Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Working on (free) Climate Themed Game, advice on a post 4ºC world looks like?  (Read 6470 times)

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
I decided the best thing I can do about the climate crises, besides the personal and political stuff (bike commuting, vegan, donating what I can to candidates who get it) is to apply my game design experience (decades) to a post-climate-apocalypse game.

As a child, the film "On The Beach" scared me, made me think.  I want this game to move people to seriously consider what a 4ºC warmer world would be like.

Assume a 4ºC rise in global temps (sure looks like we are heading there), what would the landscape look like (for example in Kentucky)? Would it be safe to assume that massive wildfires have already occurred?

I am already assuming institutional collapse and a massive die-off (see World Bank estimates). But I have to direct the art team on the visuals, so I could really use some advice.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 615
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Working on (free) Climate Themed Game, advice on a post 4ºC world
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2019, 12:33:27 AM »
Check out this book by Mark Lynas:



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/

Quote
Six Degrees, as the title suggests, is comprised of six main chapters (plus an introduction and a conclusion). Each of the main chapters examine what the earth might look like as we raise the planet’s temperature by 1o, 2o, etc. degrees Celsius, based on what the scientific literature has to say about it. Laying out the book this way makes for a good logical progression of ideas, and a fair bit of suspense. Very few people, Lynas says, have got “the slightest idea what two, four or six degrees of average warming actually means in reality, and I’m sure he is right.

Quote
At 4o, we have “with global sea levels half a meter or more above current levels, [the Egyptian city of] Alexandria’s long lifespan will be drawing to a close. Even in today’s climate, a substantial part of the city lies below sea level, and by the latter part of this century a terminal inundation will have begun. … a rise in sea levels of 50 cm would displace 1.5 million people and cause $35 billion of damage.” Alarmist? Hardly. A 50 cm rise in sea level, is well within the conservative IPCC projections, even for temperature rises less than four degrees.


VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Working on (free) Climate Themed Game, advice on a post 4ºC world
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2019, 02:27:29 AM »
Check out this book by Mark Lynas:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/six-degrees/

Quote
Six Degrees, as the title suggests, is comprised of six main chapters (plus an introduction and a conclusion). Each of the main chapters examine what the earth might look like as we raise the planet’s temperature by 1o, 2o, etc. degrees Celsius, based on what the scientific literature has to say about it. Laying out the book this way makes for a good logical progression of ideas, and a fair bit of suspense. Very few people, Lynas says, have got “the slightest idea what two, four or six degrees of average warming actually means in reality, and I’m sure he is right.

Quote
At 4o, we have “with global sea levels half a meter or more above current levels, [the Egyptian city of] Alexandria’s long lifespan will be drawing to a close. Even in today’s climate, a substantial part of the city lies below sea level, and by the latter part of this century a terminal inundation will have begun. … a rise in sea levels of 50 cm would displace 1.5 million people and cause $35 billion of damage.” Alarmist? Hardly. A 50 cm rise in sea level, is well within the conservative IPCC projections, even for temperature rises less than four degrees.

Wow. Perfect.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

RealityCheck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 4
Good idea, Vet.
At 4 deg C many here would think the IPCC predictions will be far exceeded, as said already.Sea level rise far above 1.5 or 2m for example. Bad disruption to agriculture. Drought and water shortage. So imagine all the consequential issues..... The movie 'The Road' might offer some inspiration? Hopefully not 'The Matrix'!
PS I thought of 'Six degrees' too... 😁
Sic transit gloria mundi

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 40
at 4 C globally, it would be like 5 C on the NH, and 3 C on the SH. Also NH land would warm 6 C, sea probably 2-3 C. So all you need to do is find a place that is 6 C warmer than now. Toronto becomes Richmond, Richmond becomes Savannah, Savannah becomes Havanna. That's it. And no arctic ice of course :)

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
There could be levels.

2˚C = weather pattern shifting, weather extremes increasing, first deep environmental changes, i.e. mass extinction

4˚C = only a few livable places where the rich life with the military to protect them, wild west scenario in the rest of the world, no functioning societies anymore

6˚C = only few human survivors left, trying to rebuild a civilisation

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
at 4 C globally, it would be like 5 C on the NH, and 3 C on the SH. Also NH land would warm 6 C, sea probably 2-3 C. So all you need to do is find a place that is 6 C warmer than now. Toronto becomes Richmond, Richmond becomes Savannah, Savannah becomes Havanna. That's it. And no arctic ice of course :)

I would also guess that in the southeastern USA wet bulb temps would approach the 94ºF unsurvivabe mark as well.

The game is a mix of a visual novel (characters talking about their world) and a journey north to Canada.

