modifying global warming

[sherrick13]

Can I get rid of the stupid global warming and meltdown stuff? How can I modify those unrealistic factors out of the game?

 

[Almd]

Can I get rid of the stupid global warming and meltdown stuff? How can I modify those unrealistic factors out of the game?

Unrealistic factors?!? Global warming is happening today in our world! I'm almost possitive you cannot take those "unrealistic factors" from the game or modify.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's just mislabeled. It's nuclear fallout, not global warming.

I find the effects themselves realistic as an after-effect of nuclear weapon use: land around the globe turns into uninhabitable wasteland. If you'd like the message changed to a better one this mod can do that for you, with the effects remaining.

I think there's also a flag in an INI file that'll remove the effect entirely if set to 0.

 

[sherrick13]

Yes it is unrealistic. If any warming is happening it is because of natural cycles and it would not have the effects shown. Maybe in tens of thousands of years but not from 0 to 2050 AD.

Besides I just want to know how to modify the game. The politics is for another thread.

 

[brigg313]

To get rid of Global Warming: under Assets\XML\GlobalDefines.xml find GLOBAL_WARMING_PROB and change iDefineIntVal>20<iDefineIntVal to iDefineIntVal>0<iDefineIntVal. This seems to work, I intentionally started a huge nuclear war where I personally exploded over 30 ICBMs with no global warming whatsoever even after over 40 turns.

To get rid of Nuclear Reactor Meltdowns: under Assets\XML\Buildings\CIV4BuildingInfos.xml find BUILDINGCLASS_NUCLEAR_PLANT, several rows down is <iNukeExplosionRand>2000</iNukeExplosionRand>. Change the value to a lower number to reduce the likelihood of a meltdown or to zero to eliminate that threat (every other building is set to 0).

 

[TheBladeRoden]

I just think it's funny that global warming strikes locally.

 

[Wolfwood]

If any warming is happening it is because of natural cycles and it would not have the effects shown.

Hmm.. You don't really watch the news or read scientific journals, do you?

A great majority of scientists agree that global warming is taking place right now. More and more research results speak for this. The ones who do not agree are usually on some big polluter's payroll.

The effects in the game are pretty wrong, though, and better fit nuclear fallout or some other cause...

 

[VandyBob]

For those of you who are old enough to remember the 1960's the "Big Environmental Scare" was GLOBAL COOLING!!! That idea made no sense then, just as "Glooooobal Waaaarming" makes now.

BTW, the majority of scientists do NOT agree that GW is a real man made phenomenon. The overwhelming majority either say it is rubbish or there is no evidence to show that man has any effect on climate change. Only idiots like algore believe in it, just like they believe in the tooth fairy. Remember it is only a political issue put forth by the Gaia worshiping greens. As Joseph Goebbels once said,"If you tell a Big Lie long enough, people will begin to believe it." And so, the Nazis did this and rose to power. Let us hope we are not equally gullible.

 

[sherrick13]

Hmm.. You don't really watch the news or read scientific journals, do you?

A great majority of scientists agree that global warming is taking place right now. More and more research results speak for this. The ones who do not agree are usually on some big polluter's payroll.

The effects in the game are pretty wrong, though, and better fit nuclear fallout or some other cause...

Have YOU been watching the news lately? More and more evidence that Global warming is not happening.

 

[sherrick13]

Unrealistic factors?!? Global warming is happening today in our world! I'm almost possitive you cannot take those "unrealistic factors" from the game or modify.

So, do you still think GW is happening? It's been the coldest year in like 100 years.

 

[phungus420]

For those of you who are old enough to remember the 1960's the "Big Environmental Scare" was GLOBAL COOLING!!! That idea made no sense then, just as "Glooooobal Waaaarming" makes now.

There was no Global Cooling Scare. There was a theory, that was debated, but by no means accepted that postulated cooling could occur due to particulate increases in the atmosphere. Interestingly enough this seems to be true, except it is greatly overcompensated by global warming.

BTW, the majority of scientists do NOT agree that GW is a real man made phenomenon. The overwhelming majority either say it is rubbish or there is no evidence to show that man has any effect on climate change. Only idiots like algore believe in it, just like they believe in the tooth fairy. Remember it is only a political issue put forth by the Gaia worshiping greens. As Joseph Goebbels once said,"If you tell a Big Lie long enough, people will begin to believe it." And so, the Nazis did this and rose to power. Let us hope we are not equally gullible.

