Global Warming?

[srhea]

Hey guys,

Has anyone noticed that global warming in the late game seems VERY pronounced? I am getting one square affected almost every turn and I pushed through global environmentalism and have all my cities with the full health-oriented buildings. Anyone know of a good way to slow this down that I might try? I know it's affecting all the other civs equally, but it's really annoying to have your productivity go to pot because you can't get the terrain changes under control!

 

[Aramda Master]

Build Mass transit systems in all your cities to get rid of the polution.

 

[JohnMK]

I don't believe mass transit exists in Civ IV. You can however build recycling centers.

 

[John L]

Why does ALL the Global Warming have to be bad? In truth, climate scientists state that the net effect will be a gain, not loss.

If they changed some for the worse and some for the better, that would be more interesting, in my opinion.

BTY, is there any way to shut it off, as you can do in Civ III within the editor section?

 

[karadoc]

Why does ALL the Global Warming have to be bad? In truth, climate scientists state that the net effect will be a gain, not loss.

If they changed some for the worse and some for the better, that would be more interesting, in my opinion.

BTY, is there any way to shut it off, as you can do in Civ III within the editor section?

Didn't you get shot down for saying something like this in a previous thread?

 

[JakeCourtney]

Global Warming will not be good at all... You have got to be kidding me. A gain? Haha. This is exactly why we have global warming in the first place. People like you overpopulate the earth with non-truthful information.

 

[DeadZoneMDx]

The only gain I see is it wiping out dumb people, and will proberly mean a restart of human civilization
Watch Day after tomorrow, imagine 100 times worst, and you are proberly borderline to what might happen

Interesting note of fact, we are "technically" in a geological ice-age, in fact Earth is usually at an average temperture around 3 times than what it is now

The climate of the planet was going to change regardless, its just human civilization f*****d up the process a fair bit

 

[DaLagga]

I too made a post about how dumb global warming is in the game. And polution has nothing to do with it in civ4. Basically its the nuclear meltdowns (which mean you should NEVER EVER build a nuclear powerplant) and launching nukes (duh). Now as far as the global warming debate goes...its a fact that the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling phases. And nobody has proven that people are causing it. Furthermore, a little global warming might actually be good, as was already suggested. There would be some immediate damage, but it is likely the planet would adapt for the better. And please, if you wish to argue against such points, provide an arguement at least. Don't act like little tree hugging hippies by spouting off a bunch of crap about mother earth and "her" needs...and how evil man is for destorying her Anyway, my point is global warming should be removed from the game because it is neither realistic (sorry, believe in it or not, but there is no place that has become a freaking desert because of the .5 degree increase in temp over the past century), plus it take away from the game as it's just annoying and game wrecking. Although there should be another penalty system in place to prevent mass nukings

 

[Frewfrux]

If there is global warming, why not nucular winters?

 

[Frewfrux]

And please, if you wish to argue against such points, provide an arguement at least.

Ok, lets start with your post.

Now as far as the global warming debate goes...its a fact that the earth naturally goes through warming and cooling phases.

Simply stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Show me the data. (In fact, I actually am interested to learn about this as this is the first time I have ever heard this opinion...is there a web site you know of that has any info?)

And nobody has proven that people are causing it.

Uh, isn't this the generally accepted view? (I've never heard any other till now) Doesn't it then fall to proponants of the "new" view to prove their point? (as oposed to the other way arround)

Furthermore, a little global warming might actually be good, as was already suggested.

How?

My arguments? Ok, from what little I know, which is really very little so please feel free to say that I am way off base, wasn't there a measurable increase in Ozone (ie a decrease in the "hole") while all the planes in North America were grounded during 9/11? I forget where I heard that, so I could be way off base.

Anyway, not having thought about it much that's about all I can think of off the top of my head...I would like to know where both sides get their information from, though, so please post inteligent (no name calling) responses with data and the data's sources.

plus it take away from the game as it's just annoying and game wrecking. Although there should be another penalty system in place to prevent mass nukings

The penalty could be nucular winter...could it not?

 

[Taler]

Sorry Frewfrux, but you are very wrong.

Global Warming because of humans is unproven, the USA still has yet to admit that it exists.

Earth is normally much warmer as said before, we are way overdue for warming.

