LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIN THE MOVIE dAT AFTER TOMORROW IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THat what can happen in future ... how much reality is these in in it
May 24th, 2007, 01:07 AM
IN THE MOVIE dAT AFTER TOMORROW IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THat what can happen in future ... how much reality is these in in it
A lot but not in the time scales they suggest. Also the thing about "super-cooled" air falling from the upper troposphere and freezing anything is a load of crap.
I hated that film for so many reasons, inaccuracy was one of them
Viewed as escapist, fantasy entertaiment, I thought it was rather good. As a reflection of meaningful science it falls short of the mark.
despite the time scales applied by hollywood, the reality is that observing climate change is usually like watching paint dry - it doesn't exactly make for a good action movie
If the climate changes to a much wetter one, that paint never will dry.Originally Posted by marnixR
a bit like watching grass grow then ?If the climate changes to a much wetter one, that paint never will dry.
Yes, that's better.a bit like watching grass grow then ?If the climate changes to a much wetter one, that paint never will dry.I think an even closer example would be watching the combination of Mt. Everest growing and being worn down by erosion at the same time.
that would make a hollywood blockbuster that would !
Yup........they are making one. Its called the day before yesterday
I liked the movie, I like all things Sci-fi, bugger whether it was realistic or not
omg, thats my faavourite film! it does show what c an happen in the future, i think if we let CO2 levels build up...although it might not be in the time scale they say, but you cant really fit hundreds of years into a film...lol... and the science behind it is accurate- there has been a lot of work on ocean currents. i also think that the film an inconvenient truth is also as good at detailing the problems we face. we are exporting the worlds natural resources for personal gain...although i dont think everyone realises how much we stand to lose. WATCH AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH! and youll see!
DAT, was one of my favorite movies as well, but more for the characters that evolved.
The time line is maybe possible in thousands of years, but IMO would take hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years, under different scenarios.
Back to back low pressures areas with that intensity simply will not form under the conditions suggested. Well, there were too many not possibles to go on...
You do know there was no science in AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. And I can think of better films than Day After Tomorrow.
Of course there was science in AIT!!! you cant deny that weather systems are changing anyway; the fact that it RAINED in ANTARCTICA is obviously to do with warming of the earth. The fact that POLAR BEARS are DROWNING is to do with warming. The fact that it reached 50 degrees in mumbai is obviously to do with warming!!! How can anybody deny these FACTS? Does anyone agree? i don't think you can do anything but!
You haven't seen the updated NASA data have you? And let me just remind you that changing weather is NORMAL.
I'll have to dig up that article from the 30s talking about how the Arctic was melting. Too funny.
That would be the revised data based upon a Y2K gltich that causes us to revise downwards the estimated global temperature increase by a massive 1% or 2%, would it?
Normally denial and head-in-sand routines are somewhere between amusing and sad. In the case of denial of global warming they are criminal.
I think you may be twisting the stance that man-made global warming is inconclusive. I dont know any Physicist who totally denies global warming fullstop.That would be the revised data based upon a Y2K gltich that causes us to revise downwards the estimated global temperature increase by a massive 1% or 2%, would it?
Normally denial and head-in-sand routines are somewhere between amusing and sad. In the case of denial of global warming they are criminal.
For the record atmospheric compounds(green house gases ) have been around (and in greater abundance) since the plantetsimal stage of the earth and planets like venus had a natural runaway greenhouse effect very early on.
August 24th, 2007, 11:07 PM
Short of an super volcanic eruption like Yellow Stone or Toba, or some astronomical catastrophe, there's no known reason for the kind of rapid cooling depicted in the movie.
The movie also made up it's own types of weather systems.
I hate to say it, but i agree with scpg. Rain in Antarctica is not evidence of global warming, it is evidence of regional warming. Some parts of the earth have seen large rises in temperatures over the last 50 years, some have seen temperature drops over the same period, neither of these should be used to say the world is warming or even the world is cooling, it's only by looking at the world as a whole that you can make a judgement, which for the record, it appears as if it is warming.
Global warming and runaway greenhouse doesn't fully explain Venus's heat. The numbers don't add up.
Indeed it does, all of its atmosphere has converted from substantial elemental gas with a degree of compounds to the entirely greenhouse inducing compounds. The heat you speak of is generated mostly geologically (from radii decay, primordial heat etc).
You might wish to join a discussion of Venus and the source of its heat. But be prepared to know what you are talking about because the geological sources you site are still not enough to account for the heat.Indeed it does, all of its atmosphere has converted from substantial elemental gas with a degree of compounds to the entirely greenhouse inducing compounds. The heat you speak of is generated mostly geologically (from radii decay, primordial heat etc).
No you know what you are talking about! The heat is accounted for!You might wish to join a discussion of Venus and the source of its heat. But be prepared to know what you are talking about because the geological sources you site are still not enough to account for the heat.Indeed it does, all of its atmosphere has converted from substantial elemental gas with a degree of compounds to the entirely greenhouse inducing compounds. The heat you speak of is generated mostly geologically (from radii decay, primordial heat etc).
You want me to search for cites?