You're full of it. First off, there is no peer reviewed research that can show a lack of correlation between MGT and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The Scientific community is overwhelmingly in agreement Global Warming is real. Those that claim to dispute it have put no evidence on the table to justify their dismissal.

Further, Just to take it to the extreme in a real world example witness Venus and Mercury. Venus is much, much hotter then Mercury. Can you explain why this is (hint it has to do with Carbon Dioxide Levels in the atmosphere). Also take a glass bottle and put it in the sun, do the same with a second bottle but fill it with CO2. Record the temperature of the two bottles.

The fact Carbon Dioxide retains heat at a higher rate then Oxygen and Nitrogen is simply a fact of chemistry. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that increasing the ammount of a greenhouse gas will result in more energy being retained in the atmosphere, it's just simple rudimentary chemistry and common sense.

 

[phungus420]

So, do you still think GW is happening? It's been the coldest year in like 100 years.

Regionally in the US yes, globally this is patently false, though we have had an average year in terms of temperature.

Are you familiur at all with statistics? It's just a fact of the universe there should be fluctuations. But we see important trends none the less, like the last 9 years have had the hottest 8 in the past Century.

 

[frekk]

For those of you who are old enough to remember the 1960's the "Big Environmental Scare" was GLOBAL COOLING!!! That idea made no sense then, just as "Glooooobal Waaaarming" makes now.

Rubbish.

I am old enough to remember and there were two main environmental catchphrases back then: "acid rain" and "greenhouse effect" (ie global warming). I don't remember anyone saying anything about "global cooling" but I have noticed that the idea everyone was concerned about it back then crops up all the time in climate denial propaganda. It's a myth. Nobody even heard of it.

BTW, the majority of scientists do NOT agree that GW is a real man made phenomenon.

That's what things like the Oregon Petition are meant to make you think. Thousands of signatures from "scientists" who say there isn't any global warming ... scientists like Spongebob Squarepants, Donald Duck, and Bart Simpson. You can see the list for yourself and they're on there. An investigation into the signers revealed, in one sample, no scientists at all but several bus drivers, a weather anchorman, the owner of a bar, etc etc ....

It's a fraud. Most of this stuff is put out by guys who used to do PR for the tobacco companies back in the 70s and 80s when they were fighting against anti-tobacco legislation. They got "scientists" back then to say smoking doesn't cause cancer etc ... then they were unemployed ... now they have new jobs working for other types of companies.

 

[sherrick13]

Regionally in the US yes, globally this is patently false, though we have had an average year in terms of temperature.

Are you familiur at all with statistics? It's just a fact of the universe there should be fluctuations. But we see important trends none the less, like the last 9 years have had the hottest 8 in the past Century.

Yes, in fact if you look at the ice records we are at the top of a heat wave and are due for an ice age.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m248/Thunder-Pig/Thunder Pig 480%

 

[Tssha]

"Global Warming" is a misnomer. The proper term is "Climate Change".

It's a shame Global Warming is such a popular term (I catch myself using it from time to time). There would be less confusion if it wasn't.

Speaking of, anyone want to make a mod renaming Global Warming in game to Climate Change? Or better yet, let's petition Firaxis to do so in Civ 5. They certainly aren't making another patch for Civ 4.

Then again, I could probably knock such a mod together in five minutes. Only, no one would bother to use it...

 

[Elkad]

But we see important trends none the less, like the last 9 years have had the hottest 8 in the past Century.

Data error, which has since been corrected, but people still keep throwing that line around. Link (call that site slanted if you want, but you can trace the links back directly to NASA, where the data is the same)

Want more points to look up?

CO2 increases happen AFTER the warming trends, not before.

Ice in the Antarctic is growing faster than the Arctic is shrinking.

Judging by the icecaps (actually co2 caps), Mars has been warming over the last couple hundred years, pointing to temp increases being from the sun.

Historical records from 1000 years ago point to the Earth being MUCH warmer. For example, greenland was a colony with cropland, not an icy fishing village.

Plus, If you look into it, there is mountains of data pointing out that Global Warming is nowhere near the catastrophe the greens want you to think it is. Even if it happens, the effects will be minimal. A bit of extra desert near the equator is more than offset by the longer growing seasons and warmer climate in the rest of the world. More CO2 makes crops grow faster

For Civ4, I could handle the global warming if it had some good effects too. Where is my tundra turning into grassland? Why doesn't pack ice melt? Maybe my coastal desert should go underwater and turn into a rich fishing ground?

 

[mechaerik]

While I do believe in climate change, i must agree that in-game, the effects are completely unrealistic. Especially the way nukes cause it.

