Originally posted by Arcalane:

Interesting idea. That said, I think I would rotate the entire 'cold' column along one to the right so that Arctic is Cold+Dry and Alpine is Cold+Wet, with Tundra as Cold+Moderate. I can't really articulate exactly why without probably rambling for half an hour, but to put it one way; go look up annual rainfall values for the north and south pole.

Originally posted by Shark that walks like a man:

Seconded Arcalane's point. Earth's poles are by definition also deserts, with close to zero annual rainfall and humidity.

Originally posted by Tommy2Shoes:

@Arcalane / @Shark
At first I disagreed with you. I'm aware that it doesn't rain in the arctic but that's not due to lack of water so much as the fact that (almost) all of the water is frozen.

But having mulled it over I suppose I can see where you're coming from.

I figured if life evolved in an arctic climate it'd be somewhere like Lake Vostok and so lack-of-water wouldn't be a problem. And by the time they'd developed space-faring technology for themselves they'd be able to melt all the ice they wanted.

I guess part of what's driving my intuition here is that, despite the the fact that it's fairly strongly implied by the fluff in the game (tile backgrounds, the fact that all the species are basically humanoid, etc.), I don't think all space-faring species have to be air-breathing. (David Brin's Uplifted Dolphins anyone? ...actually that's a bad example since they did breath air. Still, they were aquatic.)

Originally posted by Tommy2Shoes:

If your intuition is that *atmospheric* humidity is what counts for how humidity-adapted a species should be then you're entirely correct, the ant/arctic is the driest habitable place possible.

But it's entirely plausible to me that species could evolve to be water-breathing on Arctic (and especially Ocean!) planets and their voidcraft are all full of water; same as ours would be full of air. (There are species in the game adapted to hard-vacuum after all, which seems more inhospitable.)

So in all honesty my approach here is more to change people's intuitions (into what I think are better ones!) rather than the mod...

That said if people find it too weird I suppose I could be persuaded to change it.

Originally posted by Arcalane:

The problem with waterbreathers getting into space is that liquids add a lot of (potentially shifting) mass to any launch equation. It's a really ugly mess that could set back their ability to truly attain spaceflight by a significant amount of time. More mass means more thrust means more fuel means more mass means... you get the idea.

I agree that not every species has to be an airbreather - and perhaps we'll see some expansion on that down the line - but the majority of species capable of going post-FTL and exploring space will probably be working with gases rather than liquids.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Alex:

Hey man, this mod looks like a pretty great mod. Small suggestion, though: I know it doesn't really affect anything, but scientifically an arctic world is EXTREMELY dry. Yes, it is true that there is water around, but surface humidity is scarce at best. I know you probably meant water-content as opposed to humidity so that makes sense then. If you meant air humidity, though, all you would have to do is shift it a bit. Arctic is the least humid, followed by tundra, followed by alpine. Consider free-flowing water; it doesn't exist in the arctic, is scarce in the tundra, but does exist in alpine environments.

Originally posted by Tommy2Shoes:

Yes! At last a chance to get back to what really matters: Arguing about fluff. :D

Hi Alex, you're not the first person to have pointed that out. Check out the conversation Arcalane and I had on the first page.

Long-story-short for air-breather's you're entirely correct. But I was, as you say, thinking about water-content in general.
My thinking is that species that evolve on arctic (and indeed ocean) would be water-breathing and so not much concerned with atmospheric humidity.

But as I said then, If people find it really incongruous I can change it... or maybe make another version where the planets are arranged that way.

In fact I think that's what I'll do. I've added that to the To Do list.

Originally posted by Alex:

Oh, I am sorry if you have already answered the question. I think a small excerpt like your explanation would probably stop all the questions. As you say, water content certainly makes your arrangement correct.

Originally posted by Tommy2Shoes:

@Alex
There is apparently a hard cap on how long a steam workshop description can be. And I've hit it; So, actually, I can't put a little excerpt in the description.

I have however started a discussion that people can be pointed to - it's right there above the comments.

@Everybody
Feel free to take a look.

That's this discussion, that you're looking at right now.

The real answer to this question is... as the author says. I posted this on the alternate version but it really belongs here so I will quote myself: Relative humidity is what matters when it comes to precipitation.

For those of you who disagree with the author of this mod (I am an Earth Science teacher)... realize that technically there are only TWO truly arctic/polar climates using the Koppen climate system: ET (tundra) and EF (ice cap). Ice cap occurs where it snows and in Tundra regions, it is too dry to snow. So... therefore "Arctic" defaults to the snowy climate (which is what we think of anyway). The "arctic climate" has a higher relative humidity. Evidence of this also lies in the location of ET and EF climates. The North pole is a global high pressure zone and so that drives moisture out of the sky (because rising air causes clouds, not sinking air). The northernmost regions on a map are all ET except where the shore has liquid water for a significant part of the year. EF lies further to the south, especially where the Gulf streem feeds some heat (see Greenland on a Koppen map).

Some more: Boreal forests are "alpine" and occur in any region where there is enough humidity and warmth for trees to occur. Some Boreal forests occur in EF but many occur in highland and D climates. Practically speaking, some of the D climates could also be considered "arctic" and would likely occur near close to the equator on Arctic worlds.