Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: dAY aFTER TOMORROW

  1. #1 dAY aFTER TOMORROW 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Indore
    Posts
    4
    IN THE MOVIE dAT AFTER TOMORROW IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THat what can happen in future ... how much reality is these in in it


    Yashpal
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    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.


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    I hated that film for so many reasons, inaccuracy was one of them
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Viewed as escapist, fantasy entertaiment, I thought it was rather good. As a reflection of meaningful science it falls short of the mark.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If the climate changes to a much wetter one, that paint never will dry.
    a bit like watching grass grow then ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If the climate changes to a much wetter one, that paint never will dry.
    a bit like watching grass grow then ?
    Yes, that's better. 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    that would make a hollywood blockbuster that would !
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    that would make a hollywood blockbuster that would !
    Yup........they are making one. Its called the day before yesterday
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Caliban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    28
    I liked the movie, I like all things Sci-fi, bugger whether it was realistic or not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5
    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!
    There were two kinds of physicists in Berlin; on the one hand there was Einstein, and on the other all the rest!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by karlosshughes
    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!
    You do know there was no science in AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. And I can think of better films than Day After Tomorrow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5
    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!
    There were two kinds of physicists in Berlin; on the one hand there was Einstein, and on the other all the rest!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by karlosshughes
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    You haven't seen the updated NASA data have you?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    You haven't seen the updated NASA data have you?
    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.

    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.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: dAY aFTER TOMORROW 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by aviral_samicheen
    IN THE MOVIE dAT AFTER TOMORROW IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THat what can happen in future ... how much reality is these in in it
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by karlosshughes
    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!
    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.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    planets like venus had a natural runaway greenhouse effect very early on.
    Global warming and runaway greenhouse doesn't fully explain Venus's heat. The numbers don't add up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Global warming and runaway greenhouse doesn't fully explain Venus's 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).
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Global warming and runaway greenhouse doesn't fully explain Venus's 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 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Global warming and runaway greenhouse doesn't fully explain Venus's 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 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.
    No you know what you are talking about! The heat is accounted for!

    You want me to search for cites?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    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.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    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.
    Are you stupid ? Or just easily taken in?

    Read tour own words "unpublished paper".
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    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!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    You paper isnt even publish yet you are referring to it as something that should be learned by scientists.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    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.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    An unverified whim that contradicts proven science as solid as scatter in atmospheric compounds I am not in the bit interested in, sorry.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    An unverified whim that contradicts proven science as solid as scatter in atmospheric compounds I am not in the bit interested in, sorry.
    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.

    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.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    An unverified whim that contradicts proven science as solid as scatter in atmospheric compounds I am not in the bit interested in, sorry.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    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.
    Don't see anything new in that link. What are you referring to?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    An unverified whim that contradicts proven science as solid as scatter in atmospheric compounds I am not in the bit interested in, sorry.
    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.

    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.
    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!

    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)
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    I wonder, what sort of force can cause a planet to lose kinetic energy?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    the auther is working on another paper right now that has already been accepted for publication.
    Published as fiction or nonfiction?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Nope.

    Any pertinent argument to add?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    I wonder, what sort of force can cause a planet to lose kinetic energy?
    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.
    Well, I would had read the whole thing if the author had posted a link to it...

    But he didn't link to the paper, and I am not clairvoyant.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Quote Originally Posted by scpg02
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    I wonder, what sort of force can cause a planet to lose kinetic energy?
    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.
    Well, I would had read the whole thing if the author had posted a link to it...

    But he didn't link to the paper, and I am not clairvoyant.
    I meant the thread. Sorry for not being more clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •