The Day After Tomorrow

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Taunt him (PJ) not, for he is axed for being rude.

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>As a scientist, I bristle when lies dressed up as "science" are
>used to influence political discourse.

He must have really hated Star Wars!

Star Wars was used to influence political discourse?

Just a neat little fact: about five years ago we launched a probe/satellite/big expensive camera thing. Why is this neat? It uses a principle from star wars...you remember the empire used "TIE" fighters? Well, they were supposed to work on firing ions one way to propel themselves the other. Guess what the probe/camera uses to propel itself?

Hollywood does a fairly good job with things far in the future or things that have already happened, the problem is they cant help but screw up things based in 'right now' or 'just a few years in the future.'

Bill, look at their website for the movie. It's not even about the movie. It's a "let's go convince some idiots that this really is happening right now" website. Whatever the weather equivalent of PETA is, they would approve of the website.

Quote

>Each one of these phenomena is physically impossible.

And we all know what lengths most science fiction movies go to make sure everything is scientifically correct.

Don't the best sci-fi movies base themselves in a reality just like ours? Basically requiring all three laws of thermodynamics be repealed doesn't qualify. IF the entire movie screams "FAKE!!" then willful suspension of disbelief is kinda hard. Did you think dropzone and cutaway were accurate? Of course not. What did the population at large think?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Attention everyone!

It's a freekin' movie.

I doubt many rational people will be swayed

I would have thought this as well. Then I saw people's reaction to Bowling For Columbine....

(please, let's keep that movie's merits, or lack thereof, in a Moore thread)

The difference here is that "Bowling for Columbine" was supposedly a documentary, so people were reacting to things that were presented as fact which may not have actually been true. "The Day After Tomorrow" is a fictional Hollywood movie, so there is absolutely no reason for them to stick to reality. (It would be pretty boring to make a movie about how global warming ended up having no effect on us ;-)

[quade 4]

Bowling For Columbine was a documentary, highly biased to be certain, but a documentary none the less.

The events and people were real, not scripted or portrayed by actors, the definition of documentary was met.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Shotgun 1]

I wasn't arguing whether "Bowling for Columbine" was factual or not - just saying that it is different to be concerned about "facts" in a documentary vs. "facts" in a Hollywood drama movie.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

I've often wondered what would happen if a multi-generational South African such as yourself applied for Affirmative Action assistance in the US on the basis of being an "African-American."

there was that student in some US high school that applied for an award or scholarship since he was an african-american (a white south african)... he was suspended for a few days.
i'm pretty sure it was reported on dz.com too, someone should look it up.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

(It would be pretty boring to make a movie about how global warming ended up having no effect on us ;-)

Exqueeze me?

http://news.google.com/news?q=global+warming+arctic+thaw&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&tab=wn

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

(It would be pretty boring to make a movie about how global warming ended up having no effect on us ;-)

Exqueeze me?

http://news.google.com/news?q=global+warming+arctic+thaw&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&tab=wn

Maybe my brain isn't working this morning, but what does this link have to do with my post?

[quade 4]

Well, you had italicized the word "supposedly" which kinda spoke to me that maybe you thought it didn't meet the definition.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AndyMan 7]

"Global Warming ended up having no effect on us".

I'm amazed that you think

a: Global warming is over (it's hardly begun)
and
b: Global warming has not had an effect on humanity, or even Americans (Most permafrost in Alaska isn't permanent, anymore).

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Kennedy 0]

Baking Powder?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&tab=wn&q=global+warming+kyoto+ineffective

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&tab=nw&q=global+warming+kyoto+ineffective&sa=N

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AndyMan 7]

The treaties are innefective? I'd agree with that. Especially since they've not been ratified. Since the EU tied Russian membership to Kyoto Ramification last week, the odds of ramification increased significantly. That's a good thing.

Now show me something (reliable, and peer reviewed) that says its not happening.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I'm amazed that you think

a: Global warming is over (it's hardly begun)
and
b: Global warming has not had an effect on humanity, or even Americans (Most permafrost in Alaska isn't permanent, anymore).

I don't know where you got all that from!

I said nothing at all about whether global warming was a reality or not... I was simply saying that, as a movie for entertainment - it is far more entertaining to show the worst that could possibly happen than to show nothing at all happening.

[Kennedy 0]

Sure, it's happening. Can't really argue that (well, I could, but that would get boring quickly).

