The Calm Before the Storm

I saw "The Day After Tomorrow" again yesterday. I was wondering that if an instant mini ice age were to really occur in our time, what kind of signs would we be expecting a month before it actually happens.

I have noted that in the film there were many weather anamolies, storms, cold temperatures and it always appeared to be raining and there was snow in the unlikely of places. It sounded very similar to what is happening in the world today - storms, floods, blizzards(In Africa, North Europe and Northen India)

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]

The ice caps receding at enormous pace.
Ocean temperatures increasing to warmer then normal.
Ice shelf breaking away and ramming another to such a point they evacuated our base in Antarctica.
5 Severe hurricanes hit the SE US.
Colder then normal temperatures in the Eastern US, and dry weather out west.
Severe hail and freezing rain at various locations throughout the year.
Tornados in California.
Tornado in Denver, which was not in movie but I believe it was a first.

I just finished watching it as well (for the fifth time:lol. I think the movie is a great movie. not sure how accurate any of the problematic weather is in the movie. I am under the impression that for something catastrophic to happen to the earth from within its own climate takes quite a long time. It cant just pop up. There are threads on here about the north atlantic current cooling etc. Who knows, it could happen quicker then we expect. Alot of things that happened in this movie have happened just recently in areas around the world. Im not so sure about the beach ball size hail in asia that is in the movie. Was only a few weeks ago that California had a tornado. I think I will stick with my gut and say that the weather is abnormal, but not too much to worry about. I think the solar flares from the sun spots is what is causing all the weird weather. Another good movie i have watched is The Core or is it Core? Anyways the movie is about how the earths iron centre stops rotating due to mankinds attempts to control nature. I wont ruin the movie for you by telling you what happens. Or maybe you have seen it? If so i think it is another good movie.

Tahlen

[edit on 31-1-2005 by Tahlen]

Scarey thought Indigop child, ive been thinking about that in conjunction with reports of weird unseasonal weather lately. Mind you ,my kids would love some snow in sydney, hasnt been any here since 1939 i think.

Take a peek at this site

Hollywood fiction vs scientific fact

In the film, tornadoes whip through Los Angeles and New York is buried by a storm surge of Biblical proportions – all in a matter of days. Could an eco-Armageddon really happen so quickly with these effects?

Science:
No. When scientists refer to abrupt changes in the earth's climate, they are generally referring to changes that occur over a 10- to 20-year time horizon, not a week to 10 days. According to the National Research Council, "Greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events … Future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected."[5]

Hollywood :
The movie depicts a massive freeze sweeping across Europe and then striking the northern half of the United States , forcing a mass migration to Mexico for survival. Is this how global warming will shake down?

Science:
No. First of all, the ocean's role in the North Atlantic is very important, but it is not the only influence on Europe ’s climate. In addition, weather systems in the Northeastern U.S. are mostly controlled by Canadian air masses, not the North Atlantic . So it is not clear what impact a disturbance in the North Atlantic would have upon the U.S.

intresting stuff,

[edit on 31-1-2005 by asala]

Asala, the scientific argument(the naysaying) was covered in the film itself. However, the truth is, we don't know much about nature anyway. The actual film was based on a book discussing the real climate today. However, some parts of it were most certainly sensationalized.

I saw this image in the other thread. It bears a very shocking resemblance to what happend when everything froze in Day After tomorrow!

The movie actually had very good science in it, however, the political agenda within the movie made it just silly. Without the "agenda" the science would have been very "hard hitting".

Global Climate Change is real and vastly "impossible" weather variations will happen and continue to "amaze" the anti-science morons of the world.

I didn't think the science in the movie was convincing at all. Quaide gives a 15 second speech about the NA current and has pretty pics and graphs on his computer, but that's about it. The most convincing thing about the film was that the vice-prez was made out to be an idiot. "The Core" was another science flight of fancy.

Day After Tomorrow had great CG though. My jaw dropped when that wave first came in over Manhattan.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
what kind of signs would we be expecting a month before it actually happens.

An ice age isn't going to snap into existance in a month. Even the quickest models of broadly defined 'climate change' require decades, and thats sometimes for changes of a few degrees.

It bears a very shocking resemblance to what happend when everything froze in Day After tomorrow!

Its from norway, and its right on the beach, of course its covered in ice.

Things in the movie that have happened in the last year:

I suppose a similiar list could be made for things in the movie that happened a hundred years ago.

I didn't think the science in the movie was convincing at all

its not really supposed to be. Science Fiction is all about suspension of disbeleif, so all the movie needs to do is present a case plausible enough to let you not think about it, at least not while watching the movie.

From what I undestand, climatologists were wary of the movie because it had bad science, and then were really wary of it because people saw the movie and figured that thats what the climatologists were talking about, which was absurd enough that it needn't be heeded.

Originally posted by Nygdan

From what I undestand, climatologists were wary of the movie because it had bad science, and then were really wary of it because people saw the movie and figured that thats what the climatologists were talking about, which was absurd enough that it needn't be heeded.

The "science" in the movie was "sound" but it was a combination of "theories" not necessarily related............

Catastophic climate change is rather new to the old "aeons" of change crowd.

Like I said, this is from what I understand of the reactions of some climatologists to the science. The 'aeons of change' 'crowd' are the ones providing the science for the movie anyways.

How realistic is this movie?

It has a kernel of truth, although it has been "Hollywoodized." There is evidence that abrupt climate change has happened a couple of times in the last 13,000 years, but it's never happened in a few days, as it does in the movie. That's completely impossible.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Vostok ice core datas show that after fast rise of CO2 in atmosphere temperature has collapsed in blink of eye, geologically speaking, but it would still take years/decades, not days/weeks.
We just don't know exactly what's required for starting of that but that isn't excuse to continue this huge experiment with climate.