The Day After - Global Warming

[Freethinker]

I just saw "The Day After Tommorrow". Obviously some of the elements are not very possible. Mainly the time scale. I understand the onset of the last Ice Age took 4.5 years, not minutes/ days as in the movie. But still, 4.5 years is a short time!

 

But what of Global Warming? Is it Science or political rangling?

 

I tend to agree that Global Warming is real and a problem. We, esp in the US, need to pay far more attention to our actions. We are harming the very eco system, the ONLY eco system, we live in.

 

And we need to force our politicians to stop playing politics with mother earth.

 

Bush turned Texas into the most polluted state in the US as Gov.

 

He wants to destroy Alaska and other wilderness, for the monetary profit of his Corp buddies.

 

Will we wake up only when it is too late?

 

And finally, do movies like "The Day After Tommorrow" help or hurt the effort?

[Uncle Martin]

The weight of the empirical evidence must lead one to accept global warming as a real phenomenon. Earth's climate has varied greatly in the past, so what we must ask is , is this a natural event or one caused by Homo Sapiens? This is where the political agendas come in. The current U S administration will stop at nothing to pillage every last drop of natural wealth this planet contains. The failure of GWB to sign the Kyoto treaty is proof that he and his mega-wealthy cronies would rather risk our environment than chance lessening their net worth.

 

The bulk of the evidence points to the rise in mean temperature is linked to man's abuse of the planet. From deforestation to burning fossil fuels we are surely altering our environment. As stated above, our climate has varied in the past. Some politico's have the audacity to cite this in an attempt to allay our fears. I've read some republican propaganda that actually claimed the current extinction rate is natural. They claim these species could not adapt. True, but it is our effects that they cannot adapt to.

 

Guess what? If we are altering our environment at a rate that hundreds or thousands of species per year can't adapt fast enough to survive, it is only a matter of time before we join our already lost breathren. Mother Earth is a complex ecosystem. Every organism from bacteria to blue whales is to some extent interdependent on the others. We, in our arrogant race to advance technologically, may be changing the climate faster than WE can adapt biologically. Our technology may enable us to survive, but for the other species we share this planet with, we have certainly interfered with natural selection on a grand scale. Once a species is gone, it is gone forever. We may never know the value of it's genetic material.

 

It seems to me that a film such as "The Day After Tomorrow" could only help to heighten awareness among those that may not otherwise be informed.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

It seems to me that a film such as "The Day After Tomorrow" could only help to heighten awareness among those that may not otherwise be informed.

 

There was an enlightening commentary in New Scientist a few weeks back about this movie. A climate researcher said it was simply wonderful that someone used big bucks to put this highway to hell in front of everyone's face (well, not his exact words ) and although the time frame is highly distorted or even completely false this does not change the fact that people are growin tired of the endless debate and incompetence on certain politicians' behalf when it comes to realizing that big bucks won't get you rid if the inevitable. Action is needed, and if the population can be teased into it then it's all for the better.

 

I remember a few years back (*ahem*) when I was in high school, a right-wing politican came to a debate at our school and said that their solution to the pollution problem was "higher chimneys", since this would bring the smog to parts of the world where the problem was not so big (you know, like Russia, no pollution there). When asked if he thought it would be okay if the British used higher chimneys too, he simply refused to comment. (For those who don't know me - I live in Norway, and pollution from Britain is a real problem).

 

Today, this party has about 20% of the popular vote. Go figure.

 

Tormod

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

It seems to me that a film such as "The Day After Tomorrow" could only help to heighten awareness among those that may not otherwise be informed.

But the Republicans are using it against the effort. They are using to make those of us that actually care about our ecosystem sound like nuts.

 

Movie message in 'The Day After Tomorrow' is mostly hot air

Phyllis Schlafly

 

Unable to develop a coherent political ideology to oppose President George W. Bush, the anti-Bush cabal has turned to humor and Hollywood. ... Global warming isn't science; it's leftist propaganda to promote global regulation of our economy. If the predictions of the movie were true, it is obvious that absolutely nothing we could do ...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20040607.shtml

 

There may actually be more science in the last installment of the Caped Crusader saga than in “The Day After Tomorrow,” which premiered on May 28th.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13610

[Tormod]

Hm...interesting. Well, I hope to get to see the movie on Friday. I'll comment on the science of it then...

 

Tormod

[Uncle Martin]

FT,

 

The money and power at stake is outrageous. $200 million to fit just one coal fired generating plant with anti pollution devices. They will find any means possible to discredit real science and distort the truth. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!!! GWB thinks he has absolute power-hell, he may.

 

Tormod,

 

"higher chimneys", That is so ridiculous that I'm surprised ol' dubya hasn't already suggested it.

[Tormod]

Hush, don't give him any ideas. Oh wait - it would hit southern Europe, not Scandinavia. No problem, then.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

BTW, did anyone see the Letterman show where Dennis Quaid came on to talk about the movie? David Letterman made a joke about the movie - this show was on a Monday, so he said "It's funny, if it was Wednesday you could say that the day after tomorrow opens the day after tomorrow. But on Thursday, you could say that the day after tomorrow opens tomorrow. But tomorrow, we can say that the day after tomorrow opens the day after the day after tomorrow. Today, we can say...oh, never mind."

 

Tormod

(venting his off-topic needs)

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Hush, don't give him any ideas. Oh wait - it would hit southern Europe, not Scandinavia. No problem, then.

 

 

 

Tormod

 

Although I know you're not serious, I think that sentiment may be part of the problem. Let's put it on someone else, let them worry about it. Out of site, out of mind. Dump it in the ocean, burn it, whatever it takes to avoid actually fixing the problem. Let's put our nuclear waste on the moon, it will never endanger anyone there. Yeah, right!! The state of New Jersey trucks it's garbage to West Virginia, they fill the valleys between mountains. Someday W V will have a topography similar to Kansas. We must start taking responsibility for our actions, our heirs should not have to.

[lindagarrette]

A late night TV show played the NYC tidal wave sequence to the tune of "Surf City USA." It was hilarious. Not to mention that the giant wave itself looked like Godzilla squeezing through the buildings. I thought the movie was dumb and I wish it had been made thoughtfully.

[Tormod]

I have now seen the movie and will moderate my statements above. I plan to write up a longer comment about the movie but don't have the time right now (bedtime for two kids here). Right now, just let me say that the science was non-present in the movie, the characters were stereotypical to the extreme, and the plot rather meaningless. More details later...

 

Tormod

[Tim_Lou]

i love that movie!!!!!

its one of the greatest movie i have ever seen!

 

...the USA is always damaging this world... it is a capitalistic world, ppl with lots of money keep wasting water, food.... while the 3rd world is suffuring greatly.

 

i think it is kind of like we push all the problems to the 3rd world... as time pass on, the one who finally suffer is us...

[shintashi]

i do believe that we will experience a severe climate shift in the next 5-11 years. It will be caused by a polarization exchange between north and south poles, which will interfere with our magnetosphere. While we might not see any mile wide tornados in California, we will see Aurora Borealis lights in the night sky as far south as oregon and kentucky, and for a brief period of time, fluctuations of similar phenomenon at even lower meridian points.

 

We will also experience droughts the likes of which the world has forgotten, and geomagnetic earthquakes, which themselves, while not expressing plate tectonics in the lesser scale, will represent the disturbance of the magnetic core in the greater scale, causing a number of magma eruptions to escalate, then die down.

 

From the models I've seen,and derrived, there will be "zones" where the south and north poles nullfy completely, which will be widly in flux. In areas such as these, ecoterrorists might claim that "the ozone layer" is disapearing due to "green house effects". This would be false. The cosmic background radiation will damage the atmosphere in areas where the magnetosphere is in flux, and especially during a solar wind/flare, however, this itself will not be a permanent catastrophy, and will mostly likely pass in 20 years or less, after the poles have realigned south-north.

If the poles do switch in the next 5-11 years, - which I DO expect to begin to become evident (as opposed to the 50-200 year model conservatives have given you, if at all) then do not be decieved by panic supression media, nor its apocalyptic adverse. THey would have you believe that while millions more will die from earlier signs of cancer (in say, 5-10 years instead of 10-20), there will not be any truly dangerous immediate effects in the long run. THEY ARE WRONG.

 

Pockets of death will encompass the earth, entirely randomnly, by all accounts, (unless the Earth simulator gets a major upgrade in japan). In random areas, heat waves will kill tens of thousands in a matter of days, across europe, north america, australia, and south parts of Argentina and Africa.

 

The alteration of the ionization may also tamper with sattelite feed, electircal and power grids, (to a lesser extent) cell phone and wireless net signals (to a greater extent) and one of the more horrible things that people have forgotten. There will be "pockmarks" in our magnetosphere in a state of flux. Unfortunately, our magnetosphere contributes heavily to deflecting not only solar flares, but also meteors, comets, and the like. We still have our atmosphere to burn some stuff up, but I do not know for sure if that will still be sufficient. My estimate is that in those "pocket areas" some random rocks may be sufficient to destroy homes and nieghborhoods, and occassionally a larger population.

 

I do not know if the HAARP experiment can resolve, slow down, or accelerate this problem. I do not know if the radiation innoculation in production right now will be sufficient, and if not, if it will be ready to be so, by the time the mess gets really bad.

 

In a worst case scenario... well, You've seen the big cold ice age movie, but many of you might have forgotten that other doomsday movie " CORE". only one problem: there is no such thing as "unobtanium".

[Frogon]

I've seen the movie, and it was interesting, however the ending, well it just plain sucked. : )

 

But, Popular Science did an article on the "theory", or whatever you want to call it, thats in the movie, and (after a few pages) they explained how it worked, and it actually made sense. The movie doesn't explain too much, because somebody in the movie theature might want entertainment...

 

"According to this theory, global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions will melt the ice at the North Pole, which will then warm the Atlantic current, making Northern Hemisphere temperatures drop precipitously and bring about a new ice age within hours."

 

Well, Popular Science interviewed a person who knew a lot about this, and he said the range was 10-20 years, I think they forgot something: ITS A MOVIE. People don't want to sit there and watch 10-20 years and then it happens, they want it right now.

[oblivion]

Global warming = fact.

 

movies like "The day after tommorow" = false.

[Bo]

I also saw the movie 2 days ago (so according to mister letterman this is the right time to write about it? ) and to my surprise i really liked it. True there is a stupid story; It sounds very strange that the world is about to be distroyed and the main researcher leaves for his son... and the wolves where really unnecessary. But the global change is visually and conceptually brought very well. As for my ideas about climate change: Yes it is real and yes it will happen but no we cant predict what and when. Our climate is something with approximatly infinite variables. All these variables interact to form a quasi-stable state. If you just alter one variable you have no idea how this works out for the overal stabillity. in general in systems like this resonances can occur; so one huge change wouldn't have to change anything, while a very small perturbation could spoil the complete equilibrium. I guess you can think of it as a lorenz attractor (see e.g. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/fractals/lorenz/ for nice visuals, but hardly an explanation, or see http://www.zeuscat.com/andrew/chaos/lorenz.html which has some more explained) -Bo

[Tormod]

I wrote that I would comment on this movie later so I guess it's about time now.

 

When I saw the movie, I too enjoyed the visuals but the story is perhaps the most incredible piece of hogwash I have seen in a long time.

 

I was simply ANGRY after having seen the movie. In my eyes it is a good example of how NOT to make movies if you want to make a political point. So I think the entire point of the movie is to make a buck on the scare factor and *not* try to make people think twice.

 

Here is my list of complaints... *SPOILER ALERT* don't read this if you want to see the movie first!

 

1) Every single important role in the movie is played by *men*. Men make all the decisions. The female roles are all mother/nurse/beautiful student roles. They make no decisions, apart from the nurse's decision to stay behind and wait for the ambulance (which came anyway so there was no life-saving there). Even in the end, when the vide president is told he is now the president, there is a brief glimpse of a woman who is a "mrs senator" or something (and not "senator"). So the *stereotypes* in this movie are so thoroughly old-school that I believe that the director intended it to be this way. The female researcher who is on the hero's team *volunteers* for it (ie, not picked for her skills) and she contributes *nothing* except saying some standard scientific phrases then fetching cups of coffee.

 

2) The wolves. Yes. It has been discussed to death at IMDB.com. How can they survive the chill when everyone else instantly freezes? Big hole in the movie's logic. And the entire scene boils down to - nothing. Yes, the wolves could have hidden somewhere, but what would they have eaten in the meantime? Frozen rats?

 

3) The political aspect of the "reversed alien immigrant" scenario was too easy. Here was an excellent opportunity to show how the USA handles immigrants (by fencing them out) but when they need somewhere to go on their own they simply cut through the wires and run to Mexico. I wonder...how can 125 million people (or how many would half the US population be?) POSSIBLY manage to escape to Mexico and live in camps? This entire subplot could have been a good movie in itself, but is lost and makes no sense in the movie.

 

4) The space station - in some scenes it spins like a rollercoaster, while in the final scene it is completely still. The space station does NOT spin like that. And someone failed to tell the director that if the entire northen hemisphere freezes over...then noone will be able to send refreshments, food etc to the station - nor boost it to a higher orbit (it loses height every day). They would be doomed.

 

5) The science. Okay - I agree that a science fiction movie does not need to spend 30 minutes delving on the science behind everything. But it should make some of the basic concepts clear. All we see is that the hero can explain the functionality of the Gulf stream and what would happen if it shut down. Like Bo says above there are an endless amount of variables. The Gulf stream is only one of them. When I walked out of that movie I felt LESS enlightened about the problems of global warming than before I saw it. And I really feel that I know a thing or two about the issue.

 

6) Stupid things. How come a Russian ship ends up RIGHT OUTSIDE the library? And how come they print "Penicillin" in plain English on Russina medicines? How did they inject the penicillin into our poor ailing student (through the nose? I didn't see a hypodermic needle!).

 

7) Distance - It is highly implausible that the hero and his aides could walk the distance they did in such short time, especially in the freezing environment. And don't you know - as soon as they arrive in New York, it takes about 30 minutes for the helicopters to arrive. So the entire "Hero goes out to save son" is entirely pointless. And...in the end all those survivors go up on the roofs of the skyscrapers. So we must assume that not ONE single communication tool was available during the time it took fro