But then again we are overdue for a magnetic field shift, and there's an asteriod with 1 in 5500 chance of hitting earth in 30 years.

/me shruggs.

 

[Frewfrux]

Global Warming because of humans is unproven, the USA still has yet to admit that it exists.

I can accept that it might be unproven. But the fact that the US hasn't acknoledged it isn't proof of it not being proven. (I can think of several things that were proven before they were acknoledged by governments or the general populace...in fact, that's the general order of how these things go. They are proven first, acepted later.) Does anyone know of any real evidence one way or the other?!?

Earth is normally much warmer as said before, we are way overdue for warming.

*sigh* Again I say...show me the evidence...please. I would like to make an informed desicion.

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

Simply stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Show me the data. (In fact, I actually am interested to learn about this as this is the first time I have ever heard this opinion...is there a web site you know of that has any info?)

The Ice Age is sufficient proof. Also, in Roman times there were vinyards in Wales and Yorkshire. At some points the Thames froze over so thickly that they held festivals on the ice. Edit: Some charts here.

Uh, isn't this the generally accepted view? (I've never heard any other till now) Doesn't it then fall to proponants of the "new" view to prove their point? (as oposed to the other way arround)

Generally accepted sadly does usually mean 'truth'. Of course there is remarkably little proof that global warming has anything at all to do with Humans, but as ever the Ivory Towers must condemn Humanity and all our glory.

How?

A small amount of global warming would lead to a larger amount of the Earth being useful for our current agricultural uses.

My arguments? Ok, from what little I know, which is really very little so please feel free to say that I am way off base, wasn't there a measurable increase in Ozone (ie a decrease in the "hole") while all the planes in North America were grounded during 9/11? I forget where I heard that, so I could be way off base.

Not quite correct. It wasn't to do with the Ozone, but there has been a claim made that during the two days following 9/11 the areas with no flights (IE North America) were measurably warmer. I have not done much research into the claim, so I'm not going to pass judgement one way or another (Except to say that if this is true, we apparently need more pollution to keep the temperate down.).

The penalty could be nucular winter...could it not?

Only from a nuclear war, massive volcanic eruption, or asteroid impact, which would all have the same effects. And in fact it would take a lot more nukes than is commonly believed to create a nuclear winter.

 

[mabellino]

I suggest you read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Almost Everything" and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" (I think that's what it's called)
Aside from the fact that both are in no way heavy weight science texts, they do provide an alternative view on global warming etc. Both books have extensive bibliographies with some well accepted papers.
One thing I found very interesting in the start of an ice-age, was that the amount of snow doesn't matter, it is just how long the snow persists. E.g. a cooler than normal summer means that snow/ice will persist for longer and so reflect more sunlight, leading to a dramatic cooling of the global temperature.
Global warming is therefore beneficial to prevent this from happening.

Conversley, global warming leading to a melting of the polar ice caps may reduce the salinity of the oceans and therefore shut down the currents circulating the globe (like the Gulf Stream that keeps much of western Europe warm) causing most of Northern America and Europe to plummet in temperature.

Climate is a very complicated thing

Back on topic.... I like to consider the game version of global warming as been more of a "mankind's negative effects on the Earth" thing with deforestation, pollution etc being represented by terrain changes.

 

[Abegweit]

@Freflux.

1. Of course, the Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates. Ever hear of an ice age? It was colder 15 thousand years ago. It's also been warmer too; during the time of the dinosaurs the earth was tropical almost to the poles.

2. The theory of man-made climate change is far from mainstream. In a 1997 poll of North American climatologists, 83% disagreed with this. Over 20,000 scientists have signed a petition from the University of Oregon disagreeing with this proposition.

3. It is up to someone who proposes a theory to back it up. This is equally true whether mainstream or not. The CO2 theory of global warming has so many holes in it that its hard to know even where to start taking it apart. Here's is one simple question: which gas is responsible for 98% of the Greenhouse Effect? Hint: it isn't carbon dioxide and it isn't methane.

4. The Ozone hole has nothing to do with either global warming or airplanes. The postulated cause is CFCs, which is why they were banned in 1991. The real cause, of course, is natural - in this case the sunshot cycle.

5. Nuclear winter is indeed something which could happen, although I have serious doubts that our puny weapons could cause it. Mt. Pinatubo was an explosion equivalent to 5000 Hiroshimas (and the direction of the blast was up into the atmosphere not down). Even so, it caused a minor (but measurable) effect.

 

[mabellino]

4. The Ozone hole has nothing to do with either global warming or airplanes. The postulated cause is CFCs, which is why they were banned in 1991. The real cause, of course, is natural - in this case the sunshot cycle.

Civ Fanatics Centre??? Call the lawyers!

 

[Frewfrux]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

The Ice Age is sufficient proof. Also, in Roman times there were vinyards in Wales and Yorkshire. At some points the Thames froze over so thickly that they held festivals on the ice. Edit: Some charts here.

First, the ice age can't really be proof either way because it could have easily been a phenomenon unique to a period of Earths development. In fact, this was how it was taught to me when in high school. Doesn't make it true, granted, but it does show another, plawsable (sp?) explanation for it.

I will look up the vinyards thing and see if this is considered evidence one way or another by the scientific community.

I looked at that web site (thank you!!!) briefly and saw that it refered to different periods of teamprature in Earths history (it looks like the temp is higher now then ever...but I've only just scanned it). It specifically states, however, that these periods are not know to be either local or global...this is still in debate.

A small amount of global warming would lead to a larger amount of the Earth being useful for our current agricultural uses.

This is assuming that the warming can be stopped. That a rather huge, massive, major assumption!

Not quite correct. It wasn't to do with the Ozone, but there has been a claim made that during the two days following 9/11 the areas with no flights (IE North America) were measurably warmer. I have not done much research into the claim, so I'm not going to pass judgement one way or another (Except to say that if this is true, we apparently need more pollution to keep the temperate down.).

I think we are both in the same boat here. Neither of us has done much research but both seem to have heard what suited their own opinions...huh...I am definately going to do more research on this.

From the evidence that you have provided me it seems that neither opinion is going to be provable. (If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to follow the "worst case senario"...just in case? )

 

[Abegweit]

A small amount of global warming would lead to a larger amount of the Earth being useful for our current agricultural uses.

True. Furthermore, a warmer world is a wetter world. Hot air can carry more moisture than cold air. This also is better for agriculture. During the Neolithic, when the global temperature was about 2deg warmer than today, there were lakes in the Sahara.

Higher CO2 levels also help plant growth. Experiments in greenhouses indicate that the optimal level is about 1000 PPM. This compares with current levels of 450PPM and 300PM two hundred years ago. Note that this effect is independent from the question of whether there is a relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature.

 

[Frewfrux]

Of course, the Earth's temperature naturally fluctuates. Ever hear of an ice age? It was colder 15 thousand years ago. It's also been warmer too; during the time of the dinosaurs the earth was tropical almost to the poles.

But isn't the theory that Earth was warm, hit by meteorite, this disaster caused global climet change, this caused the ice age. If that's the case, then the ice age is not, in any way, evidence of a *natural* tempature cycle.

The theory of man-made climate change is far from mainstream. In a 1997 poll of North American climatologists, 83% disagreed with this. Over 20,000 scientists have signed a petition from the University of Oregon disagreeing with this proposition.

Again people...show me the data...These are great stats, where did you get them from? If you don't have a source, don't say anything because you mine as well have made it up in your head. Do you have a source?

It is up to someone who proposes a theory to back it up. This is equally true whether mainstream or not. The CO2 theory of global warming has so many holes in it that its hard to know even where to start taking it apart. Here's is one simple question: which gas is responsible for 98% of the Greenhouse Effect? Hint: it isn't carbon dioxide and it isn't methane.

I don't know. But I do know that it isn't methane...that whole "cows farting is causing holes in the ozone" thing was just ridiculous! But please, feel free to give me the answers...oh wait, that's in your next point, isn't it?

The Ozone hole has nothing to do with either global warming or airplanes. The postulated cause is CFCs, which is why they were banned in 1991. The real cause, of course, is natural - in this case the sunshot cycle.

Ok, where's your source saying it's CFC's? Actually, never mind, I'll look it up myself. (It's not that I doubt you, I just want to be informed.)

 

[Frewfrux]

The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly contested political and public debate exists over what actions, if any, should be taken in light of global warming.

Interesting.

Edit: Web site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming