global warming on huge world

[sumthinelse]

This subject came up on some time ago, and now I can't find the thread. I claimed that the slow tech rate and lack of early trading on a huge world ause global warming because you get population increases with slower tech advances. I think I was wrong about that, since the extra population, which causes global warming, also causes more science (thru commerce produced) indirectly.

I think the real problem in CIV3, with respect to global warming on a huge world, is that the extra population caused by the number of optimal cities per civ, twice the number on a standard world, causes global warming too early. I believe that CIV3 should make global warming affected not ONLY by total population over 12 on cities, but should take into consideration the world size. That is, it should take more pollution to cause global warming on a huge world than a standard world!

My solution is not realistic, but it seems to re-balance the game on a huge world. I edit the .bic file to make mass transit available with industrialization and make the cost of mass transit 1. I think that makes the game more enjoyable.

Do the AI civs take the cost of a city improvement into account when they decide what to build?

 

[Rain]

I play primarily huge maps and global warming never seems to be a significant issue in my games.

 

[Rain]

I play primarily huge maps and global warming never seems to be a significant issue in my games.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Sumthinelse I agree with your current analysis in that the effects of pullution should scale with the size of the map. Since even though the time between hospitals and mass transit on a huge map will be the same as the time on a standard map, there will be double the amount of pollution during that period (with double the amount of cities).

 

[Bamspeedy]

I've only seen 3 stages of global warming. When the sun is yellow, orange, and red. No matter how many factories and hospitals there are it stays at yellow. Just 1 factory and the sun turns to yellow it seems. Only after 1 nuke has been fired does it turn to orange, and several nukes to red. This was on huge maps.

 

[chaucer]

Why is there global warming in the game anyway? There is ample evidence that there is no GW. That any "warming" we see is the result of the earth still coming out of its last ice age. Yes I know that the last one "ended" like 20,000 years ago. Remember that 20,000 years is a fart to geological time. Some of you might site the ice shelf that just broke up in Antarctica. Well a little news for you. On the other side of Antarctica on the Ross Ice Shelf. IT GREW! It is now bigger then it has ever been, and it keeps growing! On top of that twenty to thirty years ago everyone thought that we were going to trigger the next ice age. Huh?
Look, I like the idea of pollution it gives realism to the game, and it make you pay a price for high output cities. Heck, there are abandoned towns in America that no one can live in due to pollution, so it can affect us. I ask you this though - when was the last time you saw an area of grassland in the world turn into a plain? or plain to desert?

I don't know if they can do it now but I think that they should take global warming out of the game, or at least allow us to do it in the editor. In addition to this the use of too many nukes should trigger a nuclear winter and not global warming.

Just my two cents

 

[Rain]

If you want to see grassland turn to desert there are lots of examples. Sahara is growing for example. Not to say this has anything to do with global warming.

 

[chaucer]

Originally posted by Rain
If you want to see grassland turn to desert there are lots of examples. Sahara is growing for example. Not to say this has anything to do with global warming.

Actually, that event has everything to do with global warming, but it took place several millennia ago when the earth started to come out of its last ice age. Something that many geologists believe we are still coming out of. What I want examples of are grasslands changing to deserts in our lifetime. If anyhing the case can be made for the reverse with desert farming and the advances in agriculture. Go east or west of Phoenix AZ and you see miles and miles of farms that outproduce many of the farms in the American plains.

 

[Zachriel]

Desertification is not in scientific dispute and has had direct and continuing effects on human society.
http://www.unccd.int/main.php

The earth's atmosphere has definitely been changed by industrial activity, and the earth's temperature is definitely rising, the linkage is considered very strong, however the link has not been conclusively demonstrated.

Data on a wide variety of environmental indicators are consistent with the consequences that scientists generally expect to result from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

In any case, it is good ecological practice and good manners to clean up any mess you make.