My point is Kyoto wouldn't solve a damned thing, but it would cost everyone a lot of money.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AndyMan 7]

My bad.

It sounded like you were saying that the movie was far more entertaining then if it had been based in reality, and Global Warming ended up having no effect on us.

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll go back to work, now....

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

there was that student in some US high school that applied for an award or scholarship since he was an african-american (a white south african)... he was suspended for a few days.
i'm pretty sure it was reported on dz.com too, someone should look it up.

Trevor Richards

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'll go back to work, now....

No you won't. You been sucked into the Corner. There is no escape.

I have a new sign for HH to hang under Speakers Corner, above the description: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Shotgun 1]

That's ok... Re-reading my post, I can see how it might have sounded that way.

I think my communication skills are not very sharp this morning.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The heat stays stuck in the tropics, the polar regions get colder, and the atmosphere suddenly flips over in a "superstorm." The frigid stratosphere trades places with our habitable troposphere, and in a matter of days, an ice age ensues.

Each one of these phenomena is physically impossible.

Sometimes forest fires will cause a "temperature inversion" where the heat gets trapped under the layer of smoke. Usually it dissipates, but the smoke in the upper layer holds the heat in.

There are other ways for it to happen.

[billvon 3,116]

>Star Wars was used to influence political discourse?

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/Bush-Palpatine.html

The theme of Star Wars - insurgents battling an evil empire - is definitely political in nature. Whether you think we are the good guys or the bad guys depends on what wars we're currently fighting. And surely you must have heard of the eponymous weapons system, a centerpiece of several presidents' defense programs.

A great many science fiction movies made strong political and social statements. One episode of Star Trek was banned in the south because it showed a white man kissing a black woman. Several other episodes made commentaries on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the arms race and genetic engineering. Water World was based on the premise that global warming had melted all the ice in the world and inundated the planet. AI postulated the same thing (although that just flooded Manhattan, not the world.) Global warming causing flooding is a common theme in mainstream science fiction, and is backed up with real science (i.e. sea levels ARE currently rising.)

>Why is this neat? It uses a principle from star wars...you remember the
>empire used "TIE" fighters? Well, they were supposed to work on firing
>ions one way to propel themselves the other. Guess what the
>probe/camera uses to propel itself?

Yeah, although the first ion engines in science fiction were in 2001: a space odyssey, filmed almost 40 years ago. It's pretty easy to figure out what science fiction writers will use in their movies and books - just look at the research that's going on right now at NASA, Scaled Composites, Aerojet etc. My prediction is that the next science fiction engine will be a VASIMR drive, both because it sounds cool and is a pretty dramatic change in technology. No doubt they will screw up the details.

>Hollywood does a fairly good job with things far in the future or things
>that have already happened, the problem is they cant help but screw up
>things based in 'right now' or 'just a few years in the future.'

Gattaca was a pretty good attempt at that.

>Don't the best sci-fi movies base themselves in a reality just like ours?
>Basically requiring all three laws of thermodynamics be repealed doesn't
>qualify.

By that definition the Matrix was an awful movie. But I don't think scientific accuracy was the objective of that movie.

>IF the entire movie screams "FAKE!!" then willful suspension of disbelief
>is kinda hard. Did you think dropzone and cutaway were accurate?

Not at all. But unlike most people, I liked Dropzone and Point Break, because I thought they were well done. It doesn't matter much to me that the average american thinks that you can freefall for four minutes on a normal jump.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Start with the Gulf Stream. Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, knows more about ocean currents than most anyone. He thinks the nonsense in The Day After Tomorrow detracts from the seriousness of the global-warming issue. So he recently wrote in the prestigious science journal Nature that the scenario depicted in the movie requires one to "turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both."

The stratosphere will become the troposphere when all three laws of thermodynamics are repealed. Hailstones can't reach bowling-ball size because their growth is limited by gravity. Hurricanes can't hit Belfast because the intervening island of Ireland would destroy them.

Quote

The Web site also implies that global warming is making hurricanes worse. Christopher Landsea, the world's most aptly named hurricane scientist, has studied the maximum winds in these storms as measured by aircraft and finds a significant decline.

Global warming? Some scientists think climate change strengthens El Niño, the large atmospheric oscillation responsible for a variety of weather — both good and bad. El Niños are known to rip apart hurricanes. So it's more likely that climate change is weakening these storms than enhancing them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Don't the best sci-fi movies base themselves in a reality just like ours?
>Basically requiring all three laws of thermodynamics be repealed doesn't
>qualify.