Really appreciate the advice.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
There could be levels.

2˚C = weather pattern shifting, weather extremes increasing, first deep environmental changes, i.e. mass extinction

4˚C = only a few livable places where the rich life with the military to protect them, wild west scenario in the rest of the world, no functioning societies anymore

6˚C = only few human survivors left, trying to rebuild a civilisation

I was thinking of having 3 levels as you describe, maybe 4ºC, 5ºC, and 6ºC.

This would affect supplies and 'events' (heatwaves etc,)
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1841
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 15
Cross over any locations under 90 feet above sea level. Well, at least describe them as soon-to-be abandoned/not economically maintained.

One scenario in the game could be a refugee ship passengers attempting to cross to the safe high ground. Thanks to weapons deals on the previous decade, they'll be armed and very hungry for any arable land.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 07:50:32 PM by Pmt111500 »
Amateur observations of Sea Ice since 2003.

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Cross over any locations under 90 feet above sea level. Well, at least describe them as soon-to-be abandoned/not economically maintained.

One scenario in the game could be a refugee ship passengers attempting to cross to the safe high ground. Thanks to weapons deals on the previous decade, they'll be armed and very hungry for any arable land.

I'm going to use a well loved game mechanic, having a party of survivors travel from Atlanta to Sault Ste. Marie.  Characters will mention the flooding, of course.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 287
"I would also guess that in the southeastern USA wet bulb temps would approach the 94ºF unsurvivabe mark as well."

Perhaps, but most of the highest wbt/heat index records set in the US have been in the Midwest or even  upper Midwest:

"...during the July heat wave of 1995 that the highest dew point of all was measured in the Upper Midwest: 90° at Appleton, Wisconsin at 5 p.m. on July 13th of that summer. The air temperature stood at 101° in Appleton at that time leading to a heat index reading of 148°, perhaps the highest such reading ever measured in the United States..."

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/record-dew-point-temperatures.html

Crop transpiration seems to be a major factor here.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 11:45:46 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174
There could be levels.

2˚C = weather pattern shifting, weather extremes increasing, first deep environmental changes, i.e. mass extinction

4˚C = only a few livable places where the rich life with the military to protect them, wild west scenario in the rest of the world, no functioning societies anymore

6˚C = only few human survivors left, trying to rebuild a civilisation

 2C is already happenning at 1C.
 
1. weather pattern shifting: atmospheric patterns are already shifting
2. weather extremes increasing: Already happenning.
3. first deep environmental changes: See the Melting season thread
4. mass extinction: we are right smack in the middle of it.

So I'll suggest this:

1C: We are here.  weather pattern shifting, weather extremes increasing, first deep environmental changes, i.e. mass extinction. Peak humanity is past. Decay begins.

1.5C: Human system are already corroded by the relentless onslaught of extreme weather, then we get the first BOE. That's when SHTF. The year of the first BOE the weather will go bananas everywhere in the NH. Storms, hail, heatwaves during September-October, then, the heat is vented from the arctic and the snow begins. Snow like never before.  I'm talking about several meters of snow in some places, most people won't survive.  Other places get heatwaves. Winter heatwaves are the sweet spot to travel. After this, 10% of the population remains. Geopolitics can't be predicted because the change is too large.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "After the first BOE ... After this, 10% of the population remains."

Really ? How soon after the first BOE is this to be expected ?

sidd
 

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174
Quote
Really ? How soon after the first BOE is this to be expected ?

Disorder already started. The disorder will increase as we approach the first BOE. After the first BOE Disorder gets out of hand, systems collapse, war and famine begins. That is if we are not prepared.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
the places becoming less livable thread should produce some ideas.

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 0
I suppose, just like economists, never give a prediction coupled with a time. That way you are never wrong.

The question was, how soon after the first BOE would 10% of the population remain ? Or for that matter when is the first BOE to be expected ?

A year with an error bar for over/under would be nice.

sidd

Ardeus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 15
At 4 degrees C, industrial civilization already has collapsed, the arctic ice will be a distant memory.

Without arctic ice, there will be little difference in temperature between the north pole and the equator (the jet stream won't exist by then).

Large scale agriculture is no longer possible under these conditions due to drastic change in weather patterns. This will get hundreds of millions of people on the move.

I won't be surprised if all this unravels before you manage to get your game out.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest

2C is already happenning at 1C.
 
1. weather pattern shifting: atmospheric patterns are already shifting
2. weather extremes increasing: Already happenning.
3. first deep environmental changes: See the Melting season thread
4. mass extinction: we are right smack in the middle of it.