 

[planetfall]

This is not really the place to post URL's of arguments pro and con the hypothesis of global warming. In a nutshell, the idea is human activity may be warming the globe. However scientists are faced with 2 major problems: 1) lack of climatic data for even one century, and 2) no playback button to review world history. Search the web and you will find many interesting pro and con arguments. For now, evidence is intriguing but does not yet meet all scientific criteria. Hopefully global normality is not an ice age.

Unfortunately civ3 does not have the option to turn off global warming. It is interesting to have as a scenario but would be better if we could use the editor to adjust degree of global warming. The only current work around is to use the editor and deselect population pollution. It doesn't eliminate GW, but with no coal plant building, GW is not hardly noticeable.

Maybe some day firaxis will allow us a choice list like they give for barbarian activity:
1. no global warming effect,
2. slow global warming effect,
3. average global warming effect,
4. fast global warming effect,
5. maximum global warming effect.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by planetfall
This is not really the place to post URL's of arguments pro and con the hypothesis of global warming.

Why not? Why can't one say that GW in civ3 should conform better to what we think the symptoms, or lack thereof, of GW are. Of course, one might be wrong in his opinion. But if I am not so picky about precise language, let me state what I think you are really saying: there is a danger that we will wander off the subject of CIV3 entirely and sink into the "quagmire" of pollution/GW debates. My opinion: Sid Meier intentionally designed the game to remind us of (and perhaps make us think about and discuss) real issues/glories/horrors of mankind.

Your statement about GW is thoughtful and well written.

The only current work around is to use the editor and deselect population pollution

The only flag like this I can find in the editor is for a specific improvement, as in mass transit. Where did you find a global "pop pollution" flag in the editor?

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by sumthinelse
The only flag like this I can find in the editor is for a specific improvement, as in mass transit. Where did you find a global "pop pollution" flag in the editor?

I can't find a flag to stop population pollution either, but I have found a way to disable global warming.

In the editor, go to the "Terrain" tab in the rules editor page. There is a menu called "Pollution Effect". This tells the game what to change a terrain type to if it is hit by GW. So, for example, the "Pollution Effect" of GW on grassland is to change it to plains. Likewise from plains to desert. All you need to do is set this to "None" for all terrain types.

Oh, and by the way, Chaucer, if you're looking for an environmental Hack-o-rama regarding Global warming, I'll refer you to here. Happy Readings.

 

[planetfall]

I will have to go back and see what improvements have population pollution associated with them. It may be I chose the alternative. Now that I think about it some more, I changed some improvements to reduce pop pollution. {You do indeed always get one from size 12 city, but beyond that no.}
Reduce pop pollution: library, university, cathedral, research lab. {Reasoning, these all enable people to hole up inside and are not bothered by more pollution. In fact, more population allows more events in cathedrals and more options at universities.

But I bet the real cause of pollution is building pollution. Both pop and building pollution have the same symbol. Again don't build coal plants.

Interesting aside on the GW issue, did you see the article Fri/sat? talking about Antartica? Conflicting current data: pro GW theory-- ice shelfs in one area melting and falling away, but
con GW theory-- satellite images showing a 2% increase in land mass for continent.

If you want to turn off GW totally, see the solution in thread "Pollution is killing me"
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=237708#post237708

sumthinelse--Yes, my concern is emotional arguments about the pros and cons of GW will turn people off on the forum and the game. Most of the time the comments I hear about GW are political comments and not scientific comments. A few comments seem ok as it is a modeled event in Civ3, but extending this and using these forums as political grassroots campaigning would not be good. I have not seen this done here, but with the political emotion generated by this issue elsewhere, it does seem to be a reasonal concern.

<b>Firaxis</b>-- besides the option of setting the degree of GW effect, how about <ul>
<li> separating symbols for populatiion pollution and building pollution (different colors or borders would work well)
<li> reviewing the pollution effect
</ul>

Pollution spreads in real life, why not model building pollution to spread in civ? It should be simple to program. If building pollution is not being worked on, then in 2 turns the pollution spreads 1 tile in the direction of the closest water mass. If building pollution is not addressed after 5 turns, pollution spreads 1 tile each turn. If building pollution is not addressed after 10 turns, pollution spreads 2 tiles/turn. Then continue the scale, 20 turns==spread 3 tiles, 30T==4 tile spread.