By that definition the Matrix was an awful movie. But I don't think scientific accuracy was the objective of that movie.

What's your beef with the Matrix, the human = coppertop thing?

Quote

The theme of Star Wars - insurgents battling an evil empire - is definitely political in nature.

But the movie was not made (to my knowledge) to make a political point of to sway voters one way or the other.

Quote

And surely you must have heard of the eponymous weapons system, a centerpiece of several presidents' defense programs.

What does the hijacking of the title have to do with the movie influencing national defense?

My original quote should have said something along the lines of "used by its makers to influence..."

Quote

Quote

Hollywood does a fairly good job with things far in the future or things that have already happened, the problem is they cant help but screw up things based in 'right now' or 'just a few years in the future.'

Gattaca was a pretty good attempt at that.

Gattaca (1997) was a good movie, but it was based far more than 3-4 years in the future. It was more like 15-20 years in the future.

(I haven't seen the movie or read the book that inspired it, but I read a review of the book and have seen the trailers) My impression was that The Day After Tomorrow was based about as far in the future as the title implies.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,116]

>El Niños are known to rip apart hurricanes. So it's more likely that climate
> change is weakening these storms than enhancing them.

?? El Nino's cause millions of dollars of damage and many deaths in California when they hit. I was here for the last one. El Nino years are nasty - people lose houses in mudslides, have their homes and businesses destroyed in storms due to wave action, flooding or wind, and get killed by flying debris and flooding.

Weather worsens as you increase temperature extremes; they are what drives weather to begin with (and what causes El Nino's.)

>Start with the Gulf Stream. Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical
> oceanography at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, knows more
>about ocean currents than most anyone.

Carl said that:

"The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both."

First off, the winds are driven by the same forces that drive the Gulf Stream - Coriolis forces. Coriolis forces basically cause movement on a rotating sphere to eventually "bend". Add this to the natural motion of winds caused by pressure gradients (which are caused in turn by unequal heating of the earth's surface) and you get trade winds with the classic circulatory pattern.

Same thing happens with water. If you have a planet in deep space covered with fluid, and you spin it, you don't get any currents, because there is no motion to be bent via the coriolis force. It only acts on moving currents, not stationary ones. So in order for the gulf stream to work, you need to supply a pressure gradient to cause flow to begin in the first place. That gradient is provided by the North Atlantic, which is both saltier and colder (and thus is more dense) than the South Atlantic. Warm water flows on top, up to the North Atlantic, where it becomes colder and slightly more saline (due to evaporation along the way.) It then submerges, drifts back along the bottom, and resurfaces near the equator. Coriolis forces bend this pattern so that most of the warm water flows along the east coast of the Americas.

If you affect the salinity of the North Atlantic by melting a lot of ice there, or you change its temperature by removing the high-albedo ice cap, you can affect the engine that drives the Gulf Stream. Might this be a short-lived phenomena that lasts only until all the ice is gone? Yes. But to say it can't happen at all is a little shortsighted, I think.

Especially worrying are paleontological climatic studies that have revealed that climate change happens abruptly. There have been several periods in earth's history where climate change has happened very abruptly, causing mass extinctions. At one point it was thought that these were all massive meteor impacts, but the majority of them do not show any signs (like iridium spikes) that would indicate a large meteor hit. Climatologists are now theorizing that there are "threshold events" where one metastable climate changes rapidly into another one. An ice age is an example - due to the high albedo of ice and snow, a snow-covered planet gets colder, and goes ever deeper into an ice age until another trigger event (like buildup of greenhouse gas from dead and decaying biological material) triggers a rapid swing in the other direction.

The problem with these is that once the triggers are hit, change can happen very rapidly (within a decade) and there will be nothing anyone can do to stop it. It's worth considering if we want to take that risk.

[TypicalFish 0]

One of the funny parts about this is that I watched an interview with the film makers about 6-8 months ago, before there was any publicity surrounding the movie (you know, one of those A&E-tpe "what's in the works" 15 minute deals) where they discussed the special effects, etc., and they had a completely different tune. Their take on it at the time was "Well ,the science is pretty much bunk and we are just trying to make an entertaining movie". They even likened it to "Armageddon" and "Independence Day".

Lack of credibility. Go Figure.

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[airdweller 0]

Real scientists publish in peer reviewed journals.
___________________________________________________________________________

Ditto

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns