02-02-2001 05:17									#1
	Global Cooling Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

They say that too many greenhouse gasses in the atmoswhere causes global warming. How do we know that the opposite isn't true?

The way the greenhouse effect works is that heat from the earth bounces off clouds and things in the atmosphere and comes back to earth, but some of the heat still escapes. Heat from the sun also gets absorbed by, and bounces off of clouds and things in the earth's atmosphere as well.

The question is: How does the amount of heat that enters the earth's atmosphere compair to the amount of heat that leaves?

It is just as likely that global cooling will occor than global warming.

	02-02-2001 05:20									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Wait... are we talking about Civ or not?

One recent report I found documents the melting of ice in Antarctica and the North Pole. Who knows if it's caused by human pollution... I'd have to take a look at the source code for the Planet Earth. Can anybody burn me a copy?

	02-02-2001 05:22									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Err, interesting comment, but what does this have to do with Civ3? Perhaps they could throw in a low percentage of probability that an ice age envelops the earth instead of globel warming, but i think that you're clutching at straws

	02-02-2001 06:10									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Actually he's right. I read a post by someone recently, (they should take credit if they see this) that global cooling would result frome a nuke war, not global warming as is represented in the game. When I read his post one word came to mind...DOH! airdrik is dead on, nuclear winter is what he's talking about...

	02-02-2001 09:26									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Yah, maybe in civ 3 industrial pollution causes global warming and nuclear pollution causes nuclear winters, but one doesn't counter the other, so if you have tones of both types of pollution then you will get a mix and some tiles change into warmer climates and others (even those next to those that changed to warmer climats) change into colder climats. If you keep it up and continue using nukes, and don't do anything about the industrial pollution, then the planet becomes uninhabitable and you loose the game .

Of course, this is only after using no less than 75 nukes and spending no less than 1,000 pollution-turns (after (1,000/ the number of tiles of pollution) turns). You can recover pollution-turns mearly by cleaning up pollution: pollution being cleaned up does not count towards this number, and after you clean the square it decreases your total by a certain amount.

	02-02-2001 23:20									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Actually global cooling is depending on one thing. How much crap in the athmosphere that blocks the sunshine. A nuclear war would make tha atmosphere full of dust and therefore cool down the climate. But sooner or later dust falls back to the earth and the global cooling effect ends. The same thing happens when there are giant volcano eruptions or even a 'normal' modern war (even if the effect is so slight that it's hard to measure). I've read somewhere that 1995 was in general 0,5 degrees colder on the whole earth beacouse of the pinatubo eruption (i think the name on the volcano was something like that).

Although reality is extremely complex, i think a civ-game should stay on a simpler level.

	03-02-2001 01:11									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Actually global "warming" would warm some areas on the Earth, and cool other parts of it!

As an example, take Norway. At the coast of this country, the Golf stream "flows". This stream is warm water from the mexican gulf, and without this water Norway would have been ice, ice, ice, and nothing other than ice!

And, if the global warming the scientists are talking about, will come, and the same scientists are right, the Gulf stream will either disappear, or change direction!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

	03-02-2001 03:24									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's the kind of things I wanted to bring up here, is that 'destruction of the environment' doesn't have to lead to global warming, but the general degredation of the earth. Pollution might cause global warming, but it could also cause some places (like Norway) to get cooler. And if nuclear weapons are used excessivly then you will get a nuclear winter and everything will cool down a notch.

	03-02-2001 19:08									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

With nukes its just a matter of how much dust is thrown into the air - asteroid impacts caused mass extinctions because collisions threw tonnes of rocks half way to the moon before they fell back to Earth (I'm not exaggerating). Only ground impact nukes would cause this type of effect.

quote: The way the greenhouse effect works is that heat from the earth bounces off clouds and things in the atmosphere and comes back to earth, but some of the heat still escapes. Heat from the sun also gets absorbed by, and bounces off of clouds and things in the earth's atmosphere as well.

Clouds have a net effect of cooling the earth. Carbon dioxide does nothing but keep us warm. Without greenhouse gases the planet would have an average temperature of -20C or so.

Hope you've learnt todays lesson.

Overall natural unpredictable climate change would be more suited to the game. Things like the mini-ice age in the European middle ages

------------------
Never argue with a fool; People might not know the difference

	04-02-2001 08:37									#11
	Support Apolyton

Global warming and pollution effects are greatly exaggerated in Civ2. Pollution makes things unpleasant for in tiny localities but doesn't decrease the productivity of thousands of square miles in a whole tile.

The worst case yet is Chernobyl, which only irradiated a hundred square miles or so. To the people who lived there it was catastrophic, but it didn't impact the productivity of farming in the Ukraine.

A few shellfish bedding areas of the Mediterranean Sea were heavily polluted and could not be used for human consumption. Loss of silicates and cold water flowing into the Med due to the damming of every major river has been more devastating to the overall marine ecology than chemical pollution. The influx of warm sea water through the Suez has amplified the effect.

Global warming may actually increase snowfall in the polar regions. Ice may melt in marginal areas but the icecaps could accumulate mass overall.

	06-02-2001 16:40									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

People often seem to think that it's the icecaps melting that will couse the ocean to rise. This is not entirely true. In fact. If Arctis melted down it wouldnt to any difference at all since the ice floats in the water already. The main reason why a warmer climate will make the ocean rise is that water expands when it gets warmer. This means that, even though a global warming will increase the polar ice, the ocean will still nevertheless rise.
It's simple physics.

	06-02-2001 16:54									#13
	Put an end to popups!

Stuff2 is partially right. One of the reasons sea level is expected to rise is due to the fact that warmer water takes up greater volume.
There is some possibility of the Arctic getting colder, primarily due to the gulf stream being diverted. This would indeed result in the accumulation of Arctic ice, but as Stuff2 said, that would make no difference whatsoever to the sea level, since the ice is already floating.
Anyway all the evidence seems to suggest that Antarktic ice is not accumulating but schrinking, as the Antarktic is getting warmer. This is a problem because unlike in the Arctic, ice in the Antarktic is on land and hence if it melted even partially, there would be a massive rise in sea level. Actually that is not the biggest worry. The ice does need to melt to cause a rise in sea-level. It is enough for it to slide into the sea and thus displace some water. Due to global warming this seems to be starting to happen in Antarktica.

	06-02-2001 17:03									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It is certainly true that a more accurate global disaster system would treat types of industrial pollution and nuclear pollution differently. Prior to 1960 the vast majority of pollution was caused by coal burning (in homes, power plants, factories) which had bad effects on local atmospheric conditions (killer fogs in London, the worst in 1955) and was harmful to the local environment. This did absolutely nothing to degrade the ozone layer and the particles in the air will have had a modest cooling effect if anything. Increasing use of petrochemicals and other complex chemical wastes has radically shifted the type of pollution damage in the last half century, leading to land contaminated for long periods and potential warming.

Nuclear accidents and exchanges are going to result in a third type: near permanent pollution of localised areas, health problems worldwide from increased radioactivity (most in the fallout path) and atmospheric dust cooling the climate. If enough dust got into the atmosphere it could trigger an ice age which would continue even if the dust subsided (more heat reflected back into space because of a greater serface albedo from ice and snow.) It would take a big nuclear exchange but I would consider the latter to be a good end-game option: you have made the world practically uninhabitable for centuries to come - everyone loses!

The current Civ model of everything leads to easily cleanable pollution is too simple IMO. The CtP variant that all pollution burns squares to ash, destroying improvements is equally silly. Lets hope Sid finds a better way.

	08-02-2001 00:42									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Apparently FreeCiv seperates 'normal' and nuclear pollution, normal pollution causing global warming and nuclear pollution causing nuclear winter... you might want to have a look at it.

	08-02-2001 03:26									#17
	Tired of ads?

Big Crunch, average surface temperature is currently approximately 15 degrees Celsius and expected to rise by up to 5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
Water gets less dense when cooled below 4 degrees, because this is the point at which structure starts to appear in groups of water molecules hence destroying the tight packing of the molecules in an ordinary liquid.

	09-02-2001 02:32									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't know the average temperature of all the oceans.
I can, however, assure you that it mmust be larger than 4 degrees Celsius. The reason for this is that just as you said water colder than 4 degrees is less dense than warmer water. This means such cold water would rise to the surface, but we know the surface temperature to be much higher than that.
Hence the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is at least 4 degrees Celsius and the average surface temperature 15 degrees Celsius. The temperatures in between vary within this temperature range. Obviously the average temperature of the ocean is therefore somwhere in between these two temperatures (probably closer to 4 rather than 15 degrees).
[This message has been edited by Roman (edited February 08, 2001).]

	09-02-2001 03:44									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Nuclear war, an asteorite impact, or a volcanic eruption all have an initial cooling effect on the atmosphere, because they throw particulate matter into the atmosphere, which obscures the sun.

However, a volcanic eruption also releases a large amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the Earth's interior. Meanwhile, nuclear explosions and asteorite impacts generate intense heat at their points of impact leading to decomposition of carbon compounds and subsequent formation of carbon dioxide.

The result is that initial global cooling is followed ba a large increase in temperature due to global warming once the particulate matter settles.

	09-02-2001 03:49									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Good Idea to include nuclear Winter and Global Warming!

	10-02-2001 17:17									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Roman, I see the logic and you are probably right that it is greater than 4C (but for other reasons.

However, by your logic the warm air at the Earths surface should rise to the top of the atmosphere - meaning its warmer near the top of Everest tahn at the bottom. Which it isn't.

The water at the surface is only warmer because heating takes place at the surface due to the sun. The amount of sunlight even a few hundred metres down is minimal. Its very cold.

Is this OT?

------------------
Never argue with a fool; People might not know the difference

	10-02-2001 17:58									#23
	Put an end to popups!

I see what you mean with the Mount Everest, but it doesn't quite work that way for four reasons.

1) Air at Mount Everest is much thinner and thus intercepts fewer infra-red rays from the sun than air at sea-level.

2) Air at sea level is also warmed from the Earth, which intercepts almost all infra-red radiation from the sun.

3) Higher atmosphere contains certain chemical
that act to cool it.

4) The primary greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is a lot denser than air and hence tends to stay quite low in the atmosphere. It therefore traps the heat only in the lower portions of the atmosphere. Without carbon dioxide the lower sections of the atmosphere would be almost as cold as the outer atmosphere.

Of course the air rises from sea level upwards (this is what causes winds), but it has a much lower specific heat capacity than water, so it cools down relatively fast commpared to water.

	10-02-2001 18:13									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yes, this is probably OT.

	11-02-2001 01:23									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

One of the things that really pissed me off about SMAC was that you almost never had global cooling. You could blast an entire continent into the sky, which ordinarilly would block the sun for a couple years, but damned if sea levels didn't rise because of it.

If there are going to be weapons of mass destruction in Civ3, I certainly want to have to think about a nuclear winter.

--
Jared Lessl