interesting.

survival of the fit enough!

I approach it from a religious perspective, say your dad gives you a nice car right? he will tolerate wear and tear but imagine how happy he will be if you wreck the car