Random events

[rcoutme]

Yes, judgement, I had forgotten that the luxury slider probably covered this. I still think that having economic occurrances, especially in the post-middle age eras should occur. Whenever there are economic downturns, one of the possibilities of alleviating them would be to create settlers (or workers). This could represent what occured in the U.S. during the mid to late 1800's. Whenever the country started facing recessions, the government openned up land to homesteading. In 1929 there was no land left for homesteading and the result was a depression (nobody in government had really had to deal with a recession). This could also be linked to the suggestions of others concerning immigration, emmigration, etc.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
Yes, I agree. If I'm not mistaken, the Sahara desert in northern Africa has expanded quite a bit over the course of human history.

Yes, actually a great deal of Sahara was a lush area some 6000 years BC. Changes in the climate made it the way it is today. Changing terrain would be an interesting addition (and the changes could be radical, too). I wonder if it is that necessary, though?

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
Yes, actually a great deal of Sahara was a lush area some 6000 years BC. Changes in the climate made it the way it is today. Changing terrain would be an interesting addition (and the changes could be radical, too). I wonder if it is that necessary, though?

Now the shoe is on the other foot: you're asking me whether something is really necessary!

Seriously, climate change (global warming) already exists in the game. It wouldn't add any complication at all to give some small chance for tiles to change even before the industrial era, and maybe to have them able to change in either direction (better or worse). Necessary? No, of course not. But it might add a little fun/interest and would be unlikely to cause the game any harm.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by judgement
Now the shoe is on the other foot: you're asking me whether something is really necessary!

Seems to me that you taught me only too well. "Circle is complete"

Seriously, climate change (global warming) already exists in the game. It wouldn't add any complication at all to give some small chance for tiles to change even before the industrial era, and maybe to have them able to change in either direction (better or worse). Necessary? No, of course not. But it might add a little fun/interest and would be unlikely to cause the game any harm.

No, no harm, I suppose. I was actually thinking that those tiles would change and the mining/irrigation/roads was lost. If this was not the case (the change would be too gradual), then it is fine by me. I wouldn't want to run around my empire to re-irrigate/-mine all the tiles that decided to change that turn!

 

[rcoutme]

The Sahara plains, along with the Arabian plains turned to desert with the rising of the Big, BIG place known as the Himalayas. Computer sims were done about the change in climate for the rising of the Himalayas (which, since they were pushed up from the ocean also happened to have lots and lots of calcium from all those fish bones) and guess what happened.

Rainfall in N. Africa and Arabia would go way down (in comparison to no Himalayas existing and the Indian subcontinent not quite touching Asia) and the temperature of the Earth would go to Ice Age due to all the CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere.

Hmmm....sound familiar? That's what did happen, pretty much. So yes, either a shift toward or away from an Ice Age might indeed be a welcome addition to Civ4. I just wanted to let people know about the shift because of all the talk about the dangers of increased green-house gasses and global warming.

Although global warming may be very real, the problems with it may actually end up being offset by the benefits (such as a whole lot of land becoming much more fertile--think Northern Canada and Siberia).

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by rcoutme
The Sahara plains, along with the Arabian plains turned to desert with the rising of the Big, BIG place known as the Himalayas. Computer sims were done about the change in climate for the rising of the Himalayas (which, since they were pushed up from the ocean also happened to have lots and lots of calcium from all those fish bones) and guess what happened.

Rainfall in N. Africa and Arabia would go way down (in comparison to no Himalayas existing and the Indian subcontinent not quite touching Asia) and the temperature of the Earth would go to Ice Age due to all the CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere.

Hmmm....sound familiar? That's what did happen, pretty much. So yes, either a shift toward or away from an Ice Age might indeed be a welcome addition to Civ4. I just wanted to let people know about the shift because of all the talk about the dangers of increased green-house gasses and global warming.

Although global warming may be very real, the problems with it may actually end up being offset by the benefits (such as a whole lot of land becoming much more fertile--think Northern Canada and Siberia).

I was referring to more recent history - and I believe so was judgement. I am not sure HOW old the Himalayas are, but most certainly more than 8000 years. The actual reason of the desert existing may well be because of that (it sounds plausible*), but those are changes that happen way too slowly.

What comes to ice-ages, they could be possible. In a sense Civ already has those implemented, because you can choose the temperature of the world. The problem is that it doesn't change afterwards. In the 6000 years of Civ, the change could occur (there are certainly huge differences in temperature within that sort of time-frame), so it could be implemented.

What I am thinking is that it should be somewhat rational. A tile shouldn't perhaps be allowed to change twice in, say, a millennium. So that there wouldn't be as much tundra as there always was, but all grassland has become desert! It should work so that tundra is gradually becoming plains/grassland and plains becoming desert.

*I just thought about one part of your explanation: Why does the rainfall going down cause CO2 to be taken out of the atmosphere? Wouldn't the net loss of plantlife actually increase the CO2-amounts, as they wouldn't breathe it like they used to? This is a bit off the topic, though, but just wondering

 

[rcoutme]

The calcium in the mountains mixes with CO2. This causes a loss in greenhouse gasses. The rainfall going down in the Sahara and Arabian regions just happened to also occur, whereas it probably increased in some other regions. As for the timeframe being about 10,000 years, that is not necessarily determined, however, the computer model showed the desert forming coming very late in the 40 million year system.

Thus: it is not a lack of rainfall causing the loss of greenhouse gasses over the last 40 million years, it is the increase in calcium carbonate that caused the ice ages. Before India hit Asia, there were no polar icecaps.

Incidentally, unlike the idiotic movie "Waterworld", the planet was not completely covered by oceans either. Just where did the makers of that movie think the dinosaurs lived, anyways?

 

[judgement]

Originally posted by Shyrramar
I was referring to more recent history - and I believe so was judgement.

Yes. Regardless of what the cause was (and rcoutme's plate tectonics explanation seems reasonable) the fertility of the middle east and the size of the Sahara desert have both changed quite a bit during the time from 3000 BC to the present.

@rcoutme: can you provide some sources for the info you posted? I'm interested in reading more about this subject (not for the sake of Civ 4 suggestions, just for my own edification ).

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by rcoutme
The calcium in the mountains mixes with CO2. This causes a loss in greenhouse gasses. The rainfall going down in the Sahara and Arabian regions just happened to also occur, whereas it probably increased in some other regions. As for the timeframe being about 10,000 years, that is not necessarily determined, however, the computer model showed the desert forming coming very late in the 40 million year system.

Thus: it is not a lack of rainfall causing the loss of greenhouse gasses over the last 40 million years, it is the increase in calcium carbonate that caused the ice ages. Before India hit Asia, there were no polar icecaps.

Incidentally, unlike the idiotic movie "Waterworld", the planet was not completely covered by oceans either. Just where did the makers of that movie think the dinosaurs lived, anyways?

I second judgements suggestion: could you post some info? I am not doubting your words, I am wanting to see the explanations myself. If the icecaps melted, I believe someone has calculated that the seas would rise approximately 60 meters - which does leave a lot of land open. I believe, though, that the increased temperature would enable more of the water to form clouds, so it could be that the actual rise of water wouldn't be so high.

I wasn't thinking that a lack of rainfall would cause the loss of greenhouse gases (how could it?), I was probably referring to the fact that it should actually cause them, not lessen them. I didn't know about the calcium carbonate - thanks for the info!

 

[rcoutme]

Ok, here goes my first try:

http://www.commonwealthknowledge.net/MetCD/Chapter2/C2P02.htm

http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/pmrp/EH/Eh4/l4.html

Try either of these sites. The first one gives a nice overall description of the effects of the Himalayas. The second one is more scientific (in its describing) and has a nice map of where the drying effects of both the Rockies and Himalayas would occur.

There are also more references in the second thread to other sites. Hope this helps all of you.

p.s. I tried the links and they seem to work.

 

[deo]

I saw in TV a docu
it says that when the earth will be to hot and when the sea levels will be tu huge then in few years will begin a new "Ice Age"

I also have some Event Ideas
Immigration-Event:A random or a Specific City will gain 1 Citizen and
Plague-Event:A random or a specific city will lose 1 Citizen

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by deo
I saw in TV a docu
it says that when the earth will be to hot and when the sea levels will be tu huge then in few years will begin a new "Ice Age"

I also have some Event Ideas
Immigration-Event:A random or a Specific City will gain 1 Citizen and
Plague-Event:A random or a specific city will lose 1 Citizen

Yes, it would probably happen like that if there were no humans. Nobody knows, though, what effect does the interfering of men have on the ecosystem. The ecosystem normally works in such a way that there are hot and cold seasons interchanginly. The chaotic nature of this system makes it self-recovering, so it "automatically" recovers from these changes and actually is not harmed by them. The problem is that men are meddling with this system, and who knows what that will do. Probably it has no lasting disastrous effects, but who knows. Recent studies show that the forests of the world are actually NOT reacting to the increase in carbondioxide, as was thought - and this could mean serious trouble .

Immigration should not be an event, but a concept in the new game IMO. There is a thread about it (probably under Civil-Wars - Religion also has been discussed in connection with this). Plaque actually exists in Conquests, but I would indeed like to see it in the actual game too!

 

[rcoutme]

The problem with the human meddling of the climate is that the deciduous forests do not necessarily have time to creep up into the more northern climates. The tree ecology, as I understand it, has three or four (I'll use 3 for simplicity sake) regions.

The most northern is coniferous (i.e. Pines, spruce, etc. These are best able to handle the colder weather). The next level is deciduous (maples, oaks, etc) these handle a very specific climactic region (like the area in which I live, i.e. near Boston Massachusetts). The third region is tropical.

If the deciduous region does not climb with the temperature then deforestation by nature (as opposed to logging) could seriously change the environment: hence the worries about global warming.

As for species becoming extinct due to global warming, this would likely also occur. It has occurred in the past so many times that something like 99% of all species (oceanic and land-based) were extinct before humans even entered the picture. This would occur again, if humans allow catastrophic global warming. However, the temperature is likely to rise only about 1-1 1/2 degrees (centigrade) in the next 100 years, so how significant this will be on us remains to be seen.

Some scientists believe that this would mostly serve to calm down the weather patterns since the poles would be the most likely recipients of the warming. Thus, the difference in temperatures from pole to equator would be less, causing less violent turbulence in the weather. In addition, this would mean more precipitation at the poles, actually increasing the ice caps.

 

[Shyrramar]

Originally posted by rcoutme
The problem with the human meddling of the climate is that the deciduous forests do not necessarily have time to creep up into the more northern climates. The tree ecology, as I understand it, has three or four (I'll use 3 for simplicity sake) regions.

The most northern is coniferous (i.e. Pines, spruce, etc. These are best able to handle the colder weather). The next level is deciduous (maples, oaks, etc) these handle a very specific climactic region (like the area in which I live, i.e. near Boston Massachusetts). The third region is tropical.

If the deciduous region does not climb with the temperature then deforestation by nature (as opposed to logging) could seriously change the environment: hence the worries about global warming.

As for species becoming extinct due to global warming, this would likely also occur. It has occurred in the past so many times that something like 99% of all species (oceanic and land-based) were extinct before humans even entered the picture. This would occur again, if humans allow catastrophic global warming. However, the temperature is likely to rise only about 1-1 1/2 degrees (centigrade) in the next 100 years, so how significant this will be on us remains to be seen.

Some scientists believe that this would mostly serve to calm down the weather patterns since the poles would be the most likely recipients of the warming. Thus, the difference in temperatures from pole to equator would be less, causing less violent turbulence in the weather. In addition, this would mean more precipitation at the poles, actually increasing the ice caps.

Those are good links. Thank you

You are correct with your explanations. As you pointed out, the sheer pace of the climate changes caused by men poses a threat, as the global ecosystem is "used" to slower changes, thus allowing the flora and fauna to adapt. The brilliance of our ecosystem lies in the fact that if there is something in abundance, there will be organisms that take advantage of this - thus lessening the effects to other organisms. Trees inhale carbondioxide and exhale oxygen, which is of course inhaled by us and we then exhale carbondioxide. Trees could deal with this CO2-problem (and other plants, of course) if they could keep up with the drastic changes, just like you said. And it seems that they cannot.

There have actually been suggestions that men are "saving" the earth by their actions, not "dooming" it. This may be the case or may not be. By saving they refer to the fact that Earth was a lot warmer "back then" (as you pointed out), and the temperature has dropped dramatically from those days. They are suggesting that human actions are actually rescuing the Earth from an eternal ice-age. This is perhaps not plausible, but it has a point: what is destructive to many living things now may actually have good effects in the long run. Human society may be in big trouble when the climate changes, but I don't believe that men would be wiped out - climate changes do not simply kill species that are as resourceful as we are. Humans are everywhere in every climate (except Antarctica) as it is, it would probably not change due to global warming.

Oh, by the way, the reason they think Earth is going towards a perpetual ice-age is the fact that a lot of CO2 has been "trapped" in the earth. By burning coal and oil and other fossil-fuels we are returning that CO2 back to the atmosphere, thus "saving" the Earth.

EDIT: the change in the global temperature may be small in the next 100 years, but one must remember that this time is but a blink of an eye in global scale. It will actually be the most dramatic change in global temperature in the whole of known history as far as I know. One can only imagine what this sort of increasing speed would do in 10 000 years! Of course, the pace will not likely keep up, but if it would, Earth would be in deep <this would be censored anyway, so why bother?>...

 

[judgement]

@rcoutme: thank's, those are good links!

 

[rcoutme]

BTW, the fossil fuels are not likely to continue enough for us to really superdamage the ecosystem (although we might make up for the lack of fossil fuels with replenishable alchohol fuel and really take it up the you-know-what).

 

[Pariah]

Here's another discussion on the causes and timescales of ice ages, if anybody's interested:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=561104#post561104

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by judgement
Yes. Regardless of what the cause was (and rcoutme's plate tectonics explanation seems reasonable) the fertility of the middle east and the size of the Sahara desert have both changed quite a bit during the time from 3000 BC to the present.

Definitely. Archaeologists have even found the remains of ancient settlements in what is now the middle of the Sahara, as well as evidence of large lakes. Something has affected the rainfall patterns over the last 5000+ years.

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by Pariah
Here's another discussion on the causes and timescales of ice ages, if anybody's interested:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=561104#post561104

Good link, thanq.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by Pook
Definitely. Archaeologists have even found the remains of ancient settlements in what is now the middle of the Sahara, as well as evidence of large lakes. Something has affected the rainfall patterns over the last 5000+ years.

There are even ancient groves of trees surviving in some parts of that desert, with roots extending down to underground water sources. They continue to drop viable seeds every year - which never germinate, as the ground is just too dry.