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/...y=OverviewLong
Lesson: A gas will have a greenhouse effect if it consists of a molecule of 2 or more different elements i.e. a compound.
go read the link. they are discussing a new theory in an as yet unpublished paper.
go read the link. they are discussing a new theory in an as yet unpublished paper.Are you stupid ? Or just easily taken in?
Read tour own words "unpublished paper".
I know what I wrote. What you think there is no value in discussing a work that hasn't been submitted yet? You think we know all there is to know about the planet? Shoot let's stop sending probes then.
Read tour own words "unpublished paper".
When will people learn that only a small fraction of published papers pass peer review and go on to be confirmed. You paper isnt even publish yet you are referring to it as something that should be learned by scientists.
Do me a favour!
Hardly. I said it was being discussed. It is actual scientists doing the discussing. Sorry, didn't know you were so set in your ways that you had no interest in something new.
An unverified whim that contradicts proven science as solid as scatter in atmospheric compounds I am not in the bit interested in, sorry.
I know of no real scientist who will have the time of day to argue over something that so ridiculously denies just about any experiment we do with photons and gases.
Oh that is rich. You don't want to look at it based on assumptions you have made about it without looking at it. LOL! Wish I had the talent to prejudge things without looking at them.
Its not the job of a scientist to look at every claim made by the public.Oh that is rich. You don't want to look at it based on assumptions you have made about it without looking at it. LOL! Wish I had the talent to prejudge things without looking at them.
Even if it was, you would need to discriminate between the woo-woos and replicated science if you dont want to spend 24 hours a day trawling through claims.
Oh stop being a butt and go look at it. Take you two minutes.Its not the job of a scientist to look at every claim made by the public.Oh that is rich. You don't want to look at it based on assumptions you have made about it without looking at it. LOL! Wish I had the talent to prejudge things without looking at them.
Even if it was, you would need to discriminate between the woo-woos and replicated science if you dont want to spend 24 hours a day trawling through claims.
Don't see anything new in that link. What are you referring to?go read the link. they are discussing a new theory in an as yet unpublished paper.
The current temperature profile with altitude of the atmosphere has been modeled for nearly 20 years--not a whole lot of mystery. When the run-away greenhouse effect finally boiled off the ocean is among the biggest remaining questions. Venus, like earth, only gives out a minute fraction of the total energy from radiation decay, tidal warming etc--the sun is overwhelmingly the primary source of energy for the atmosphere.
Well, I went and read the link... it's sort of amazing that anyone may think it's Science. I mean, just as a very amateurish amateur, the flaws are obvious!Oh stop being a butt and go look at it. Take you two minutes.Its not the job of a scientist to look at every claim made by the public.Oh that is rich. You don't want to look at it based on assumptions you have made about it without looking at it. LOL! Wish I had the talent to prejudge things without looking at them.
Even if it was, you would need to discriminate between the woo-woos and replicated science if you dont want to spend 24 hours a day trawling through claims.
I mean. They suggest that Venus' temperature comes because it traded kynetic energy for heat -it's spinning energy became heat and so it's hot.
I wonder, what sort of force can cause a planet to lose kinetic energy? I figure that tidal forces. They're known to do horrible things on satellites like Io, which is kept in a semi-liquid state because of the tidal forces caused by Jupiter -they trade Io's and Jupiter's kinetic energy for a huge amount of heat. So, tidal forces could explain. They trade kinetic energy for heat, certainly. And they cause planets to lose momentum and to close to the sun. At a well known and very slow pace... the sun will die and will sweep the inner planes far, far, far, far before the planets lose enough momentum to crash on the Sun. Tidal forces from the sun are small.
Actually, there's a larger problem. Namely that Mercury is closer to the sun, and it's colder than Venus. It's not even hot enough to have a liquid nucleus. Tidal forces from the Sun are quite small. Mercury is smaller and closer than Venus (mass matters) and tidal forces aren't heating it significantly. A larger and more distant planet will be affected even less. Tidal forces are heating Venus even less than they heat Mercury (which is being heated only by a tiny amount), and yet Venus has got a much higher temperature.
So if we scratch tidal forces, what else is left to trade Venus' kynetic energy for heat? I guess that "nothing".
See? It does not even take a scientist to debunk that hypothesis. Just an amateur is enough. Don't count on seeing it published any soon... 8)
which tells me you didn't read the whole thing because the answer to that question is there. As for it being published, the auther is working on another paper right now that has already been accepted for publication.
Published as fiction or nonfiction?
Can't stop being an ass I see.Published as fiction or nonfiction?
Nope.
Any pertinent argument to add?
Well, I would had read the whole thing if the author had posted a link to it...which tells me you didn't read the whole thing because the answer to that question is there. As for it being published, the auther is working on another paper right now that has already been accepted for publication.
But he didn't link to the paper, and I am not clairvoyant.
I meant the thread. Sorry for not being more clear.Well, I would had read the whole thing if the author had posted a link to it...which tells me you didn't read the whole thing because the answer to that question is there. As for it being published, the auther is working on another paper right now that has already been accepted for publication.
But he didn't link to the paper, and I am not clairvoyant.
| « Say goodbye to alfalfa | Earth Quake Prediction » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