Hate to bring up the issue, but what about mine pollution? I used to think modern fortresses were mine pollution as the graphic looks more slimey than camoflauge. I would think after 100 years, 1 mine would pollute. This could be counteracted by having the option of building regular mine, or clean mine. Clean mines never pollute. Actually better solution would have another alternative to increasing shields than always building mines. Why do civ3 games always have to look like paved mine fields? Ratio of mines to land area is way too high. Maybe we need different types of mines, where some increase shield production more. Megamine, increases shields by 10 for one tile, but there can only be 2 within the same size 12 city. (one in size 6). Another idea would be allowing building a sports park, would increase shields same as mines, but would not be as ugly.
Wouldn't cities of 1 mine, irrigated fields and parks be more pleasant to view than current cities of 1/2 mines and 1/2 irrigated fields?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by planetfall

Interesting aside on the GW issue, did you see the article Fri/sat? talking about Antartica? Conflicting current data: pro GW theory-- ice shelfs in one area melting and falling away, but
con GW theory-- satellite images showing a 2% increase in land mass for continent.

There is no scientific dispute that the globe has warmed over the last century. There is no dispute that the atmosphere has been changed by human activity. The only question is the linkage, which is considered strong, but not certain.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by planetfall



sumthinelse--Yes, my concern is emotional arguments about the pros and cons of GW will turn people off on the forum and the game. Most of the time the comments I hear about GW are political comments and not scientific comments. A few comments seem ok as it is a modeled event in Civ3, but extending this and using these forums as political grassroots campaigning would not be good. I have not seen this done here, but with the political emotion generated by this issue elsewhere, it does seem to be a reasonal concern.

Another good post from you, planetfall. Thanks for your append.

I think we agree it's a question of degree: some discussion of GW, politics, religion vs. science, capitalism vs. socialism, etc. etc., is a good thing. But I want all such discussions in this forum to relate to civ3 in some way (unfortunately "related" is one of those imprecise words), and I don't want discussions to start using words like "idiot!" to heat up arguments. I have been involved with other games and their forums, and I know that kind of thing is always a danger. Overall, I would say that the CIVility (same Latin root as CIVilization) displayed on this forum is pretty good for a game discussion forum. So far.

I went to a pub in Edinburgh, Scotland, to hear folk music, and indeed, the music was excellent. But for some people there, I, being an American, was the cause of all their troubles, since America is synoymous with "globalization" and "globalization" causes unemployment in Scotland. They all (the anti-"globalization" crowd) seemed to repeat the same mantra: George W. (Global Warming? Have I just made a new joke?) Bush is stupid and he is going to push the button to start World War III). Predictably, my attempts to suggest that there might be two sides to this discussion were ignored, e. g. Republicans and Democrats have the same economic and military policies most of the time.

The single malt whiskey was excellent, though. Especially the one that burned my throat as it went down.

I want to listen to thoughtful arguments and make up my own mind.

 

[hothead2]

funny, i never even noticed global warming of any kind. mabey we can have erosion aswell! it would be funny seeing citys falling off the face of the earth

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by hothead2
funny, i never even noticed global warming of any kind. mabey we can have erosion aswell! it would be funny seeing citys falling off the face of the earth

Hopefully they will have an option in the editor to turn it off.

 

[Zachriel]

Desertification has real effects on real people's lives:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/14/international/asia/14KORE.html

(Just a note: The links in my previous post on this thread concerning desertification and global warming are U.N. and U.S. government scientific websites.)

 

[Tweedledum]

If Global Warming IS real, why am I so f**cking cold?

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Tweedledum
If Global Warming IS real, why am I so f**cking cold?

Global Warming increases the energy in the system, and so the system becomes more chaotic. While the net effect is an increase in temperature overall, local effects will vary. Increasing incidence of storms of all sort is one predicted result of GW.