Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

The Day After Tommorow (removed comments not discussing movie)

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

The Day After Tommorow (removed comments not discussing movie)

Old 05-30-04, 12:56 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Downtown LA
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by DivxGuy
Global warming can't start the next Ice Age. If anything, global warming would help mitigate the effects of one were it to start.

If the "Atlantic conveyor" were to shut down, the effects would be confined to certain regions, not dispersed globally. The northeastern U.S. and northern Europe would endure colder winters, but there wouldn't be a total freezing of the entire Northern Hemisphere, nor would there be continent-wide storms and the like.

In short, changes in ocean currents would not bring on a new Ice Age.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has a FAQ on on this, for anyone who's interested.

RD


YOU'RE WRONG! JUST LIKE THE VICE PRESIDENT! IF WE DON'T ACT NOW, IT"LL BE TOO LATE OTTERS!!
mytzplyx is offline  
Old 05-30-04, 03:54 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,427
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by DivxGuy
Global warming can't start the next Ice Age. If anything, global warming would help mitigate the effects of one were it to start.

If the "Atlantic conveyor" were to shut down, the effects would be confined to certain regions, not dispersed globally. The northeastern U.S. and northern Europe would endure colder winters, but there wouldn't be a total freezing of the entire Northern Hemisphere, nor would there be continent-wide storms and the like.

In short, changes in ocean currents would not bring on a new Ice Age.

The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has a FAQ on on this, for anyone who's interested.

RD
not exactly....

How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age...
by Thom Hartmann


While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

Here's how it works.

If you look at a globe, you'll see that the latitude of much of Europe and Scandinavia is the same as that of Alaska and permafrost-locked parts of northern Canada and central Siberia. Yet Europe has a climate more similar to that of the United States than northern Canada or Siberia. Why?

It turns out that our warmth is the result of ocean currents that bring warm surface water up from the equator into northern regions that would otherwise be so cold that even in summer they'd be covered with ice. The current of greatest concern is often referred to as "The Great Conveyor Belt," which includes what we call the Gulf Stream.

The Great Conveyor Belt, while shaped by the Coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, is mostly driven by the greater force created by differences in water temperatures and salinity. The North Atlantic Ocean is saltier and colder than the Pacific, the result of it being so much smaller and locked into place by the Northern and Southern American Hemispheres on the west and Europe and Africa on the east.

As a result, the warm water of the Great Conveyor Belt evaporates out of the North Atlantic leaving behind saltier waters, and the cold continental winds off the northern parts of North America cool the waters. Salty, cool waters settle to the bottom of the sea, most at a point a few hundred kilometers south of the southern tip of Greenland, producing a whirlpool of falling water that's 5 to 10 miles across. While the whirlpool rarely breaks the surface, during certain times of year it does produce an indentation and current in the ocean that can tilt ships and be seen from space (and may be what we see on the maps of ancient mariners).

This falling column of cold, salt-laden water pours itself to the bottom of the Atlantic, where it forms an undersea river forty times larger than all the rivers on land combined, flowing south down to and around the southern tip of Africa, where it finally reaches the Pacific. Amazingly, the water is so deep and so dense (because of its cold and salinity) that it often doesn't surface in the Pacific for as much as a thousand years after it first sank in the North Atlantic off the coast of Greenland.

The out-flowing undersea river of cold, salty water makes the level of the Atlantic slightly lower than that of the Pacific, drawing in a strong surface current of warm, fresher water from the Pacific to replace the outflow of the undersea river. This warmer, fresher water slides up through the South Atlantic, loops around North America where it's known as the Gulf Stream, and ends up off the coast of Europe. By the time it arrives near Greenland, it's cooled off and evaporated enough water to become cold and salty and sink to the ocean floor, providing a continuous feed for that deep-sea river flowing to the Pacific.

These two flows - warm, fresher water in from the Pacific, which then grows salty and cools and sinks to form an exiting deep sea river - are known as the Great Conveyor Belt.

Amazingly, the Great Conveyor Belt is only thing between comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the eastern coast of North America.

Much of this science was unknown as recently as twenty years ago. Then an international group of scientists went to Greenland and used newly developed drilling and sensing equipment to drill into some of the world's most ancient accessible glaciers. Their instruments were so sensitive that when they analyzed the ice core samples they brought up, they were able to look at individual years of snow. The results were shocking.

Prior to the last decades, it was thought that the periods between glaciations and warmer times in North America, Europe, and North Asia were gradual. We knew from the fossil record that the Great Ice Age period began a few million years ago, and during those years there were times where for hundreds or thousands of years North America, Europe, and Siberia were covered with thick sheets of ice year-round. In between these icy times, there were periods when the glaciers thawed, bare land was exposed, forests grew, and land animals (including early humans) moved into these northern regions.

Most scientists figured the transition time from icy to warm was gradual, lasting dozens to hundreds of years, and nobody was sure exactly what had caused it. (Variations in solar radiation were suspected, as were volcanic activity, along with early theories about the Great Conveyor Belt, which, until recently, was a poorly understood phenomenon.)

Looking at the ice cores, however, scientists were shocked to discover that the transitions from ice age-like weather to contemporary-type weather usually took only two or three years. Something was flipping the weather of the planet back and forth with a rapidity that was startling.

It turns out that the ice age versus temperate weather patterns weren't part of a smooth and linear process, like a dimmer slider for an overhead light bulb. They are part of a delicately balanced teeter-totter, which can exist in one state or the other, but transits through the middle stage almost overnight. They more resemble a light switch, which is off as you gradually and slowly lift it, until it hits a mid-point threshold or "breakover point" where suddenly the state is flipped from off to on and the light comes on.

It appears that small (less that .1 percent) variations in solar energy happen in roughly 1500-year cycles. This cycle, for example, is what brought us the "Little Ice Age" that started around the year 1400 and dramatically cooled North America and Europe (we're now in the warming phase, recovering from that). When the ice in the Arctic Ocean is frozen solid and locked up, and the glaciers on Greenland are relatively stable, this variation warms and cools the Earth in a very small way, but doesn't affect the operation of the Great Conveyor Belt that brings moderating warm water into the North Atlantic.

In millennia past, however, before the Arctic totally froze and locked up, and before some critical threshold amount of fresh water was locked up in the Greenland and other glaciers, these 1500-year variations in solar energy didn't just slightly warm up or cool down the weather for the landmasses bracketing the North Atlantic. They flipped on and off periods of total glaciation and periods of temperate weather.

And these changes came suddenly.

For early humans living in Europe 30,000 years ago - when the cave paintings in France were produced - the weather would be pretty much like it is today for well over a thousand years, giving people a chance to build culture to the point where they could produce art and reach across large territories.

And then a particularly hard winter would hit.

The spring would come late, and summer would never seem to really arrive, with the winter snows appearing as early as September. The next winter would be brutally cold, and the next spring didn't happen at all, with above-freezing temperatures only being reached for a few days during August and the snow never completely melting. After that, the summer never returned: for 1500 years the snow simply accumulated and accumulated, deeper and deeper, as the continent came to be covered with glaciers and humans either fled or died out. (Neanderthals, who dominated Europe until the end of these cycles, appear to have been better adapted to cold weather than **** sapiens.)

What brought on this sudden "disappearance of summer" period was that the warm-water currents of the Great Conveyor Belt had shut down. Once the Gulf Stream was no longer flowing, it only took a year or three for the last of the residual heat held in the North Atlantic Ocean to dissipate into the air over Europe, and then there was no more warmth to moderate the northern latitudes. When the summer stopped in the north, the rains stopped around the equator: At the same time Europe was plunged into an Ice Age, the Middle East and Africa were ravaged by drought and wind-driven firestorms. .

