My Landscape Idea

[Sander]

Hmm it did not post very big, i marked a red circle and labeled it.

Ah, when removing the 'th_' from the link you can actually get a viewable map. I could go through the trouble of marking everything north of that indent too, you know. That's the bit where there's a much, much larger gain in land mass. Hence not receding.

I already explained this.

No you didn't. You never explained why the northmost part of the coastline hasn't receded but has done the exact opposite.

Not many people would need to live there, there could be numerous archepelgoes each holding dozens of small communities.

Archipelagos of three square kilometres each holding dozens of communities (which would be hundreds of people on a small surface), pray tell, how would you possibly physically do this, let alone logically.

Yeah but islands are too!

Okay, let's go through this again. You start your reasoning with why you have to use islands by basically saying 'Everything else is flooded!!!1' Then we note that that's completely impossible, and you say
'Yeah, but all that will be left is just mountains and other deserted places with nothing to do, cause they're really deserted, unlike the islands that magically didn't flood as much and are still interesting and undeserted!'

I then remark that Fallout 1 and 2 are very deserted as well, as they're placed in a desert (arguably less hospitable than hills and mountains) with very sparse settlements. You then say 'Yeah but islands are too!' (are what, deserted, desert, very-little-to-do...ish?) which basically makes every bit of argument you've used before discounted, as you now place the islands in the same situation as the rest of the world.

You, in passing, sneakily tried to lay the burden of proof at this side by remarking that you haven't seen a good reason not to place them on an island, while you are the one who wants a change in setting and hence the burden of proof lies with you.

 

[Richoid]

No you didn't. You never explained why the northmost part of the coastline hasn't receded but has done the exact opposite.

Yes, i did:

the area where it has moved out is actually proving my point as it land around the estuary and hence silt deposits, which is a clear sign of global warming and also would account for the fact that mountains will have shrunk (hence China maybe underwater).

Ah, when removing the 'th_' from the link you can actually get a viewable map. I could go through the trouble of marking everything north of that indent too, you know. That's the bit where there's a much, much larger gain in land mass. Hence not receding.

As explained above.

Archipelagos of three square kilometres each holding dozens of communities (which would be hundreds of people on a small surface), pray tell, how would you possibly physically do this, let alone logically.

I never gave the measurements of 'dozens', '3km' or 'numerous' i simply stated the overall idea. Oh and its the pass that is not.
A long chain of island mountains each with a small community on seems feasible.

 

[Sander]

]the area where it has moved out is actually proving my point as it land around the estuary and hence silt deposits, which is a clear sign of global warming and also would account for the fact that mountains will have shrunk (hence China maybe underwater).

So, in effect, any receding coast line is proof of global warming , as is every growing coast line because of (magical) silt deposits resulting from a collision with an estuary.
You know, you may just have saved my little country. Hell, Zuid-Holland should easily be able to survive any form of rising water because that rising water will just magically dissappear and leave silt deposits, creating new land for us! Hurray! Welcome global warming!
Go smoke that hash some more, chum.

What estuary, by the way? I don't see any big rivers at all on that map, and why would this same deal not be the case for every other place in the world?
Oh, I know, because we have to have islands!

I never gave the measurements of 'dozens', '3km' or 'numerous' i simply stated the overall idea. Oh and its the pass that is not.
A long chain of island mountains each with a small community on seems feasible.

You said 'dozens of communities', you said 'yes' to my remark of 3 kilometres, and the word numerous is rather irrelevant since it isn't even said. Which means you aren't even properly reading what is said.
Stop lying and start trying to make a decent argument. For fuck's sake.

 

[Richoid]

So, in effect, any receding coast line is proof of global warming ,

No not all, i was only demonstrating a reason why it may have occoured it could just have easily been related to starfuries idea, im not geologist i was merely pointing out that it could be proof of global warming.

You know, you may just have saved my little country. Hell, Zuid-Holland should easily be able to survive any form of rising water because that rising water will just magically dissappear and leave silt deposits, creating new land for us! Hurray! Welcome global warming!

Yeah well the overall land height will always decrease with silt deposits, however i believe you will find that while your land may grow outwards it will sink and eventually disappear under the sea,
spread out as it were.

Go smoke that hash some more, chum.

I don't condone in the use of drugs...

 

[Sander]

No not all, i was only demonstrating a reason why it may have occoured it could just have easily been related to starfuries idea, im not geologist i was merely pointing out that it could be proof of global warming.

Exactly, you're not a geologist. Yet you are claiming that everything is flooded, except California, and then you try to 'prove' this by using the fact that a small bit of the coastline has receded.

Yeah well the overall land height will always decrease with silt deposits, however i believe you will find that while your land may grow outwards it will sink and eventually disappear under the sea,
spread out as it were.

So then, why hasn't California flooded yet but actually gone further outward? See, if the height had decreased, then that 'silt deposit' should have been flooded again. But of course, it isn't, because it's just a case of sloppy mapping.

I don't condone in the use of drugs...

Well, you should try it. Maybe it'll do you some good.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I don't condone in the use of drugs...

You know, just the other day I saw a bunch of kids doing lines of coke off the hilts of their plastic swords.

 

[Richoid]

Exactly, you're not a geologist. Yet you are claiming that everything is flooded, except California, and then you try to 'prove' this by using the fact that a small bit of the coastline has receded.

I never said everything is flooded, just all relevent places. An California would be flooded if it were not for the Flood Defences http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3649663.stm

So then, why hasn't California flooded yet but actually gone further outward? See, if the height had decreased, then that 'silt deposit' should have been flooded again. But of course, it isn't, because it's just a case of sloppy mapping.

Parts of the silt deposit may well have been flooded again, hence the San Fran bay?

 

[Sander]

I never said everything is flooded, just all relevent places. An California would be flooded if it were not for the Flood Defences http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3649663.stm

That's a link about the necessity of flood defenses in the UK. It has jack shit to do with California (except that it is mentioned once, hurray).
So, basically, there are no flood defenses. They, by the way, also don't exist in the Fallout Universe since you can't find them anywhere.
Except in the Netherlands. So since the Netherlands has survived the all-consuming flame of the water, we should set Fallout there! yes, because every other *relevant* place is flooded. There's no place anymore where we could place Fallout but the Netherlands! The ghouls of Amsterdam have unleashed their wrath on Den Haag. Eindhoven has turned into the Vault City of Europe, the NCR has been founded somewhere in Twente.
The Vault Dweller must stop the evil ways of the Amsterdam ghouls, who have taken over all of Holland, and the pressures of the southern Belgian suckers who want the Dutch civilization (outside of Holland, that is).

Parts of the silt deposit may well have been flooded again, hence the San Fran bay?

Oh, just parts of it, eh? The ocean is at a single level, since it's basically a huge mass of water. Hence, this is practically speaking impossible.

 

[Richoid]

Oh, just parts of it, eh? The ocean is at a single level, since it's basically a huge mass of water. Hence, this is practically speaking impossible.

The ocean is at a constant level but the silt deposits are not.

And no it cannot be set in Holland as Holland was mostly devestated prior to the events of Fallout 1.

 

[Sander]

The ocean is at a constant level but the silt deposits are not.

Of course, because that huge mass of land just happens to have a more or less constant level of silt deposits (which rose the land), but when a small recession appears, it is due to the fact that silt deposits lowered the land.
Or was it a rise of the sea level? Or both? Ah hell, who cares, as long as it can justify my islands since the rest of the relevant world is underwater.

And no it cannot be set in Holland as Holland was mostly devestated prior to the events of Fallout 1.

Yes, as I said, ghouls occupied Holland.
The Netherlands on the other hand....
As for Europe being devastated, there was no specification whatsoever as to how devastated mainland Europe was.
By the way, the whole world was pretty damned devastated after those bombs fell.

 

[Richoid]

Or was it a rise of the sea level? Or both? Ah hell, who cares, as long as it can justify my islands since the rest of the relevant world is underwater.

As rain falls on the mountains they are broken down and go into the sea leaving silt deposits, thus the greater the global warming the more the rain and the more the silt deposits.

As for Europe being devastated, there was no specification whatsoever as to how devastated mainland Europe was.

Im fairly certain it says that both nations were crippled after the conflict and as for the war, well it is a diffrent type of devistation hence you cannot continue the same series based around it.

 

[Sander]

As rain falls on the mountains they are broken down and go into the sea leaving silt deposits, thus the greater the global warming the more the rain and the more the silt deposits.

...
Are you actually being serious? Do you have any idea how long natural erosion through rainfall takes? And what does the erosion of stone have to do with *silt* deposits?

Im fairly certain it says that both nations were crippled after the conflict

Yes, yes it does. Which could make setting a game there even more interesting. See, the next Fallout needs to take place in the Netherlands, as the pre-war devastation would make it very interesting.

and as for the war, well it is a diffrent type of devistation hence you cannot continue the same series based around it.

A different kind of devastation?
Oh, yes, radiation, killing more people (and turning them into ghouls), and just huge bombs leaving more devastation.
Very different. Hence Fallout can never be situated there, because it's devastated differently.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

As rain falls on the mountains they are broken down and go into the sea leaving silt deposits, thus the greater the global warming the more the rain and the more the silt deposits.

Comedy gold, right there.


EDIT: I've wasted my 2000th post on this.

 

[Richoid]

Are you actually being serious? Do you have any idea how long natural erosion through rainfall takes? And what does the erosion of stone have to do with *silt* deposits?

Think about the change in global chimate, can you really say how great the tempreture increase would be?

A different kind of devastation?
Oh, yes, radiation, killing more people (and turning them into ghouls), and just huge bombs leaving more devastation.
Very different. Hence Fallout can never be situated there, because it's devastated differently.

Yes, thats exactly it, what would Fallout be without things derived from radiation? think of all the mutated species there are and all the plot lines based on this, you cannot simply take it way. And as i have already said, Holland dwould be underwater so this is irrelivent.

 

[Sander]

Think about the change in global chimate, can you really say how great the tempreture increase would be?

Temperature increase? Now what in god's name does temperature increase have to do with rock erosion? Egad.

Yes, thats exactly it, what would Fallout be without things derived from radiation? think of all the mutated species there are and all the plot lines based on this, you cannot simply take it way. And as i have already said, Holland dwould be underwater so this is irrelivent.

...
The entire world got nuked. Everything is radiated. Sheesh.
But you can't read, the Netherlands (Holland is a province) is the country with all of the flood defenses, and hence would not get flooded, because we (unlike California, which doesn't get flooded no matter what) do have flood defenses.

 

[Ghoullove]

Very entertaing read on global warming and sea level rise. (As I sit on top of Mount Everest safe and dry, I may go down to the beach for a swim later). You guys are killing me this is funny.

 

[uziel]

Let's just leave the whole 'Global Warming' issue here on Nuclear Winter and get on with it, okay?

 

[Richoid]

Temperature increase? Now what in god's name does temperature increase have to do with rock erosion? Egad.

I already explained this...

The entire world got nuked. Everything is radiated. Sheesh.
But you can't read, the Netherlands (Holland is a province) is the country with all of the flood defenses, and hence would not get flooded, because we (unlike California, which doesn't get flooded no matter what) do have flood defenses.

Yes but there would be more radiation in areas where nuclear strikes had been directed, as Holland has already been destroyed no one is going to bother nuking it, yes?

 

[Sander]

Temperature increase? Now what in god's name does temperature increase have to do with rock erosion? Egad.

I already explained this...

What? No you didn't. You said that global warming causes more rain, and that rain erodes rocks.
Guess what, genius, that doesn't happen quickly. It takes thousands upon thousands of years to erode a small passage through a tiny bit of rock, whole mountains aren't going to be leveled by more rain (gee, and I thought Fallout was set in a dry as fuck environment) in a matter of 200 years.

Yes but there would be more radiation in areas where nuclear strikes had been directed, as Holland has already been destroyed no one is going to bother nuking it, yes?

No, wrong. First of all, there's nuclear Fallout across the globe. Second of all, all of the world was probably targeted, since the fact that Europe was rather devastated doesn't mean that there isn't any threat at all there.
So, as you see, The Netherlands must be where Fallout takes place?

(I can't believe he's still taking that schtick seriously)

 

[Richoid]

What? No you didn't. You said that global warming causes more rain, and that rain erodes rocks.
Guess what, genius, that doesn't happen quickly. It takes thousands upon thousands of years to erode a small passage through a tiny bit of rock, whole mountains aren't going to be leveled by more rain (gee, and I thought Fallout was set in a dry as fuck environment) in a matter of 200 years.

Erm yes i did its not about the erosion, thats completly irrlevent anyway, the erosion is only why there are silt deposits it is not the firm of it.

No, wrong. First of all, there's nuclear Fallout across the globe. Second of all, all of the world was probably targeted, since the fact that Europe was rather devastated doesn't mean that there isn't any threat at all there.

Yes there is fallout across the globe however there is more radiation in areas where nuclear strikes dismayed, like the glow...

This is all nothing to do with the toopic at hand, i have explained clearly why Islands are the only viable location and you have started talking about random things of no consequence.