Yes, that's right. It's not so apparent for average joe though. Most people (at least the rich) still live their lives in a normal way. At 2˚C the symptoms are the same but will impact people in their daily lives other then it does today. Then it will become obvious.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174
To me it is obvious now, but I get what you mean.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 40
At 4 degrees C, industrial civilization already has collapsed, the arctic ice will be a distant memory.

Without arctic ice, there will be little difference in temperature between the north pole and the equator (the jet stream won't exist by then).

Large scale agriculture is no longer possible under these conditions due to drastic change in weather patterns. This will get hundreds of millions of people on the move.

I won't be surprised if all this unravels before you manage to get your game out.

This is absoultely and completely baseless.

1) at 4 degrees C globally it is likely that Equator-regions will warm 1-2 C, and midlatitudes 4-6 C. That won't kill anyone, won't collapse anything, etc. If you live in Berlin would you say that if the weather became that of Rome people would die and government would collapse? Of course not. If you live in Rome would you say that people in Egypt are unable to survive? of course not.
2) No model whatsoever predicts an equable climate and we still do not know what causes an equable climate so stating that there will be little difference in temps between the NP and Equator is unscientific to say the least.
3) Guess what: large scale agriculture is happening even in the tropics, so stating that at warmer temps there will be no large scale agriculture is baseless again.

The only (probably) true statment from the above is that there will be places that will become unliveable (probably due to drought) and there will be millions on the move due to this. How we will handle this is unforeseeable and it will certainly cause big problems but the MadMax-worldview that you gave is not going to happen.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174

This is absoultely and completely baseless.

1) at 4 degrees C globally it is likely that Equator-regions will warm 1-2 C, and midlatitudes 4-6 C. That won't kill anyone, won't collapse anything, etc. If you live in Berlin would you say that if the weather became that of Rome people would die and government would collapse? Of course not. If you live in Rome would you say that people in Egypt are unable to survive? of course not.
2) No model whatsoever predicts an equable climate and we still do not know what causes an equable climate so stating that there will be little difference in temps between the NP and Equator is unscientific to say the least.
3) Guess what: large scale agriculture is happening even in the tropics, so stating that at warmer temps there will be no large scale agriculture is baseless again.

The only (probably) true statment from the above is that there will be places that will become unliveable (probably due to drought) and there will be millions on the move due to this. How we will handle this is unforeseeable and it will certainly cause big problems but the MadMax-worldview that you gave is not going to happen.

what a load of nonsense.

Quote
at 4 degrees C globally it is likely that Equator-regions will warm 1-2 C, and midlatitudes 4-6 C. That won't kill anyone, won't collapse anything, etc.

4C over 100 years is worldwide destruction with only the small organisms surviving and patches of humans struggling to survive.

Quote
If you live in Berlin would you say that if the weather became that of Rome people would die and government would collapse? Of course not.

That would depend on how fast the Berlinians can adapt their infrastructure to Roman climate.

But that is not what's going to happen at all.  Berlin will have Rome weather for a few weeks, then Siberian weather, for a few more weeks, then Saharan weather for a few more weeks, then it will have Caribbean weather for a few weeks, you name it, it will happen.


Quote
If you live in Rome would you say that people in Egypt are unable to survive? of course not

Adaptation is not instantaneous, nor it is guranteed. With people denying the dangers winning public opinion means we adapt like animals. Slow. Blind. Reacting confused and panicked.

Quote
2) No model whatsoever predicts an equable climate and we still do not know what causes an equable climate so stating that there will be little difference in temps between the NP and Equator is unscientific to say the least.

It is not an equable climate that you should fear. It is what is in between what we have now and an equable climate. The transition.


Quote
3) Guess what: large scale agriculture is happening even in the tropics, so stating that at warmer temps there will be no large scale agriculture is baseless again.


Agriculture is already being disrupted by changes in seasonality and hydroligic cycles. And this is just the very beginning.

Quote
The only (probably) true statment from the above is that there will be places that will become unliveable (probably due to drought) and there will be millions on the move due to this. How we will handle this is unforeseeable and it will certainly cause big problems but the MadMax-worldview that you gave is not going to happen.


Why? Because the world owes you a livable world? Or maybe because it has never happened before thus you "know" it can't never happen?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Qce

  • New ice
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If you need a time frame, various sources put the earliest plausible time frame for +4C around 2050-70.

For example the SRES A1FI scenario:
- Rapid economic growth.
- A global population that reaches 9 billion in 2050 and then gradually declines.
- The quick spread of new and efficient technologies.
- A convergent world - income and way of life converge between regions. Extensive social and cultural interactions worldwide
- An emphasis on fossil-fuels (Fossil Intensive)

Also,
“a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable.”
(Kevin Anderson)

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
BTW VideoGameVet,

i keep recommending watching this brilliant talk. I think you as a programmer will enjoy it and it might give you a better idea on how to model such things.