If the Great Conveyor Belt, which includes the Gulf Stream, were to stop flowing today, the result would be sudden and dramatic. Winter would set in for the eastern half of North America and all of Europe and Siberia, and never go away. Within three years, those regions would become uninhabitable and nearly two billion humans would starve, freeze to death, or have to relocate. Civilization as we know it probably couldn't withstand the impact of such a crushing blow.

And, incredibly, the Great Conveyor Belt has hesitated a few times in the past decade. As William H. Calvin points out in one of the best books available on this topic ("A Brain For All Seasons: human evolution & abrupt climate change"): ".the abrupt cooling in the last warm period shows that a flip can occur in situations much like the present one. What could possibly halt the salt-conveyor belt that brings tropical heat so much farther north and limits the formation of ice sheets? Oceanographers are busy studying present-day failures of annual flushing, which give some perspective on the catastrophic failures of the past. "In the Labrador Sea, flushing failed during the 1970s, was strong again by 1990, and is now declining. In the Greenland Sea over the 1980s salt sinking declined by 80 percent. Obviously, local failures can occur without catastrophe - it's a question of how often and how widespread the failures are - but the present state of decline is not very reassuring."

Most scientists involved in research on this topic agree that the culprit is global warming, melting the icebergs on Greenland and the Arctic icepack and thus flushing cold, fresh water down into the Greenland Sea from the north. When a critical threshold is reached, the climate will suddenly switch to an ice age that could last minimally 700 or so years, and maximally over 100,000 years.

And when might that threshold be reached? Nobody knows - the action of the Great Conveyor Belt in defining ice ages was discovered only in the last decade. Preliminary computer models and scientists willing to speculate suggest the switch could flip as early as next year, or it may be generations from now. It may be wobbling right now, producing the extremes of weather we've seen in the past few years.

What's almost certain is that if nothing is done about global warming, it will happen sooner rather than later.

This article was adapted from the new, updated edition of "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com), due out from Random House/Three Rivers Press in March. www.thomhartmann.com

Copyright 2004 by Thom Hartmann.
HistoryProf is offline  
Old 05-30-04, 12:55 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
not exactly....
Yes, exactly, according to The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a rather authoritative source:
Q. Can global warming cause an Ice Age?
A. No.
Properly used, the term "Ice Age" refers to a major glacial epoch, in which glaciers cover large portions of continents. The last Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago, and we have been in an interglacial period since then. No one is predicting that global warming will cause an Ice Age. That is far too extreme a term to describe the regional cooling effects of a slowing (or shutdown) of the North Atlantic heat pump (thermohaline circulation). Slowing of the thermohaline circulation may result in a cooling from eastern North America to Europe, but we will still be in an interglacial period. Unfortunately, "Ice Age" is a great sound bite and too often ends up in headlines, movies and magazine covers.

Several conditions now are far different than those during the last ice advance. The earth receives a different pattern of solar energy now because the shape of the earth's orbit is not the same as it was 20,000 years ago. The tilt of the earth's axis toward the sun and the position of northern hemisphere summer on the orbit are both different now than during the last glacial advance. There is also significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere now than during the Ice Age and atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise, making the earth's average temperature much warmer. These conditions combine to make it unlikely for near future changes in ocean circulation to cause the large scale cooling seen during an Ice Age.
Click here for the full article.

Edit: In contrast to the prestigious Woods Hole, Thom Hartmann is " an award-winning, best-selling author and the host of one of the nation's largest nationally syndicated progressive daily radio talk shows..."

Not exactly an authoritative source on the science of climate.

RD

Last edited by DivxGuy; 05-30-04 at 01:05 PM.
DivxGuy is offline  
Old 05-31-04, 08:37 AM
  #4  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Q. Can global warming cause an Ice Age?
A. No. Properly used, the term "Ice Age" refers to a major glacial epoch, in which glaciers cover large portions of continents. The last Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago, and we have been in an interglacial period since then. No one is predicting that global warming will cause an Ice Age. That is far too extreme a term to describe the regional cooling effects of a slowing (or shutdown) of the North Atlantic heat pump (thermohaline circulation). Slowing of the thermohaline circulation may result in a cooling from eastern North America to Europe, but we will still be in an interglacial period. Unfortunately, "Ice Age" is a great sound bite and too often ends up in headlines, movies and magazine covers.