 

[Onionsoilder]

More CO2 makes crops grow faster

Where did you get this silly idea from? Adding CO₂ won't make crops grow faster. Plants only absorb as much CO₂ from their environment as they need to grow; adding more won't change anything.

 

[Tssha]

We've extracted core samples of Greenland ice containing atmospheric samples buried under layers of falling snow. These samples cover a period of millions of years.

In those samples CO2 levels have never been as high as they are now. CO2 levels cycle, yes, but they've never gone as high as they are presently.

Besides, you're still using that phrase Global Warming, which is inaccurate. This Climate Change is being caused by an average rise in global temperatures. If certain areas are experiencing lower temperatures than normal, that's not proof against it. In fact, climatological instability is the very definition of climate change. Regional differences in temperature are a natural result of climatological instability.

Not to mention the fact that even the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and every other meteorological government agency says on their own websites that climate change is real. These agencies rely on peer reviewed research to direct their policies. Peer review is the pinnacle of good practise in the sciences, and while it's not perfect, it tends to weed out the studies that are performed with bias or that have flawed methodologies.

If the NOAA and other global meteorological organizations say that climate change is real, then I'd say there's something to it.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=2A953C90-1

http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/2A953C90-CC12-42B2-BD0A-B51FECC2AEC3/FAQ_e.pdf

Here, educate yourself. I recommend the PDF, it's a series of answers to some of the questions you pose yourself in this very thread. And I seriously hope this is the end to this discussion.

I can't make you read the FAQ. Whether you read it or not is entirely up to you.

 

[Elkad]

Where did you get this silly idea from? Adding CO₂ won't make crops grow faster. Plants only absorb as much CO₂ from their environment as they need to grow; adding more won't change anything.

The current CO2 levels are under 400ppm (360-390 depending where you are). Almost all plants increase productivity until over 1000ppm. Rice until something like 2000ppm. Some unicellular algae species peak at over 50,000ppm.

Spoiler :

From Policy Review, Fall 1992.

-----------

Bruce Kimball, a research leader of the Water Conservation Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Phoenix, Arizona, has pulled together nearly 800 scientific observations from around the world measuring the response of food and flower crops to elevated CO2 concentrations. The mean (average) response to a doubling of the CO2 concentration from its current level of 360 ppm is a 32 percent improvement in plant productivity, with varied manifestations in different species.

Greenhouse-grown vegetables, including tomatoes, cucumbers, and lettuce, show earlier maturity, larger fruit size, greater numbers of fruit, a reduction in cropping time, and yield increases ranging from 10 to 70 percent, averaging 20 to 50 percent.

Greenhouse-grown flower crops, including roses, carnations, and chrysanthemums, grow to earlier maturity, and have longer stems and larger, longer-lived, more colorful flowers. Yield increases range from 9 to 15 percent, with a mean of 12 percent.

Flowers and ornamental plants propagated by cuttings, such as geraniums and a number of herbaceous and woody species, show faster and more extensive rooting, with greater plant heights and dry weight. There are also significant reductions in the time needed to grow a marketable product.

Cereal grains with C3 metabolism, including rice, wheat, barley, oats, and rye, show yield increases ranging from 25 to 64 percent, resulting from a rise in carbon fixation and reduction in photo-respiration. Flag leaves, the ones closest to grain panicles or heads, show a 60 percent increase in photosynthetic rates.

Food crops with C4 metabolism, including corn, sorghum, millet, and sugarcane, show yield increases ranging from 10 to 55 percent, resulting primarily from superior efficiency in water use.

Tuber and root crops, including potatoes and sweet potatoes, show dramatic increase in tuberization (potatoes) and growth of roots (sweet potatoes). Yield increases range from 18 to 75 percent.

Legumes, including peas, beans, and soybeans, show yield increases of 28 to 46 percent. For soybeans, frequently planted not only for their food value but because they naturally fertilize the soil, there is a spectacular increase in biological nitrogen fixation, as will be shown below.

A classic study by Ralph Hardy and U. D. Havelka, published in Science in 1975, showed that a tripling of atmospheric CO2 results in a six-fold increase in biological nitrogen fixation--from 75 to 425 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare--by rhizobial bacteria in nodules attached to the roots of soybeans.

50% more food from our existing cropland sounds useful to me, even if the new deserts outstrip the new farmable tundra slightly.

Edit, and as this has wandered seriously off-topic for a game forum, I'm done. If anyone would like to continue to have myths about "climate change" shot down, feel free to start and invite me to a discussion on the off-topic board or something.