El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 40
Archimid, you have not provided one bit of evidence for your extraordinary claims. This is especially hilarious:

"4C over 100 years is worldwide destruction with only the small organisms surviving and patches of humans struggling to survive."

Considering that we have seen 10-15 C changes in midlatitude climate at the beginning and end of ice ages many times in the past one million years alone. And as we now know, these changes happened in a matter of DECADES. The Eocene had 14 C warmer average temps than now, and lo and behold there was life. So this statement of yours is really just hyperbole squared and goes against all evidence from the paleorecord.

also:

"Berlin will have Rome weather for a few weeks, then Siberian weather, for a few more weeks, then Saharan weather for a few more weeks, then it will have Caribbean weather for a few weeks, you name it, it will happen"

Utterly baseless, no model says anything like that will happen, and no paleorecord says it ever happened.

Last:
"Agriculture is already being disrupted by changes in seasonality and hydroligic cycles"

Also untrue. There is an overproduction of food globally, no disruption, no shortages.

Thing is, this is just a psychological phemonenon: people always love to imagine and fear a terrible all changing future that will cleanse the world of its sins. The Flood, the Last Judgement, you name it.

I agree that climate change is truly a huge danger and we need to deal with it quickly, but what you describe is utter unscientific nonsense

 

Ardeus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 15
Archimid, you have not provided one bit of evidence for your extraordinary claims. This is especially hilarious:

"4C over 100 years is worldwide destruction with only the small organisms surviving and patches of humans struggling to survive."

Considering that we have seen 10-15 C changes in midlatitude climate at the beginning and end of ice ages many times in the past one million years alone. And as we now know, these changes happened in a matter of DECADES. The Eocene had 14 C warmer average temps than now, and lo and behold there was life. So this statement of yours is really just hyperbole squared and goes against all evidence from the paleorecord.

also:

"Berlin will have Rome weather for a few weeks, then Siberian weather, for a few more weeks, then Saharan weather for a few more weeks, then it will have Caribbean weather for a few weeks, you name it, it will happen"

Utterly baseless, no model says anything like that will happen, and no paleorecord says it ever happened.

Last:
"Agriculture is already being disrupted by changes in seasonality and hydroligic cycles"

Also untrue. There is an overproduction of food globally, no disruption, no shortages.

Thing is, this is just a psychological phemonenon: people always love to imagine and fear a terrible all changing future that will cleanse the world of its sins. The Flood, the Last Judgement, you name it.

I agree that climate change is truly a huge danger and we need to deal with it quickly, but what you describe is utter unscientific nonsense

The Earth system has predictably proved time and time again that it is far to big and complex for computer models.

I honestly believe that subconscious evaluations of our current situation and predictions for the future are as trustworthy as current computer models.

Will anyone on this forum be surprised if we have a BOE in the next 3 years?

Can anyone expect climate patterns not being disrupted after that?

That being said, the BOE is a psychological milestone. No one knows for sure if we even need a full BOE to get changes in weather patterns that will disrupt agriculture to the point where it will create a few hundred millions of refugees.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174
Quote
Considering that we have seen 10-15 C changes in midlatitude climate at the beginning and end of ice ages many times in the past one million years alone. And as we now know, these changes happened in a matter of DECADES.

10-15c over decades? Citation needed.

Quote
The Eocene had 14 C warmer average temps than now, and lo and behold there was life. So this statement of yours is really just hyperbole squared and goes against all evidence from the

4C over 100 years is not the same as 4C over thousands of years. 4C over 1000 years is no problem life will adapt as proven by your statement.


Quote
"Berlin will have Rome weather for a few weeks, then Siberian weather, for a few more weeks, then Saharan weather for a few more weeks, then it will have Caribbean weather for a few weeks, you name it, it will happen"

Utterly baseless, no model says anything like that will happen, and no paleorecord says it ever happened.

This is just beginning. As the Arctic melts and the atmospheric currents lose regularity the NH starts feeling the effects I describe. If the Arctic holds models will acquire the new data and show what I speak of.

Last:
"Agriculture is already being disrupted by changes in seasonality and hydroligic cycles"

Also untrue. There is an overproduction of food globally, no disruption, no shortages.

No shortages... yet. Certainly disruption. But you can’t allow this simple fact to be true or your theory that we will magically adapt breaks.

Quote
Thing is, this is just a psychological phemonenon: people always love to imagine and fear a terrible all changing future that will cleanse the world of its sins. The Flood, the Last Judgement, you name it.

I think the problem is confirmation bias. The world has never collapse, thus it can’t collapse, even if all the evidence indicates that it will.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 267
What would the game teach? Or is it just a setting.

One important aspect in all this is generations. Hardly any game makes you care about those because usually choices don´t matter. I like One Hour One Life in this aspect.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
There could be levels.

2˚C = weather pattern shifting, weather extremes increasing, first deep environmental changes, i.e. mass extinction

4˚C = only a few livable places where the rich life with the military to protect them, wild west scenario in the rest of the world, no functioning societies anymore

6˚C = only few human survivors left, trying to rebuild a civilisation

 2C is already happenning at 1C.
 
1. weather pattern shifting: atmospheric patterns are already shifting
2. weather extremes increasing: Already happenning.
3. first deep environmental changes: See the Melting season thread
4. mass extinction: we are right smack in the middle of it.

So I'll suggest this:

1C: We are here.  weather pattern shifting, weather extremes increasing, first deep environmental changes, i.e. mass extinction. Peak humanity is past. Decay begins.

1.5C: Human system are already corroded by the relentless onslaught of extreme weather, then we get the first BOE. That's when SHTF. The year of the first BOE the weather will go bananas everywhere in the NH. Storms, hail, heatwaves during September-October, then, the heat is vented from the arctic and the snow begins. Snow like never before.  I'm talking about several meters of snow in some places, most people won't survive.  Other places get heatwaves. Winter heatwaves are the sweet spot to travel. After this, 10% of the population remains. Geopolitics can't be predicted because the change is too large.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does BOE stand for?
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
What would the game teach? Or is it just a setting.

One important aspect in all this is generations. Hardly any game makes you care about those because usually choices don´t matter. I like One Hour One Life in this aspect.

OK, let me share the backstory (I may regret this one):

Backstory:  Climate has warmed to over 4ºC.  We live in a post-apocalyptic world where most people have died and storms and heatwaves remain a constant threat,

We start at a survivor camp in the ruins of the city of Atlanta.  Our group decides to make for Canada to escape the horrid conditions they are experiencing,  Gathering plant seeds, the only accepted currency, you have to decide what supplies to take.  Water and food will not be easily found.  Salvaged bicycles are loaded up and our small group of 4 survivors (you and 3 others) slowly make their way on the nearly 2000km journey to Canada and Lake Superior, in search of survival.

Along the way they will be plagued by storms, killing heatwaves, and mosquito born diseases.   Some may not make it.  As a leader, your decisions mean life or death.

You’ll meet other survivors who will share their stories and you’ll learn how all this came to pass. 



As you can guess, I'm using the Oregon Trail as a gameplay model.  Oregon Trail is the most successful educational game of all time having sold 65m copies.  There are visual novel elements to give the characters more depth and hopefully provoke some empathy and even anger.

I will be giving away this game because I figure maybe I can create some emotional impact that gets people considering just how bad the worst case can be.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Sorry for my ignorance, but what does BOE stand for?

No ignorance here. We have our jargon. ;)

It means blue ocean event. It means the Arctic is almost melted out and lost it's 'buffer' function. Several weird weather things gonna happen when this happens. The meteorologists here can address that way better than me.

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 267
BOE is Blue Ocean Event or the year when arctic ice goes away at least in the summer or dips below 1m square miles.

Never heard of Oregon Trail but that is some cool game history.

The trouble is what kind of story you want to tell. I guess this is a cautionary tale...you don´t want this kids but the problem is that kids know. Maybe we need a game were global warming kills golf lawns.

If i were to make a game i would base it in Civ III (updated for all the extra PC power we have now). You have to run global Civilization so the world is on a survivable trajectory using IPCC scenarios and current science. Starting in the nineties would help. Needs a bit of tech tree rework...

Oh yeah and you also have to modernize the world as much as possible. So you share green tech and pay people to keep pristine forests instead of turning them into palm oil falms and all that.

Shared wealth slows population growth etc.

One scenario that might be interesting for the game is the vulnerability of small groups.
If the going is really tough a bigger group might take your stuff (or worse).

One of my favorite youth memories is an OdM/D&D type adventure where my best friends much older brother made up the story. He had some vampires in there we could not beat (without risk of death) but after a while we figured out the smart thing and we escaped after figuring out a puzzle....bottom line you can´t be heroes all the time. You also cannot trust bigger groups when resources are scarce.

Anyway GL on your project!
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
should have a scenario where we try geo-engineering , and it works !

then the permafrost meltout happens, and the methane kills all the hydroxyls, and creates permanent noctilucent cloud cover, stopping most sunlight from getting to the ground, ice age starts, and hello glaciers.


aperson

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 170
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 107
Given the start and finish point for this game and the Oregon trail style, I think a major driver of variability between gameplays will be just how chaotic synoptic scale weather will be in this scenario.

Is there an option to start the journey at different times of year? Summer would essentially be hard mode compared to Winter. Some playthroughs should expect to see regions with neverending torrential rains while similar regions are covered in extreme drought on a different playthrough.

Would there be options to wait in place and consume resources instead of move on? Decisionmaking about whether a stuck weather pattern will moderate or whether one must instead just push through it would be critical.

Having someone in your party with access to satellite data from things like the GOES satellites that are still just up there orbiting would be a major boon to being able to make smart migratory decisions.

Lots of interesting options here with this style of game.

Edit: I'd also recommend putting the backstory in the OP to get more relevantly guided discussion. It may also be useful to consider what sort of concentration pathway got us to 4C. Is this 4C in 2150 or 2050?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 09:15:05 PM by aperson »
computer janitor by trade

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 40
This one for Archimid from Nature, hope this will do:

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

There you have it:

"There are twenty-five of these distinct warming-cooling oscillations (Dansgaard 1984) which are now commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, or D-O cycles. One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C"

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
should have a scenario where we try geo-engineering , and it works !


It's a video game, not a marketing campaign for big oil. ;)

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 287
EC, ice cores from Greenland can tell us a lot about shifts in temperatures in Greenland, but not that much about how quickly shifts happen elsewhere.

In any case, all these variations, going back tens of millions of years, were within a range that was mostly at about current global temperatures or below. We are now looking at significant and relatively rapid global shifts of temperatures up into regions the earth has not experienced for tens of millions of years. A lot of life has evolved to live within parameter that will no longer exist.

One wonders what your intentions might be for trying to downplay the very dire consequences that pretty much all climate scientists and the bodies that represent them recognize will be quite catastrophic, especially as we go to 4 degrees and more C above pre-industrial levels.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Given the start and finish point for this game and the Oregon trail style, I think a major driver of variability between gameplays will be just how chaotic synoptic scale weather will be in this scenario.

Is there an option to start the journey at different times of year? Summer would essentially be hard mode compared to Winter. Some playthroughs should expect to see regions with neverending torrential rains while similar regions are covered in extreme drought on a different playthrough.

Would there be options to wait in place and consume resources instead of move on? Decisionmaking about whether a stuck weather pattern will moderate or whether one must instead just push through it would be critical.

Having someone in your party with access to satellite data from things like the GOES satellites that are still just up there orbiting would be a major boon to being able to make smart migratory decisions.

Lots of interesting options here with this style of game.

Edit: I'd also recommend putting the backstory in the OP to get more relevantly guided discussion. It may also be useful to consider what sort of concentration pathway got us to 4C. Is this 4C in 2150 or 2050?

Starting time was a big component of the Oregon Trail and it could be here.  I was also thinking, at the start, of giving the player 3 'difficulty' options: 4.0ºC, 4.5ºC, and 5.0ºC warming.

Random weather events and decision making about when to hunker down or when to travel will play a role.  Members of the party getting sick (dengue fever? dysentery?) and having to decide to rest or not.  Limited supplies of food and water.  Deciding if you want to spend a day distilling water found to remove pathogens (solar evaporator thing).

I want to try and get the impact that "On The Beach" had on me.  Even a successful game outcome should give the player the feeling that they have only bought some time before the end comes.

I wonder if we have had the worst outcome, the World Bank estimate of 80%-90% fatalities and institutional collapse, would there be any infrastructure to access weather satellites.  Things like cell service and the grid might be inoperable.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

Paladiea

  • New ice
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
From what I can gather, a post 4°C world would be on the verge of global ocean anoxia, and most sea life would either be dead or dying.
The most enjoyable way to think about heat transfer through radiation is to picture a Star Wars laser battle, where every atom and molecule is constantly firing at every other atom and molecule.

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2469
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 46
Few scientists are predicting a BOE (blue ocean event) soon. There certainly is some discussion of receding ice edge having impact on weather via jet stream changes but it seems somewhat controversial. I would be inclined to recommend against including BOE as a cause in game as I suspect it may well not age well. Changes to jet stream causing weather patterns to change without necessarily pinning this on a BOE seems adequate.

Warmer atmosphere holds more water so more intense downpours is pretty well established.

For droughts you want more blocking patterns keeping jet streams stuck in loops.

So more rainfall and more droughts is likely.

The combination causing top soil to be washed away causing agricultural problems and lots of climate refugees ....




 

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 40


One wonders what your intentions might be for trying to downplay the very dire consequences that pretty much all climate scientists and the bodies that represent them recognize will be quite catastrophic, especially as we go to 4 degrees and more C above pre-industrial levels.

Oh yes, i must be paid by the oil lobby or such.

Anyway, the fact is that during the past million years our planet went through many very quick temperature changes of more than 4 C and not just on Greenland but on the whole planet (see chart). Some species died, some adapted, some places became deserts, some turned from desert to forest, some places became drier, some wetter but sorry, no MadMaxWorld. Anyone who respects science and the facts understands this. Will there be species that can not adapt? Sure, no wooly mammoths or sabertooth tigers around anymore. But what most fantasize about here is untrue: the constantly happening extreme weatherevents that make all life impossible did not happen, not when global temps were 6 C beyond current or 12 C above. We owe it to the facts/science to understand/admit it. The game's basic premise, that a 4 C temp rise will lead to a MadMax type of World is simply very unlikely. I love facts and hate emotionally overhyped things.


Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174
 El Cid we were talking about global temperatures, but you quickly mislead with a very local temperature over Greenland.  Global temperatures most certainly didn't not move 8C to 15C over decades, local temperatures did. Huge difference.

Furthermore, each one of these warming episodes was accompanied by significant changes in flora and fauna. That means species went extinct and were replaced by the species that adapted.  We are the fauna this time around but you just gloss over it.

Furthermore, your example proves that rapid local warming happens and it proves that it has global effects. A BOE is much more significant event than change in the Atlantic thermohaline because :

1. Arctic changes includes Atlantic changes
2. The Arctic is much more central to the North Hemisphere
3. There is no protection from the the North American or Eurasian Ice sheets.

Quote
And as we now know, these changes happened in a matter of DECADES. The Eocene had 14 C warmer average temps than now, and lo and behold there was life.

Of course there was life. As there will be plenty of life after a BOE or even a meteor strike. The point is that for most of the life present at the time there was test. The environment changed and they had to adapt or perish. Their change pales in comparison to the change that is happening right now.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174

Anyway, the fact is that during the past million years our planet went through many very quick temperature changes of more than 4 C and not just on Greenland but on the whole planet (see chart).


This is simply false. you will have to provide another citation because the one you provided last was local warming, not global. There have been global 4C changes over scales of thousands of years, not centuries, much less decades. Current warming is 10 times faster than the fastest warming on record. The only change that was probably faster than the one we are subjecting the planet to was the meteor that killed the dinosaurs and cooled the earth overnight.


Quote
Some species died, some adapted, some places became deserts, some turned from desert to forest, some places became drier, some wetter but sorry, no MadMaxWorld

Why would there be a madmax world if there were less than a million humans around. It wasn't until the long climate stability of the holocene that humans finally grew into what we are today. People that lived through those changes likely experienced hardship.

Quote
Anyone who respects science and the facts understands this

Understand what? That the species that lived through these times of change were stressed and many dint survive? No they don't. They take for granted that abrupt climate change won't happen because they are magical beings to whom the universe owes a perfect climate.

Quote
But what most fantasize about here is untrue: the constantly happening extreme weatherevents that make all life impossible did not happen, not when global temps were 6 C beyond current or 12 C above.

The lies you must tell yourself to believe your convenient truths. Your numbers don't even make sense. Global temperatures 6C and 12C above today at the same time we are talking about the last ice age?  6C-12C happenned last during the time of the dinosaurs. Not even the continents existed like they do today. You are speaking non sense.


Quote
The game's basic premise, that a 4 C temp rise will lead to a MadMax type of World is simply very unlikely
.

 You don't understand the difference between local and global temperatures and your lack of understanding of the time frames involved.

Quote
I love facts and hate emotionally overhyped things

Yet, your emotions betray you and make you ignore evidence in favor of comfortable lies. I understand. It is scary. Most people can't handle it.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6099
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1192
  • Likes Given: 19
Is not the Arctic warming at twice the rate of the world average?
If so, and the ratio is maintained, for the Arctic +4 = +8.

I think that means an ice-free Arctic summer.
I think that means an awful lot of Greenland Ice Sheet melting.
I assume the Antarctic gets somewhat warmer. I guess that means WAIS collapse.

I think that means AbruptSLR happening and unstoppable.
I think that means many hundreds of millions of people having to move. Where to?

Other major impacts
- too much water (not one-off floods, permanent rainfall increase) in some places
- too little water (not one-off drought, permanent rainfall decrease) in other places
- too much heat so large areas become Death Valley

A lot more of the planet becomes unsuitable for human habitation e.g. Middle East, Phoenix, Las Vegas, large parts of the Mississippi Missouri river basin.

