Vegetation, Climate, Ecology, and Pollution

[Lord God Jinnai]

Your right that most does get washed away into the ocean, but not all and enough that unless you heavily farm, use techinques that drastically increase erosion etc the delta won't go away ever (though it still may shrink). Also enough of it gets deposited every year in many of the major rivers that the land noticably grows over a short number of years.

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ: Don't forget that provinces can change shape, shrink, and disappear. Changing a province's soil rating does not mean that all tiles on that province will have that soil rating forever. I specifically stated that the new, altered province was designed to shrink, as neighboring provinces with better soil took over the eroded province. After a hundred turns, the eroded province could disappear entirely. This is meant to model ecological succession, as a shocked environment can be more easily colonised by the organisms from the surrounding areas. This way of modeling the province means that the succession happens in layers, rather than having the entire province recover at once.

You are right about delta growth. I had forgotten about that. But most of the soil gets washed all the way into the ocean, never to be seen again. (The productivity of undersea farms depends entirely on water quality; most ocean producers get nutrients directly from the water, not the ground.)
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited May 06, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

I know. We'll have to add a routine for land growth at the mouth of a river. At first it would be a wetland, but as more land got deposited it would turn into basic land with the river flowing through it.

[Richard Bruns]

Has anyone other than LGJ reviewed the new model? I'd really like some more input. This model can affect more parts of the game than we are familiar with.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited May 22, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

The model looks very good and thorough to me. I have some reservations that all the checks for hotlists and associated bookkeeping might take up a lot of time. But if they take up too many clock cycles, I'm sure we can find some way to thrift it and still keep the basic flavor of the model the same. The basic problem is that anything that requires attention for most every square is a real time-eater because there are so many squares. The ecological provinces were a really good idea! I'm sure there are defects in the model, but without really getting down in the guts and trying to use it I don't think I'll spot them.

I'll try to think about how the model interfaces with the econ system. But please expect that it's going to take awhile, since I'm still really working out the fundamental nuts and bolts for demo 5. I'm only likely going to be able to discuss a few things here, if any, in the context of demo 5 econ model.

Great Job!

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 22, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

I have to apologize, because the trouble that I perceive with irrigation and fertilizer use never struck me before in our discussions. But I think I need to bring it up now. You make it dependent upon the individual square whether irrigation is worthwhile, and whether fertilization is worthwhile. That is very like my old economic model that I decided was too complicated and calculation-intensive. I think the number of things that are done with decision variables at the level of a single square Really needs to be minimized. My criticism of this is that there will be something like 20k land squares, so every operation that requires attention on the individual square level will result in a moderately large computational load.

So as I see it, with your model, either the AI or the player will basically need to look at every square every turn in order to make the right decisions with respect to irrigation and fertilization. Even if I've mischaracterized this by a factor of 10 too high, I still think it's too much. IMO this is an unwise design decision. I think my economic model with a simple production function approach handles this in a much more efficient manner, if at some cost of inaccuracy.

If I've misunderstood the way you plan to handle it, please let me know.

[Richard Bruns]

Irrigation, Ferrtilization, and other such things are determined by ecological province, not by individual squares. I figured that there would be at most 200 ecological provinces being farmed. But I do understand your concerns, and I will try to see what I can do to reduce computatonal load.

I thought that the ecological provinces would be a good step in the right direction. All ecology changes are averaged out over 5-30 squares, so those calculations are about a tenth of what would be needed if the squares were checked individually. If all else fails, we can make the provinces bigger.

[Richard Bruns]

Toubabo_Koomi:

I'm glad to hear from you. Is there anything in the model that you think I need to change? If we can make the models work together well, there could be less redundancy in coding and calculations.

If you tell Mark that the climate model will help make the disaster model better, he might give me more clock cycles

We should get the farming calculations taken care of in a few days.

[Mark_Everson]

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 05-26-2000 09:33 AM Irrigation, Ferrtilization, and other such things are determined by ecological province, not by individual squares. I figured that there would be at most 200 ecological provinces being farmed.

But if Economic province boundaries divide an ecological province, which IMO will happen virtually all the time, then you can't handle the economic actions of irrigation and fertilization for a whole ecolgical province. I think in reality if you insist on handling irrigation and fertilizer this way that you will need to have very small ecological provinces. This brings us right back to my point about too many calculations.

I have read your suggestion about possibly insisting on coincidence between economic and ecological provinces in the other thread, and I think its not an acceptable solution. IMO it would lead to an increased number of contorted, ugly, provinces, and a great deal of player frustration. Provinces already serve a dual role in organization of economic and governmental activities. I think we need to keep the economic and ecological provinces distinct.

[alms66]

Hi Richard,

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on the model.

First off, I had thought we wouldn't use such a detailed system for the climate, which is why my disaster model is very simplistic in regards to the climatic disasters. But I'm glad it looks like we will use your model, because it makes doing realistic disasters easier.

I know Mark is having a problem with some of the farming stuff from your model, so I'll wait til that is resolved to put the modifications to the disaster model up. I've already begun work on them, however, and I can tell you that using the current ecology model as a guideline, most climatic disasters will get major revisions. One of the biggest impacts I've seen so far is with hurricanes, they actually have an ocean current to follow (so no more arbitrary directions to send them in)!

[alms66]

Richard,

comments:

1. I really like that you are going for the M class planet idea rather than mimicing Earth. I think it will really keep players on there toes with regards to the new way pollution will be handled.

2. I don't see how "true artic" terrain can have soil rating up to 2. IMO it should always be 0, I mean it's ice or permafrost going a few feet down.

3. Same for sub-artic terrain, but not always 0, maybe up to 2.

4. terracing should also help out mountainous terrain, IMO. The Aztecs used terracing in some of the highest (elevation) cities ever built, and these cities were quite large.

5. Why are the warm temp. zones given a -2 to water rating and cool temp. given a +1? I'm no geology major, but this seems strange to me, living in the south where it's always wet and humid.

6. I think you should include a groundwater variable, it shouldn't make much difference in CPU load.

7. I really like the idea of the sun influencing climate. After all it was the sun that caused that "little ice age" you spoke of. Just in case you didn't know, the sunspots occur in 11 year cycles, with decreasing activity causing less heat/light to reach the earth towards the end of the cycle.

8. You talk about how wind and ocean currents will change with pollution. Another thing that changes is more cloud cover, i.e. it gets cooler, with the increased warmth. This is why I was pushing, along with LGJ, for the warming=cooling theory.

9. Your ecology model also leads credibility to doing landslides now. Before, it was just pop. and infrastructure that was affected. Now it's also the land, which can have far more devastating effects.

10. About erosion, LGJ said it would eventually be replenished, but I feel that the replenishment would be far out of the Clash game. It would take thousands of years.

I'm sorry the post is so long, it's just with the job and school, I don't get online much anymore, and I have to do it all in huge lumps. But again I'll say, I really want this in the game. I wanted it from the beginning, but it looked like I was the only one, so I didn't push it.

[Richard Bruns]

Toubado_Koomi:

Thanks for the comments. I'll reply in order:

2. Soil of zero means that nothing at all can grow. Soil of one means that lichen and moss can grow, and maybe some small plants. Soil of two means that some grasses and shrubs could make it. In some of the northern parts of Canada and Russia, there is enough of this vegetation for some animals to graze. This could support a small group of people.

I just noticed that I would have allowed taiga to grow on arctic terrain. I should have set the Taiga soil limits from three to six. That is probably what caused your concern; I should have checked that more closely.

3. Siberia is sub-arctic terrain. That terrain supports huge patches of taiga. The blanket of snow insulates the ground and prevents permafrost from forming, so the soil doesn't get really bad. However, you are right that five is too high. Four would be a good upper limit.

4. When I wrote about mountains, I was thinking about places like the Rockies, Alps, and Himalayas. I had forgotten about the Andes. I'll have to think about my treatment of mountains and post a revision of that aspect of the model.

5. As the air over the tropics heats up and rises, it releases the water it is holding. These dry air masses then move toward the poles and fall back down around 30 degrees latitude. As the air sinks, it picks up the water and holds it. This is why almost all of the world's deserts are around this latitude. A similar convection current makes cool temperate areas more rainy.

There are exceptions, like China and the southeast United States. These are mostly due to ocean currents. A look at a world map will show that places in the warm temperate zone are usually deserts.

6. I would also like to do groundwater. I'll see if I can come up with a way to do it without taking up too many clock cycles. I will probably try do it by ecological province, but the problem is that groundwater would have to shift with the provinces. That doesn't make much sense. But it would make more sense than leaving it out entirely...

7. I know about sunspot cycles, but usually they don't have an appreciable effect on things. However, it would make sense for the model to run the solar change check every 11 years.

8. Cloud cover change due to pollution does happen, but clouds are not necessarily the primary factor in temperature change. There are a lot of unknown variables that might be different on a different world. I'd prefer to keep the temperatire changes randomized.

10. Ecological sucession can happen pretty quickly. Sometimes it only takes a few hundred years for a bare patch of dirt to become a forest.

[Lord God Jinnai]

8. We still should have an overall trend in tempature. Just completely random isn't right, reguardless of what kind of class M planet is created.

[alms66]

Richard,

2. I'm just saying that far northern terrain should be 0. You said "true artic" terrain, which IMO, nothing can grow on. While sub-artic terrain (what you seem to be describing) will have those ratings. There should be some terrain that simply cannot support life. Look at Antarctica, nothing lives there except a few animals which live off of the sea, not the land, because the land is ice.

3. I still say up to 2.

5. I never really noticed that before, but you are right.

7. Actually the sun's influence on the Earth's climate is based on the amount of sunspots. When there are more of them, the sun is cooler and releases less heat/light, which makes the Earth cooler, which caused that "little Ice-age".

8. (LGJ, I'm still with you on this one.) I was just telling you why I backed the theory. But I think with as good a climate model you've come up with, that the randomized results of pollution will produce a good enough result. But there is still the issue that the model will only mimic localized events. What about the global picture? There should be some global trend. While the localized effects will work great with your model, the end result (other than just randomness) still needs to be there IMO. Your proposal of a randomized theory (warming=warming, warming=cooling, etc. ) seems to be a good solution to this though.

10. I was speaking of soil erosion, not succesion. When soil is eroded, it takes a very long time to replinish. While forests can reclaim plains in a very short amount of time, replacing soil that has eroded takes hundreds (at the minimum) even thousands of years, without human influence that is.

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ: I did not mean that pollution gives completely random results. I meant that we should choose a theory at random at the start of the game and go with that. So one game will see Global Cooling, another will see Warming->Cooling, and another might see Warming->More Warming.

Toubado_Koomi:

2. I realize that most arctic terrain will have soil of zero. But there is terrain above the Arctic Circle in the middle of large landmasses that can support plants. "True Arctic" simply describes any place above or below 67 degrees latitude.

3. There are large forests in the latitudes I gave for Sub-Arctic terrain. You can't get that kind of vegetation in soils of 2 or less.

7. I know that sunspot extremes cause climate changes, but the normal 11-year cycle doesn't really have a big impact. The long-term sunspot variations are larger than the short term cyclic variations. Besides, how do we know that another star would have the same 11-year cycle? For the purposes of the model, the sun's influence should be basically random.

10. You are right; it takes a thousand years for an inch of soil to form. But we have to be careful abut this; if there is too much erosion the model could destroy all the soil in the world.