It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ENTERTAINMENT: Global Warming On The Big Screen May 28 In "The Day After Tomorrow"

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2004 @ 07:59 AM
The basic science of the gulf stream stopping, has some foundation.

With the polar ice cap melting and increased fresh water following into the Artic Ocean is drastically affect the salinity of the Gulf Stream, which apparently is what drives the current.

Thus global warming will cause it to stop When you consider Scotland is on the same latitude as part of Alaska you could see that the loss off the Gulf Stream will cause increased cold.

The BBC documentary series Horizon did a very good report on this last year and the transcipt can be found here

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 02:18 AM
Study: Earth has been gradually cooling

Contrary to the new global catastrophe film, Earth's climate system won't flip in a matter of days....
Oxygen isotopes captured in sediments tell scientists that.....even up until about 2 million years ago, the climate was significantly warmer than today, sea levels were higher, and ice sheets at the poles were much smaller.

The Day After "The Day After Tomorrow"

Excerpt: are some facts regarding the "science" behind "The Day After Tomorrow." It is true that some theoretical climate models predict that the thermohaline circulation will be impacted by additional fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic.... However, other models predict a strengthening of the Gulf Stream with increased heat energy being pumped into the North Atlantic. Either scenario takes decades-to-centuries to be realized, not a few days.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 10:45 PM
Well I saw the movie today. Unfortunately I saw too many trailers and I read Art Bell's book The Coming Global Superstorm so this was a let down. I cannot believe that Emmerich had the never to list himself as the writer when this was so obvious a rip off of Bells book. I felt as if I had read the script before seeing the movie. The tornado outbreak in LA and the hail storm in Japan left much to be desired but the visual effects throughout the rest of the movie were great. An excellent job was done. There were a few flaws in the film but nothing too great. Most of the flaws would be over looked by the casual observer. Do yourself a favor and dont watch the trailers or read the book before watching this film.

And Mr Bell... if you havent already been paid I would recommend getting a lawyer.

Edit: I just saw someones post a few back where Emmerich supposedly got his idea that got him to do research. What research? Looks like you created your script directly from the book.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by Indy]

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 12:05 PM
Outland, you are completly ignoring the evidence to the contrary. The evidence suggests that the north Atlantic conveyor belt has slowed down and if it continues could possibly stop altogether. Althou the Gulf stream will not stop, the North Atlantic conveyor belt will be much different from what it is now, and it will bring regional cooling to many parts in the northern hemisphere. It is highly unlikely it will be as it is depicted in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," but this cooling will bring great changes that will affect those living from the North Eastern section of the United States to Northern Europe.

"Sirpa Hakkinen, lead author and researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. and co-author Peter Rhines, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle, believe slowing of this ocean current is an indication of dramatic changes in the North Atlantic Ocean climate. "

Excerpted from.

" But recent and rapidly advancing evidence demonstrates that Earths climate repeatedly has shifted dramatically and in time spans as short as a decade. And abrupt climate change may be more likely in the future.

Excerpted from.

The following is another report from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Abrupt Climate change.

"Q. Is this North Atlantic heat pump constant?
A. No. If conditions change in the North Atlantic Ocean such that surface waters can no longer become dense enough to sink, then the "conveyor belt" would slow or possibly stop altogether. The most likely agent of change is extra freshwater added to the ocean's sinking sites.

It is the latter portion of the flow -the thermohaline circulation-that brings ocean heat to the high northern latitudes and could be affected by salinity changes that are now taking place in the North Atlantic."

Excerpted from.

The information below is a written testimony to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in July 18, 2000 from Raymond W. Schmitt a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

"A few facts about
The Oceans:
Cover 70% of the surface of the Earth.
Have 1,100 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere
(99.9% of the heat capacity of the Earth's fluids)
Contain 90,000 times as much water as the atmosphere
(97% of the free water on the planet)

Records from ocean sediments of the fossils of marine life indicate that this has happened many times in the past, with dramatic consequences for climate over a large area. The most recent event was about 12,000 years ago, when the freshwater from melting glaciers shut down the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic.
This had dramatic consequences for the North Hemisphere,
returning much of it to glacial conditions for 1000 years.

Excerpted from.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:50 AM
"It is true that some theoretical climate models predict that the thermohaline circulation will be impacted by additional fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic from melting ice and increased discharge from major rivers. However, other models predict a strengthening of the Gulf Stream with increased heat energy being pumped into the North Atlantic. Either scenario takes decades-to-centuries to be realized, not a few days."

"Some evidence certainly exists that the climate system changed abruptly thousands of years ago over the time span of decades. Those swings occurred when concentrations of greenhouse gases were much lower than the levels observed today, and those gyrations are not simulated by existing climate models. It is very possible that higher levels of greenhouse gases will protect us from these fantastic swings in climate, just as higher levels of greenhouse gases may protect us from the next ice age due in a few thousand years."

Change is the only true constant in our climate and we humans are not yet decisively the cause this time around, no matter how much certain political agendas wish us to be. There is no 100% consensus and little beyond theories and models.

If the NAC changes, so what? It has before and it will again regardless of human activity. The nature of everything on this panet is change. The climate on this planet has often times been far worse than anything in our collective memory and we're still here.

I'm sorry, but the only thing I am alarmed about is the silly notion that us evil humans are to blame for something that has been going on far longer than we've been here. Realize that for the longest time, there was no NAC back when there was no Gulf. It exists out of happenstance and will someday disappear as well as climate changes and continents drift and meteors wack the planet. Just don't blame my use of energy for it.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:44 AM
Stick your head back in the sand Outland!

It doesn't surprise me that you except NO responsibility for climate change, Americans are expert at sluffing-off responsibility of any kind!

Thanks for clearing things up for us.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:48 AM
Outland, sorry but the opinion of that scientist agrees at least partially with the latest model of abrupt climate change, he should have said abrupt climate change in"less than a decade" instead of decades.

That's first, second it is also known that the melting of the glaciers in the Arctic is mostly caused by a chain of underground volcanoes, but it also seems that it is very possible human activity has caused this natural occurrance to speed up or even worsen the effects of abrupt climate change.

There isn't much we can do about the chain of underwater volcanos which are in the Arctic, this will continue to happen and if our models are correct perhaps by 2015 the Arctic will be a new navegable sea, but we could plan ahead and prepare. This change will cause changes in the climate in the northern latitudes.

This is a real problem and wishing that it's not happening, and or ignoring the facts will not make it go away.

posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 10:53 AM

The above picture slide is the difference in ice cover in the Arctic from 1979 to 2003. The year 2002 showed the lowest level of sea ice in record.

It can be found here.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:24 PM
Good stuff Muad. From the material I have seen it seems that an abrupt climate change (as in a few years or less) is most likely. Nature never makes corrections in a slow way. The pressure builds and builds until it eventually breaks with a violent release of energy. Unfortunately too many scientists are trying to protect their reputations and will publish misleading reports to cover for previous work they have done. Like with global warming. They have preached over and over again how much the earth will bake and everyone will burn. Unfortunately for them it seems highly unlikely that such an event will ever happen. It seems far more likely that our climate will react violently before then and correct itself. But these people would rather issue bad reports claiming that this will never happen or push it so far back that no one would ever expect it to happen in their lifetimes instead of admitting to the fact that maybe they were wrong to begin with. It is my opinion that you need an abrupt change of some sort to trigger a major climate change. Like with an ice age for example. Without some kind of major change it would be extremely difficult for an ice sheet to advance because of melting caused by the sun. I am sure that many of you have noticed this in areas that receive snow. You ever notice that on a clear day the snow will start melting even if the temps are well below freezing? If you want an advance of ice and snow you need to dump so much at one time that it cannot melt in a single season. Or you need extensive blockage of the sun. For something like that you'd need an event like a meteor impact or a volcanic erruption. OR.... perhaps extensive water vapor. You would certainly get the extensive vapor if the ocean temps increased a couple of degrees. Just look at what happens with el nino.

