Suggestion regarding late-game global warming

[Gui10b]

Currently, global warming is produced by increases in greenhouse gases emitted due to the economy and spoils priorities. The amount of CO2 (the main greenhouse gas) emitted can be reduced through the civilian fusion reactors project and the clean energy technology, which both decrease the amount emitted by 50%. However, this doesn't mean CO2 emissions drop to 0 once both are researched, either because the reductions are multiplicative or because resource regions increase emissions and only oil resource regions can be eliminated. Since a significant part of greenhouse gases comes from not-energy-generation processes (such as raising cattle or producing concrete) that seems reasonable and coherent with reality.

In game, global warming mainly affects gdp growth (slightly) and a small group of events and thus can be largely ignored in the lategame (aside from trying to avoid using spoils). But with most of Earth under my control, I wanted to try and revert (or at least limit) the warming, more as a part of roleplay than as something actually necessary since the effects by that point were negligible. What I found was that it was unfeasible. Even with all techs researched and investing more than twice as much into wellfare than into economy (after taking org-station-tech multipliers into account and with not a single point into spoils in all of Earth), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere kept growing at a rate of about 1-2 ppm a year.

Assuming this is not a bug/unintended behaviour, I consider that should be changed for two reasons. First and more relevant for most players, the environmental effects of wellfare function more as a noobtrap than as an actual mechanic, since it doesn't have a meaningful impact (even if no one else is running spoils). Second, because it prevents stopping/reverting global warming even after the technology, the energy and the political and economic resources necessary are present.

My suggestion would be two-fold. Some technologies which currently provide a +5% to wellfare investment (such as carbon capture technologies) could instead increase the reduction provided by wellfare investment, making combating global warming increasingly viable. Second, countries at 1 inequality (the minimal inequality allowed in-game) should have a greater amount of their wellfare investments impact greenhouse gases the same way countries at 0 unrest have greater miltech increases (because less investment is going towards fighting inequality/unrest). That way, late game meganations that invest greatly into wellfare won't waste most of their investment.

Is there something I have missed? Even if you don't agree wiith my observations, knowing you have read my comment would be meaningful.

[neilwilkes]

I'm going to leave this disinformation up for now while I decide what to do with it. I'm not comfortable with my company's web site hosting and contributing to the spread of these lies but I'm not sure if deleting them outright is the best solution, either.

So: This ridiculous screed is dangerously wrong, and the game design will not change in this regard. You are warned not to attempt to turn our game forums into a source of disinformation on this or any other topic. Nor do you get to to demand we litigate any or all of the assertions in your post just because you made it.

- John Lumpkin, Creative Director, Pavonis Interactive

The whole 'Global Warming' propaganda needs to be removed completely, as there is zero - repeat ZERO evidence for the 1 degree of warming that was seen at the close of the 20th century had anything whatsoever to do with people or so-called 'emissions', be they cow farts or CO2.
The whole UN IPCC thing is a power grab, make no mistake of this at all - it is about a global world government run by a dictatorial organization with no accountability whatsoever and has sweet FA to do with the global environment.

Here are a few basic facts for those of us who are actually open to real science and not the nonsense spouted in the UN IPCC Policymakers Notes (which are at utter odds to the reality)
1. It is not - not even close - to 'record heat' in the world. It was far hotter as recently as the 1930's, in the Mediaeval Warm Period & in the Roman period. The planet did not burn then & it will not burn now.
These numbers are fiddled data based not on observed reality but on bad computer models making incorrect assumptions that ignore the bits that detract from the alarmist POV.
2. Weird Weather is not as bad as we are being told. Check the historical records, people.
3. The real problem this planet faces is the ongoing magnetic excursion. Planetary defences are 25% down at this point, weakening at 1% every year. This allows added UV A/B & C to get through, and reduces the shield against Solar events & space weather.
4. Ozone is being destroyed by the Solar Energetic Particles - none of which are in the 'climate models'.
5. Show me ONE paper that proves either CO2 or Cow Farts causes temperature anomalies based on actual observations as opposed t0o CMIP 3/4/5 runs with no SEP, no Solar Forcing at all, even though the current CMIP6 does allow for SEP's, these are still not in any of the Alarmist Models despite the fact that SEP are only a fraction of what the Sun does that is ignored in all the models.

We live 8 light minutes from a Main Sequence Star.
In the latter half of the 20th century it was the most active it has been for at least 10,000 years - you really think there is no connect?

How deep can I go please, Mods?
I ask as the whole Global Warming thing is nothing but a grift - there is no 97% consensus, there is no climate emergency, there is no existential threat created by people and a Global Beaurocracy cannot control the freaking weather!

ADDENDUM:
1 - If 1 degree of warming is an existential threat, then this planet would not have made it this far - temperatures have swung wildly more in the past & it did not burn up then.
2 - The biggest lie of all is the way people like myself are called 'Climate Deniers' - the inference is not only obvious but downright insulting.
The lie here is that the climate was ever stable - it changes all the time. Always Has, Always Will.

[fsrt_42]

Assuming this is not a bug/unintended behaviour, I consider that should be changed for two reasons. First and more relevant for most players, the environmental effects of wellfare function more as a noobtrap than as an actual mechanic, since it doesn't have a meaningful impact (even if no one else is running spoils). Second, because it prevents stopping/reverting global warming even after the technology, the energy and the political and economic resources necessary are present.

My suggestion would be two-fold. Some technologies which currently provide a +5% to wellfare investment (such as carbon capture technologies) could instead increase the reduction provided by wellfare investment, making combating global warming increasingly viable. Second, countries at 1 inequality (the minimal inequality allowed in-game) should have a greater amount of their wellfare investments impact greenhouse gases the same way countries at 0 unrest have greater miltech increases (because less investment is going towards fighting inequality/unrest). That way, late game meganations that invest greatly into wellfare won't waste most of their investment.

Is there something I have missed? Even if you don't agree wiith my observations, knowing you have read my comment would be meaningful.

I agree with you on numerous points. The impact of global warming is small and is generally resolved without any or very few player actions. It is mostly irrelevant for most games, except as just another incentive to avoid using Spoils. I have never reached a +2°C anomaly.

If I am correct, the impact of a Priority point in Welfare on Global Warming is smaller than the impact of a Priority point in Economy. I agree with you, there must be ways to increase the reduction provided by welfare investment.

I would add that I think that the effects of Global Warming are underestimated. In particular, the IPCC predicts increasing food insecurity, which should be modeled by impacts on Unrest, Cohesion, or Population. Migrations are also not fully modelized. I don't know if a fully realistic model will be enjoyable for gameplay purposes, but it should provide at least an interesting challenge.

A last thought : Aliens don't interact with Earth's Climate. I don't konw how, but an interaction between this two system could be interesting.

[Chris D]

For those of us who like to think of ourselves as benevolent authoritarian dictators, maybe a repeating environmental mitigation project or two? It would also give us something to do once the tech tree was empty.

[StrykeSlammerII]

A last thought : Aliens don't interact with Earth's Climate. I don't konw how, but an interaction between this two system could be interesting.

I've heard rumors that xenoforming reduces atmospheric carbon, but haven't gone codediving to verify.

[2alexey]

Non-reducable global warming is ludicrous, since well, the earth atmosphere carbon levels fell before humans started digging that carbon up.

Preferably there should be natural "consumption" of carbon by nature, and once we stop digging up fossil fuels, we should be carbon neutral or even carbon negative by default. Also renewable power should provide cooling as we are using up solar radiation for something else then heating up our planet.

[johnnylump]

Carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere lasts 300 to 1000 years before natural uptake, so this phenomenon was generally deemed outside the scope of the game as something to model separately from everything else. Nitrous oxide lasts 121 years, which postdates the 1880 baseline we use for temperature anomaly but we're not simulating any natural sequestration for it.

Methane lasts 12 years and ingame is reduced by (1/144)% every month, which inaccurately treats recent methane emissions the same as older ones. It's a quick abstraction but we'd have to track month-by-month production and for a more accurate effect.

Natural reduction is also more or less built in to the initial model. We looked at the net increase in GHGs in 2020 and the default priorities for each nation in that year (and the number of times they would trigger), and then tied economy and spoils priority effects to that delta. So every economy or spoils completion GHG increase is slightly reduced from it is be because we used the "net" change as a baseline.

It's far from a perfect simulation and I need to find time to work on it -- probably better to have production based on GDP and a new national-level variable, rather than economy priority. (Spoils should probably still work the same), but I wanted to make clear we looked at natural processes when we built the model.

[StrykeSlammerII]

Also renewable power should provide cooling as we are using up solar radiation for something else then heating up our planet.

This is a tangent, but this is also a hard SF area so I want to take a more detailed look at this idea.
Veritasium's video "The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics" might also be helpful.

0) Wind, hydro, and geothermal renewable power don't directly interact with solar radiation, so I'll assume you're referring specifically to solar power

1) Solar radiation (any electromagnetic radiation) doesn't get "used up"; it either gets reflected, or absorbed and re-radiated (some time later--millions of years later, in terms of fossil fuels) at a different wavelength. --Conservation of Matter and Energy

2) Solar power plants (or panels) absorb radiation... and then ship it somewhere else, with inefficiencies causing losses throughout the system (typically heat, and because entropy).

Yes, renewable solar power uses the radiation we got in the past day, or week, or months [depending on how long it is stored in batteries] rather than the radiation we got millions of years ago, stored in chemical bonds in plants. But power of any type creates heat as it is stored, transmitted, and used.

Whether our solar power infrastructure creates less heat than our fossil fuel infrastructure is a complex problem.

3) Also, fossil fuels are a problem because greenhouse gases, not heat; they absorb some of the reflected-and-radiated solar radiation mentioned earlier, and keep it from escaping back into space. Wikipedia's page on greenhouse gases has a pretty good explanation if you want to know more.

[2alexey]

Also renewable power should provide cooling as we are using up solar radiation for something else then heating up our planet.

0) Wind, hydro power don't directly interact with solar radiation, so I'll assume you're referring specifically to solar power

Wind is a consequence of what? Uneven heating. If heated gas does mechanical work, it cools down. Conservation of Energy.

Amount may or may not be worth modeling though.

1) Solar radiation (any electromagnetic radiation) doesn't get "used up"; it either gets reflected, or absorbed and re-radiated (some time later--millions of years later, in terms of fossil fuels) at a different wavelength. --Conservation of Matter and Energy

2) Solar power plants (or panels) absorb radiation... and then ship it somewhere else, with inefficiencies causing losses throughout the system (typically heat, and because entropy).

Yes, renewable solar power uses the radiation we got in the past day, or week, or months [depending on how long it is stored in batteries] rather than the radiation we got millions of years ago, stored in chemical bonds in plants. But power of any type creates heat as it is stored, transmitted, and used.

Whether our solar power infrastructure creates less heat than our fossil fuel infrastructure is a complex problem.

That is quite biased accounting. Solar infrastructure doesn't create heat, it redistribute solar radiation we already receive, and doesn't have to radiate all of it back, since it can be stored in chemical bonds in materials we create. So instead of earth having to dissipate all solar radiation and energy released from fossil fuels, with full renewable energy, earth has to only dissipate all solar radiation minus the energy we save up in chemical bonds, like in case of metallurgy, where we consume solar energy to break up metal oxides into metals and oxygen.

3) Also, fossil fuels are a problem because greenhouse gases, not heat; they absorb some of the reflected-and-radiated solar radiation mentioned earlier, and keep it from escaping back into space. Wikipedia's page on greenhouse gases has a pretty good explanation if you want to know more.

They don't prevent it from escaping, they require higher temperature to dissipate that intake. Otherwise we would already fried decades ago.

Admittedly humanity consumes energy equal to ~0.3% of solar radiation we receive(if I calculated correctly), but replacement reviewable capacity would eat up several times of that, to get us to current consumption, and in game world GDP increases several times over, and most of radiation is emitted back, so unless I messed up in 10s power magnitudes, humanity in game can consume several percentage points of total solar radiation on this planet, and not all will be eventually re-emited.

So, we can potentially eat up several percentage points of total solar radiation, and that can have significant impact on climate, since well, going from ~ 300K to 302K temperature is a huge ecological impact.

[StrykeSlammerII]

I agree that without hard numbers and a better understanding of scale, a lot of this may not be worth modeling.
The big thing that keeps confusing me is you keep saying energy is "consumed". To me, that's a direct violation of Conversation of Energy.

I think we'll need to reach a mutual understanding there before I can really continue.

There are a couple other possible miscommunications or clarifications below, but we can come back to those.

2) Solar power plants (or panels) absorb radiation... and then ship it somewhere else, with inefficiencies causing losses throughout the system (typically heat, and because entropy).

Yes, renewable solar power uses the radiation we got in the past day, or week, or months [depending on how long it is stored in batteries] rather than the radiation we got millions of years ago, stored in chemical bonds in plants. But power of any type creates heat as it is stored, transmitted, and used.

Whether our solar power infrastructure creates less heat than our fossil fuel infrastructure is a complex problem.

That is quite biased accounting. Solar infrastructure doesn't create heat, it redistribute solar radiation we already receive, and doesn't have to radiate all of it back, since it can be stored in chemical bonds in materials we create. So instead of earth having to dissipate all solar radiation and energy released from fossil fuels, with full renewable energy, earth has to only dissipate all solar radiation minus the energy we save up in chemical bonds, like in case of metallurgy, where we consume solar energy to break up metal oxides into metals and oxygen.

Any electricity infrastructure creates heat (and/or sound) because we don't have completely 100% efficient transmission, transformers, or other components (once we get room-temperature superconductors, maybe). I was trying to focus on solar power plants, rather than what happens after that energy hits the grid.

Solar cell efficiency is apparently difficult to measure, but is well below 50%. I found multiple references that they easily reach temperatures above 125F/51C in the summer, so they are converting some visible radiation to heat.
That's all I meant by "creating heat". The total energy is the same.

Without the solar cell, I think more of the energy would have been reflected to space and not absorbed.

3) Also, fossil fuels are a problem because greenhouse gases, not heat; they absorb some of the reflected-and-radiated solar radiation mentioned earlier, and keep it from escaping back into space. Wikipedia's page on greenhouse gases has a pretty good explanation if you want to know more.

They don't prevent it from escaping, they require higher temperature to dissipate that intake. Otherwise we would already fried decades ago.

Your phrasing sounds a little off [the heat does nothing until it gets high enough?], but how is that different from "prevent it from escaping"?
I did say "some", not "all"

If you are referring to blackbody/thermal radiation, do you mean that greenhouse gases "require a higher temperature" in order to emit any thermal radiation? or just to emit [higher] wavelengths that won't get absorbed?
Or are you referring to some other process I should look up?

Or other than radiating the heat, do you expect there's some other relevant way for earth to "dissipate that intake"?

Still, I'm going to upgrade my earlier wikipedia recommendation from "if you want to know more" to "You should read this and maybe do a deep dive on related subjects".

From wikipedia's article "Greenhouse effect":

[The Greenhouse effect] happens because stars emit shortwave radiation that passes through greenhouse gases, but planets emit longwave radiation that is partly absorbed by greenhouse gases.
...
The Earth's average surface temperature would be about −18 °C (−0.4 °F) without the greenhouse effect,[1][2] compared to Earth's 20th century average of about 14 °C (57 °F), or a more recent average of about 15 °C (59 °F)."

To me, the first part sounds exactly like "prevents it from escaping", and the second part explains why we haven't fried. (Or, we fried millennia ago and now it's "normal".)

So, we can potentially eat up several percentage points of total solar radiation, and that can have significant impact on climate, since well, going from ~ 300K to 302K temperature is a huge ecological impact.

Just as a side note: 2K is 0.67% of 300K; the 0.3% you calculated is .9K (That's pretty close to the current temperature anomaly, but I obviously think it's just a coincidence )