Extreme Global Warming [Quenched]

[jacobh]

I don't understand... other than the fact that it looks kinda different, how is this map different from Classic or World 2.0?

[pepperonibread]

ok, heres the map that i based my map on
in photoshop, i eliminated all of the lowest elevations of green, and got my landmasses from that
since this is a satellite picture and antarctica is covered in ice, it pretty much looks like a huge plateau, but im not sure if when all the ice melts off some of antarctica's lower elevations would flood. antarctica could just be a plateau without the ice. again, im not sure.
and about the uninhabitable zone (red band), when i changed the image from a photoshop doc to a jpeg, some of the colors got a little weird, but ill fix that soon

[coconut4paws]

You should not erase the water covered land, but fade or blur it out. It would show the global warming effect more and it would just plain be cool. The thermal image would look cooler as a base, and show more of the global warming aspect. You could just use black lines as dividers and throw in some cool science/math blurbs... Have fun with it!

[dominationnation]

I think that you should make the red band only in certain areas in the equater and make it uncrossalbe. Along with that It doesn't look much different from classic or world2.1 do something to shake it up

[KEYOGI]

I agree with those that have said this doesn't offer much over Classic or World 2.0. I'm just not sure we need another map of the world.

Personally I'd find it much more interesting if it was focused on a particular area that was heavily affected. Just as an example, say it was based in Europe... I'd like to see some more islands and perhaps even go as far as having marshes or swamps as impassables along with some desert areas?

[pepperonibread]

You should not erase the water covered land, but fade or blur it out. It would show the global warming effect more and it would just plain be cool. The thermal image would look cooler as a base, and show more of the global warming aspect. You could just use black lines as dividers and throw in some cool science/math blurbs... Have fun with it!

yeah, that would look really cool
thanks

[GreecePwns]

I think the uninhabitable zone color should be toned down a bit. It's almost impossible to see the territories behind it.

[pepperonibread]

I think the uninhabitable zone color should be toned down a bit. It's almost impossible to see the territories behind it.

ok, i guess i need to clarify this in the map key
the uninhabitable zone is an impassable border except for along the ocean routes that go through it, so, theres no territories in the uninhabitable zone

[coconut4paws]

You should not erase the water covered land, but fade or blur it out. It would show the global warming effect more and it would just plain be cool. The thermal image would look cooler as a base, and show more of the global warming aspect. You could just use black lines as dividers and throw in some cool science/math blurbs... Have fun with it!

yeah, that would look really cool
thanks

Thanx wade, By the way this is Lori...so yeah...I had a smart moment.

[pepperonibread]

yeah i know
thats your email too, right?

[coconut4paws]

yep!

[piano94]

I like it but the red zone "pops" out too much. Great idea though!

[pepperonibread]

ok, heres the map that i based my map on
in photoshop, i eliminated all of the lowest elevations of green, and got my landmasses from that
since this is a satellite picture and antarctica is covered in ice, it pretty much looks like a huge plateau, but im not sure if when all the ice melts off some of antarctica's lower elevations would flood. antarctica could just be a plateau without the ice. again, im not sure.
and about the uninhabitable zone (red band), when i changed the image from a photoshop doc to a jpeg, some of the colors got a little weird, but ill fix that soon

read the whole thread, please

[Lt. Valerian]

Um, I hate to be a naysayer... but this map is very much like classic and 2.1. Also, it is somewhat inconsistent. If the water level has risen to the point where Russia (including the Ural Mountains) all but disappears beneath the ocean, then I think that Hawaii and French Polynesia would disappear too... Just a thought.

[wrightfan123]

Um, I hate to be a naysayer... but this map is very much like classic and 2.1. Also, it is somewhat inconsistent. If the water level has risen to the point where Russia (including the Ural Mountains) all but disappears beneath the ocean, then I think that Hawaii and French Polynesia would disappear too... Just a thought.

Wade, maybe you should clarify this, too. French Polynesia and Bermuda and all those other random circles and man-made ports.

[pepperonibread]

yeah, the ports are supposed to be like walled cities that were saved

[fluffybunnykins]

maybe UK should be called Scotland, as that's really all that seems to be left!
Where has Mount Snowdon gone, I wonder... probably to small to register at this scale...

[pepperonibread]

sure, i can change that

[fluffybunnykins]

it'll keep all the Jocks happy, anyway!


[Jock: english derogatory slang for person of scottish origin]

[jacobh]

yeah, the ports are supposed to be like walled cities that were saved

French Polynesia is a walled city that was saved...?

[jacobh]

(but not Moscow?)

[Lt. Valerian]

Wait, floating cities? What is this, Water World? Also, who would expend the resources in this post-apocalyptic world to build these things especially in the South Indian Ocean?

[pepperonibread]

Wait, floating cities? What is this, Water World? Also, who would expend the resources in this post-apocalyptic world to build these things especially in the South Indian Ocean?

first of all, its not a post-apocalyptic world. this amount of global warming would take place over hundreds of years, so its not like there are gonna be giant tidal waves that flood the coasts. and dont you think humans would EVENTUALLY see the threat and adapt a little? people could build off previously flooded islands so they wouldnt have to make the ports floating or start building off the ocean floor. and these ports wouldnt be huge cities or anything. they would be international ports for ships and aircraft. so, for my map, i took current, centralized islands and turned them into ports. and finally, in response to the comment about moscow being gone, cities like that could be saved, i just didnt see the point in putting a bunch of little major cities off the coast of every continent

and about playability. without the ports, it would just look even more like the classic map. thats actually the reason i put the ports and the uninhabitable zone in, so it would be different from classic

[pepperonibread]

also, i need some feedback on what the bonuses should be

[casper]

so i read from multiple sources that even if all the polar ice caps melted that sea levels would rise around 70 meters. your map looks more like a 300 meter rise. so what would make the oceans rise that much besides ice melting?

again a great site to look at... http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/ plug in the amount of sea level rise or fall and it will give you resulting maps for the world, europe, france, se asia, japan and korea, west coast and east coast usa.