Sorry for the rambling post. Im off to get some caffeine in my system.

posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Outland, sorry but the opinion of that scientist agrees at least partially with the latest model of abrupt climate change, he should have said abrupt climate change in"less than a decade" instead of decades.

Really? Perhaps in some other piece, but the article behind the link I posted doesn't state anywhere that Balling agrees with any model in particular.

Volcanic activity in the polar regions is not new. I remember a PBS episode of Nova on the topic many years ago. I have no doubts that undersea volcanos have some responsibility for melting some polar ice and I never refuted that. 80% of the world's known volcanos are under the sea. An interesting related (although dated) story is at this link: Article

What I do refute is that any proof exists that human activity is in any way responsible for the melting of some glaciers. I say "some" because many others are growing. While the image you referred to at the NASA website does indeed show shrinking coverage of sea ice, it also shows (1) coverage has shifted at the same time, and (2) no apparent change occured between 2002 and 2003. Interesting.

Whether Dr. Balling agrees with any particular climate model was irrelevant to the points made in the posted excerpts. Those points are that (1) there is no consensus among the different climate models, (2) previous changes in climate did not necessarilly occur with changes in "greenhouse" gases, (3) there is no consensus (only theory) as to the actual effect of high concentrations of "greenhouse gases" or what thresholds become a threat.

One matter that is in consensus is that Earth's climate has always been in a state of flux. Since I believe that any current changes are more due to nature rather than human activity, there's nothing to do and little use in worrying about it.

When you have one group of scientists with their data and models in conflict with another group of scientists and their data and models, their is no consensus. And on both sides of the issue, it's all just theory with little as yet proven. Some agree with the IPCC, others believe it's a sham. Arguably, there is more money to being doled out on the side for "global warming" than the side of the non-believers in the way of U.S. government, UN and NGO (mostly socialist green groups) funds. All of the aforementioned have polictical motives mixed with greed.

At this point, the only thing that is solid fact is the past. And the past shows that worse things have happened to our climate way before any human activity existed. Worse things have happened and sometimes, nothing had happend when "greenhouse gases" were way higher than present day.

While it can be argued that we are in a trend of unnatural warming, it can also be argued that we are coming out of a longer term of cooling. Considering that long missing plant growth near modern polar regions is now returning in some areas, who is to say what is normal? Change is normal.

Back to the polar ice for a moment...
It never fails that during the Spring/Summer for the northern hemishpere, the "greens" start screaming that the Arctic ice is melting... never mentioning that the Antarctic ice is growing. Then the reverse occurs during the Fall/Winter months.
Antarctic Sea Ice Increases over Past Two Decades
Antarctic Ice Grows Thicker
Scientists: Ice Sheet Growing

Originally posted by scottsquared
It doesn't surprise me that you except NO responsibility for climate change, Americans are expert at sluffing-off responsibility of any kind!

"Responsibility " based on what? Theories? Climate models that don't agree with each other/ignore variances in solar emissions/leave much of the unknown dynamics of atmospheric circulation out of the equation? I don't agree on acting solely upon unproven "what if" scenarios.

We don't need to play the "global warming blame game" on Americans especially when much of it is based on bias rather than science. I can't blame the citizens of overtaxed nations for being envious of relatively cheap energy in the U.S.. Don't strike out at us if you're paying 2-3 times for petrol than we are.

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Outland]

posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 03:47 PM
Im kind of with Outland on the man blame thing. The amount of greenhouse gases that man produces is so small. We cant compete with a single volcanic eruption. There is no proof of how much CO2 it takes to change the earth's temp even .1 degrees. Its far too easy to blame man. Glaciers were melting for thousands of years. Its a natural cycle. Even the people who wrote the original report for Kyoto (the report that went through the pier review process) admitted that there was no evidence to link man to the current warming trend. Of course after the review process was complete someone went back and changed that part. There is no consensus as the vocal minority would have you believe. This whole global warming scam amounts to nothing more than scientific extortion. The oceans control the climate. Not man. To think otherwise would imply that the tail wags the dog.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in