This thread is meant to continue the discussion that started in the Disaster Model v1.1 thread but got off the topic of disasters. Of course, new ideas and opinions regarding the subject matter are welcome.
In reply to the postings on the previous thread:
LGJ is right about changing the entire border. That is probably too much. But testing every individual square would take too long. So we could run the tests for groups of about five to seven adjacent squares.
He also has a point about the change being rather severe. If we use only a few vegetation types, it would be a big jump. I think that we should have more vegetation types, such as:
Wasteland (Nothing at all)
Desert (cacti, desert wildlife)
Scrubland (marginal agriculture possible)
Savannah (reasonably fertile)
Plains (even more fertile)
Trees can grow on any of the last three terrain types. Unless you have good technology, you usually can't tell what kind of terrain deforestation will result in. The three levels of trees are:
Sparse Forests (Trees mixed with the base vegetation type. Here you will know what deforestation will get.)
Forest (Basic Trees)
Old-Growth Forest
This list was for vegetation in temperate zones. They would have a corresponding type for tropical and arctic zones. For example, a Tropical Rainforest is the equivalent of an Old-Growth Forest.
This vegetation type is mostly independent of the geology, or physical shape of the land. Forests can grow equally well on hills and flatland.
However, there is one case when the geology has a big impact on the vegetation. That is when the water table comes above the surface of the ground. In that case, you get swamps, bogs, etc.
These are just preliminary thoughts. If they sound good, I could add more details and make a more complete proposal.
I still think that randomness is the way to go when determining the effects of pollution. The theories about the effects of atmospheric pollution are constantly changing. Five years ago, few people would have thought global warming would lead to an ice age. Five years from now, there will probably be a different theory.
Weather is one of the most chaotic and random things out there, so we might as well make it random rather than using a lot of clock cycles to try to make things follow a simplified version of some theory that may or may not be correct.
In reply to the postings on the previous thread:
LGJ is right about changing the entire border. That is probably too much. But testing every individual square would take too long. So we could run the tests for groups of about five to seven adjacent squares.
He also has a point about the change being rather severe. If we use only a few vegetation types, it would be a big jump. I think that we should have more vegetation types, such as:
Wasteland (Nothing at all)
Desert (cacti, desert wildlife)
Scrubland (marginal agriculture possible)
Savannah (reasonably fertile)
Plains (even more fertile)
Trees can grow on any of the last three terrain types. Unless you have good technology, you usually can't tell what kind of terrain deforestation will result in. The three levels of trees are:
Sparse Forests (Trees mixed with the base vegetation type. Here you will know what deforestation will get.)
Forest (Basic Trees)
Old-Growth Forest
This list was for vegetation in temperate zones. They would have a corresponding type for tropical and arctic zones. For example, a Tropical Rainforest is the equivalent of an Old-Growth Forest.
This vegetation type is mostly independent of the geology, or physical shape of the land. Forests can grow equally well on hills and flatland.
However, there is one case when the geology has a big impact on the vegetation. That is when the water table comes above the surface of the ground. In that case, you get swamps, bogs, etc.
These are just preliminary thoughts. If they sound good, I could add more details and make a more complete proposal.
I still think that randomness is the way to go when determining the effects of pollution. The theories about the effects of atmospheric pollution are constantly changing. Five years ago, few people would have thought global warming would lead to an ice age. Five years from now, there will probably be a different theory.
Weather is one of the most chaotic and random things out there, so we might as well make it random rather than using a lot of clock cycles to try to make things follow a simplified version of some theory that may or may not be correct.
Comment