Several conditions now are far different than those during the last ice advance. The earth receives a different pattern of solar energy now because the shape of the earth's orbit is not the same as it was 20,000 years ago. The tilt of the earth's axis toward the sun and the position of northern hemisphere summer on the orbit are both different now than during the last glacial advance. There is also significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere now than during the Ice Age and atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to rise, making the earth's average temperature much warmer. These conditions combine to make it unlikely for near future changes in ocean circulation to cause the large scale cooling seen during an Ice Age.
As far as science is concerned, the film does not postulate the return of an "Ice Age", it supposes that global warming can cause a "little Ice Age" such as has happened since the last Ice Age and which is perfectly consistent with even the preceding OPEC-sponsored counter-propaganda.

Last edited by baracine; 05-31-04 at 08:59 AM.
baracine is offline  
Old 05-31-04, 08:56 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: A Canadian perspective

Originally posted by baracine
Just saw the film on this glorious, cloudless spring afternoon in Toronto. I am still under its spell.

The audience was awed by the opening suspense and the disaster scenes, laughed at the Dick Cheney impersonation, snickered at the representatives of oil-producing countries, found the dialogue mostly engaging and believable, but was mostly silent and teary-eyed at the end.
Spoiler:
The last shot of Canada under a coat of ice was sobering.


I personally think that one would have to be missing a few chromosomes or have become cynical or been desensitized to the point of inhumanity not to find this film moving and deeply affecting. It's much more than "Godzilla on the rocks". And its heart is certainly in the right place.
Funniest thing i read all day. I didn't think I could think any less of Canada until I read this.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 06-01-04, 11:32 AM
  #6  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by DivxGuy
Darn academia!
The facts about global warming are having as much trouble penetrating the minds of conservatives as the facts about DNA used to have with Black people. A few years ago, the belief in DNA evidence wasn't strong enough in the Black community to get O.J. Simpson condemned for murdering his wife and another man. Now, you can't watch a sleaze TV show like Maury Pauvich without it being about settling paternity issues with DNA sampling. I see this as progress.

(This has nothing to do with anything, but go to http://media.dsc.discovery.com/knowmore/ and check out the "Milk Truck" TV spot.)

Last edited by baracine; 06-01-04 at 12:05 PM.
baracine is offline  
Old 06-01-04, 11:59 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by baracine
A few years ago, the belief in DNA evidence wasn't strong enough in the Black community to get O.J. Simpson condemned for murdering his wife and another man.
No, the problem wasn't that black people didn't trust DNA evidence. The problem was black people in L.A. don't trust the police.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 06-01-04, 01:19 PM
  #8  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by Mr. Salty
No, the problem wasn't that black people didn't trust DNA evidence. The problem was black people in L.A. don't trust the police.
This interesting "not trusting the police" theory raises the question of how the LAPD used its special vampire force to secure enough blood from O.J. to spray-paint the scene of the crime. But I get your drift. What you're really saying is "conservatives don't trust science".
baracine is offline  
Old 06-01-04, 03:21 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by baracine
This interesting "not trusting the police" theory raises the question of how the LAPD used its special vampire force to secure enough blood from O.J. to spray-paint the scene of the crime. But I get your drift. What you're really saying is "conservatives don't trust science".
no it's that people in the US don't fall for the latest fad theory. The same people that have pushed ice age theories in the past, are now doing so with global warming. The goal is to destroy the american economy and not to save the planet.

most scientists even preach global warming only because it gives them research and grant dollars that they otherwise would not get.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 06-01-04, 06:26 PM
  #10  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by al_bundy
no it's that people in the US don't fall for the latest fad theory.
Like the evolution of species?
baracine is offline  
Old 06-07-04, 12:07 PM
  #11  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
DUDE, WHERE'S MY ICE FLOE?!


(Photo: World Wildlife Fund)

For more info on how global warming is destroying polar bears' natural habitat: www.wwf.ca

Last edited by baracine; 06-08-04 at 07:50 AM.
baracine is offline  
Old 11-21-05, 07:09 PM
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Commander Dan
Quite frankly, any period of glacial ice over Earth’s 4 billion year geologic history has been rare, and the overall average temperature of our planet is warmer than recent averages anyway. In any case, changes that occur naturally take place over thousands of years, so the thought that one would wake up the next morning in the middle of an ice age is pure fantasy.
I was wondering if you watched the TBS special Earth to America about global warming this weekend. A comedian had a great line about Republicans who live in a state of perpetual denial about the planet: "What will it take those guys to see the light? A city under water?"
baracine is offline  
Old 11-21-05, 09:54 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
I was wondering if you watched the TBS special Earth to America about global warming this weekend. A comedian had a great line about Republicans who live in a state of perpetual denial about the planet: "What will it take those guys to see the light? A city under water?"
I’m not sure what’s really amusing about that, though it is true that our current sea level is low as compared to the 4 billion year average; partially due to the glacial ice we have remaining from our last ice age. This is evidenced by the deposits of shale and sandstone along current coastlines.

The point is: Geologic history shows us that the Earth is supposed to be getting warmer. The impact of industry and fuel emissions on a global scale is negligible as compared to volcanic activity, natural occurring “greenhouse” gasses, inclination of the Earth’s orbit, precession of the pole, etc.

Besides, to think that we can make predictions of Earth’s climate over the long-haul based on only a hundred years or so of measurements is utterly ridiculous. Anyone ever taken a course in statistics? We simply don’t have a large enough sample to know what we are talking about.

Last edited by Commander Dan; 11-21-05 at 10:05 PM.
Commander Dan is offline  
Old 11-22-05, 10:14 AM
  #14  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Commander Dan
I’m not sure what’s really amusing about that [...].
I rest my case.

But to blame the raising temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, which will insure an increasing number of deadly storms over the US coastline for the foreseeable future on the precession of equinoxes is pure mumbo-jumbo. I'm glad to see you don't pretend the world was created only 6,000 years ago, though, like most of the people who share your opinion, including your president.
baracine is offline  
Old 11-22-05, 11:49 AM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
I rest my case.

But to blame the raising temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, which will insure an increasing number of deadly storms over the US coastline for the foreseeable future on the precession of equinoxes is pure mumbo-jumbo. I'm glad to see you don't pretend the world was created only 6,000 years ago, though, like most of the people who share your opinion, including your president.
I’m not sure what makes it “mumbo-jumbo,” as any good geologist will tell you that these factors can and do impact Earth’s climate to varying degrees. On the other hand, it is highly disputable whether or not emissions related to human activity have any discernable impact. Certainly, those emissions are minute when compared to the gases and ash that the Earth releases naturally. In any case, to blame an isolated localized warming trend on a single global event would be unscientifically foolish.

And perhaps I find little amusement in the statement you posted because a “city underwater” is by no means “proof” that human activity caused “global warming.”

If you really want to engulf yourself in paranoia, just wait until the next time the poles shift their polarity! As for me, I’m far more worried about the next asteroid impact.
Commander Dan is offline  
Old 11-22-05, 12:17 PM
  #16  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Commander Dan
I’m not sure what makes it “mumbo-jumbo,” as any good geologist will tell you that these factors can and do impact Earth’s climate to varying degrees.
The precession of equinoxes is a 25,800-year x 360 cycle that doesn't affect anything in micro- or macro-climates, only our way of viewing the rest of the universe (should we happen to be watching). To include it in a list of natural factors of climate change shows a will to impress but a sad lack of understanding of natural phenomena.

Last edited by baracine; 11-22-05 at 01:29 PM.
baracine is offline  
Old 11-22-05, 02:22 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by baracine
The precession of equinoxes is a 25,800-year x 360 cycle that doesn't affect anything in micro- or macro-climates, only our way of viewing the rest of the universe (should we happen to be watching). To include it in a list of natural factors of climate change shows a will to impress but a sad lack of understanding of natural phenomena.
I beg to differ:

The precession of the equinoxes can cause periodic climate change, because “the hemisphere that experiences summer at perihelion and winter at aphelion (as the southern hemisphere does presently) is in principle prone to more severe seasons than the opposite hemisphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precess..._the_equinoxes

A Serbian mathematician named Milutin Milankovitch has apparently done some studies and developed some theories in regards to climate and orbital variations. And, it seems that scientists such as Joseph Adhemar, James Croll, and others have helped to advance Milankovitch's theories.

In addition, an article entitled Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to the Present (Science 27 April 2001: Vol. 292. no. 5517, pp. 686 - 693 DOI: 10.1126/science.1059412) goes beyond variations due to the precession of the equinoxes and also includes variations of orbit eccentricity, inclination between spin axis & the ecliptic, and the precession cycle itself.

And incidentally, it’s not a matter of a “will to impress.” Lord knows that I have been mistaken about stuff many times, and I always try to “fess up” when that happens.

In this case, however, it’s about objectively looking at the data available, and drawing an informed conclusion.

Last edited by Commander Dan; 11-24-05 at 10:25 PM.
Commander Dan is offline  
Old 11-24-05, 01:29 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
ivelostr2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: pittsburgh
Posts: 4,881
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by baracine
I rest my case.

But to blame the raising temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, which will insure an increasing number of deadly storms over the US coastline for the foreseeable future on the precession of equinoxes is pure mumbo-jumbo. I'm glad to see you don't pretend the world was created only 6,000 years ago, though, like most of the people who share your opinion, including your president.
Wow, just wow. You gloss over the facts that he gives, completely ignoring his argument, and go straight to a generalization about others that, you believe, believe what he believes, using a stereotype that I'm pretty sure is untrue and a cheap shot to boot.
You pretend like you want to argue with him, but you make no attempt to address anything he said, just repeating what you think, and trying to discredit him by belittling who you perceive as the group he belongs to.
Are you sure you aren’t in politics?
ivelostr2 is offline  
Old 11-24-05, 07:49 AM
  #19  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ivelostr2
Wow, just wow. You gloss over the facts that he gives, completely ignoring his argument, and go straight to a generalization about others that, you believe, believe what he believes, using a stereotype that I'm pretty sure is untrue and a cheap shot to boot.
You pretend like you want to argue with him, but you make no attempt to address anything he said, just repeating what you think, and trying to discredit him by belittling who you perceive as the group he belongs to.
Are you sure you aren’t in politics?
The question is this: The climate is changing whether you want to call it "global warming" or not, whether you want to explain it as a natural phenomenon based on a 309,600-year precession cycle or not, and whether your interest in driving a gas-guzzler, polluting the world around you or investing in fossil fuel futures (there's an oxymoron for you!) allows you to recognize that human responsibility plays a part in this phenomenon or not. Hurricanes are more powerful and numerous, the ozone layer has a hole in it the size of Antarctica, the ice caps and permafrost are melting, whole species and environments are disappearing fast and coastal cities are now under water. The question is what are you going to do to preserve civilization and its infrastructure as we know it? Wait till it passes? Tie yourself to a tree? Vote for representatives who do not even recognize there is a problem? In that sense, yes, it is political.

Last edited by baracine; 11-24-05 at 11:46 AM.
baracine is offline  
Old 12-03-05, 08:00 AM
  #20  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Oh, I almost forgot, glaciers are melting at an alarming rate all over the world...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4346211.stm

Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast'


The world's highest mountains hide vast glaciers

Melting glaciers in the Himalayas could lead to water shortages for hundreds of millions of people, the conservation group WWF has claimed.
In a report, the WWF says India, China and Nepal could experience floods followed by droughts in coming decades.

The Himalayas contain the largest store of water outside the polar ice caps, and feed seven great Asian rivers.

The group says immediate action against climate change could slow the rate of melting, which is increasing annually.

"The rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers will first increase the volume of water in rivers, causing widespread flooding," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF's Global Climate Change Programme.

"But in a few decades this situation will change and the water level in rivers will decline, meaning massive eco and environmental problems for people in western China, Nepal and northern India."

'Catastrophe'


The glaciers, which regulate the water supply to the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Thanlwin, Yangtze and Yellow rivers are believed to be retreating at a rate of about 10-15m (33-49ft) each year.

"The world faces an economic and development catastrophe if the rate of global warming isn't reduced" - Jennifer Morgan, WWF

Hundreds of millions of people throughout China and the Indian subcontinent - most of whom live far from the Himalayas - rely on water supplied from these rivers.

Many live on flood plains highly vulnerable to raised water levels.

And vast numbers of farmers rely on regular irrigation to grow their crops successfully.

The WWF said the potential for disaster in the region should serve to focus the minds of ministers of 20 leading industrialised nations gathering in London for two meetings on climate change.

"Ministers should realise now that the world faces an economic and development catastrophe if the rate of global warming isn't reduced," Ms Morgan said.

Temperatures rising

She added that a study commissioned for the WWF indicated that the temperature of the Earth could rise by two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in a little over 20 years.


Farmers in rural China are dependent on regular irrigation

Allowing global temperatures to rise that far would be "truly dangerous", Ms Morgan said.

Nepal, China and India are already showing signs of climate change, the WWF report claims.

Nepal's annual average temperature has risen by 0.06 degrees Celsius, and three snow-fed rivers have shown signs of reduced flows.

Water level in China's Qinghai Plateau wetlands has affected lakes, rivers and swamps, while India's Gangotri glacier is receding by 23m (75ft) each year.
Meanwhile, Montreal is hosting the United Nations Climate Change Conference (http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_11/items/3394.php) and, as usual, the United States are seen as the ultimate villain: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globali...treal_3084.jsp

Last edited by baracine; 12-03-05 at 09:02 AM.
baracine is offline  
Old 12-03-05, 08:39 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We don't care. This has gone passed discussing the movie and delved into a pointless debate that will never be resolved here. Give it a rest.
taa455 is offline  
Old 12-03-05, 09:01 AM
  #22  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by taa455
We don't care. This has gone passed discussing the movie and delved into a pointless debate that will never be resolved here. Give it a rest.







Last edited by baracine; 12-03-05 at 09:19 AM.
baracine is offline  
Old 12-03-05, 09:20 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
it's kind of pathetic that someone will try to argue global warming politics in a thread about the worst movie ever made.

the fact that Al Gore referenced this movie in actual speeches about the environment makes him eligible for the BDITU award.
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 12-03-05, 09:21 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by baracine
The question is this: The climate is changing whether you want to call it "global warming" or not, whether you want to explain it as a natural phenomenon based on a 309,600-year precession cycle or not, and whether your interest in driving a gas-guzzler, polluting the world around you or investing in fossil fuel futures (there's an oxymoron for you!) allows you to recognize that human responsibility plays a part in this phenomenon or not. Hurricanes are more powerful and numerous, the ozone layer has a hole in it the size of Antarctica, the ice caps and permafrost are melting, whole species and environments are disappearing fast and coastal cities are now under water. The question is what are you going to do to preserve civilization and its infrastructure as we know it? Wait till it passes? Tie yourself to a tree? Vote for representatives who do not even recognize there is a problem? In that sense, yes, it is political.
i would love to hear how global warming caused the hole in the ozone layer

these are some scary times we are living in, now if the english start to make wine again this will mean the end of the world
al_bundy is offline  
Old 12-03-05, 09:28 AM
  #25  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by al_bundy
i would love to hear how global warming caused the hole in the ozone layer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/fi...00/1575481.stm
baracine is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.