Another few hundred million people have to leave. Where to?

NOT HERE. KEEP OUT!!
Europe bans immigration. Navies shoot on sight migrant ships.
Trump's successors build an electrified wall - border guards shoot on sight (learning from example of the Berlin Wall)

After several really difficult generations what comes out the other end ?
- A high-tech AI new human civilisation, or
- A few humans surviving quite well with pre-industrial technology, or
- Fewer humans than today with enough technology and the determination to screw up all over again. You can't change the nature of the beast?

I think if your game assumes that +4 degrees is going to happen it can't have a happy ending.
I've made myself a bit gloomy.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
should have a scenario where we try geo-engineering , and it works !

then the permafrost meltout happens, and the methane kills all the hydroxyls, and creates permanent noctilucent cloud cover, stopping most sunlight from getting to the ground, ice age starts, and hello glaciers.

Yeah, and the survivors are on a stupid nuclear-powered train that keeps circling the earth for no good reason when they could just park in a dome and heat it up.

You think people would go for a story like that?
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

VideoGameVet

  • New ice
  • Posts: 35
  • Video Game Designer, Researcher, Cyclist
    • View Profile
    • The Climate Trail
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2


I think if your game assumes that +4 degrees is going to happen it can't have a happy ending.
I've made myself a bit gloomy.

It doesn't ... if you 'succeed' you will realize that you've only bought some time and people are already talking about going to the far north.

If I can get 10% of the emotional gut-punch that "On The Beach" gave me as a child, I will be satisfied.
"Humans went to the moon on purpose. We destroyed an entire planet by just not caring."

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 287
"Oh yes, i must be paid by the oil lobby or such." Thanks for letting me know. I will now block you.

"Anyway, the fact is that during the past million years our planet went through many very quick temperature changes of more than 4 C ..."

And this further confirms your apparently well paid compulsion to misconstrue the facts, even as they have been just directly presented to you.

We have not, in fact, had changes of 4C degrees ABOVE current levels.

That was the whole point of my post. If you choose to totally fucking ignore my point, I will choose to fucking ignore you.

Have a good life, troll!

:)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "We have not, in fact, had changes of 4C degrees ABOVE current levels. "

Humans have not. But other creatures have. In fact almost everything before 15 or so MYr ago until 540 MYr (Phanerozoic eon) have been more than 4C hotter than present.

I attach temperature estimates from wiki for Phanerozoic.

sidd

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 40
wili,

calling me a troll and using the f word multiple times is pretty childish and won't change the facts and seems like a classic case of the reduction of cognitive dissonance (you are emotionally unable to accept new facts the contradict your original point of view)

archimid,

sidd attached the chart I meant to but unfortunately did not, and gerontocrat pointed your attention towards this thing we call Arctic Amplification that is happening right in front of our eyes: high latitude temperatures change more than mid and low lat temps DURING THE SAME TIMEFRAME. sidd's chart shows global temps, and while Greenland temps had 8-15 C very quick oscillations (see Nature citation), global temps oscillated (as shown by sidd) 4-6 C. Same timeframe, smaller amplitude as can be seen. So we DID have multiple events of very fast global(not local!) 4-6 C changes in temps during the past one million years. Point proven.

Also, we probably had BOE about 120 000 years ago and we might have had BOE during the Holocene Optimum (see litreature for both).

I mostly agree in the consequences with gerontocrat: BOE, Greenland melting, possible WAIS collapse, abruptSLR and eventually the need to move millions of people (the question is how many, when and where to - I would say not before 2050 due to the slow nature of land-based ice melt). This is obviously bad, but still no MadMax.

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 174
El Cid. You are confused by the graph. Look at the time scales. To the left time is in thousands of years and to the right time is in millions of years. Your claims are wrong, but it seems like you have unconsciously thrown the towel. You don't want to see the difference between global and local.

The very few million people that lived through those event looked like mad max but without the technology and the nuclear waste. But luckily most of them where nomads, so when their dwelling was destroyed, they just pick and move.

We are not nomads.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2469
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 46
Archmid, that graph doesn't have the resolution necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_event

Quote
rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the last glacial period.

Ice core evidence from Antarctic cores suggests that the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are related to the so-called Antarctic Isotope Maxima by means of a coupling of the climate of the two hemispheres, the Bi-polar Seesaw.

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[3] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.

Yes that 8C is local and global will be less. It is the local that does the damage so your

Quote
4C over 100 years is worldwide destruction with only the small organisms surviving and patches of humans struggling to survive.

seems extreme - not impossible that lots of refugees cause nuclear war ...  but I don't think we should be assuming this.