Theory: The Day After Tomorrow

Post Reply New Topic

I have started a topic for those environmentalists and other peope who have seen the popular, controversial movie The Day After Tomorrow.
I saw The Day After Tomorrow last night, and i have developed a theory about the motive behind the movie. But before I launch into my lecture, I want to give a short summary of the story...

The major plot behind the story is a major climate shift that threatens the entire earth. Due to an overuse of fossil fuels, the polar ice caps begin to melt at an alarming rate. the sudden increase in freswater being spilled into the ocean from the melting the ice caps disrupts the North Atlantic Current, which carries warm water from the Equator into the northern areas, thus warming the north. The result is a major climate imbalance that results in the formation of three huge "polarcanes". The "polarcanes"are gargantuan hurricane-like storms that feed not on heat, but a lack of it. The storms cover almost the entire landmass on Earth, and draw supercooled air from the mesosphere, thus causing massive temperature drops that can reach -150 degrees Farenheit, and instantly freezing anything - including humans - that are in the eye. Acoording to the on in charge of predicting the storms - a Paleoclimatolgist, or one who studies prehistoric weather and climate patterns - the phenomonon has only occured once, and it resulted in the start of the Ice Age. Meanwhile, the paleoclimatologist in question embarks on a journey through the icy storm to rescue his son - who has been stranded in the Manhattan Library after his field trip - in NYC, where the eye of the North American "polarcane" currently engulfs.

Now back to my theory. everyone that has a good news channel and half an eye knows that all that President Bush cares about is oil. He was even attempting to cancel protection on certain national parks - Yellowstone, for example - just so he could drill them for oil. now, everyone knows that the main uses for oil - power plants and Internal Combustion Engines (ICE's) - produce the main causes for the increase in greenhouse gases. so if Bush continues his quest for oil, the greenhouse gases will eventually rise in concentration. My theory is that the person who wrote the script for The Day After Tomorrow was rubbed the wrong way by Bush's oil campaign, and decided to write the movie to open our eyes to the fragile state of our environment and "scare" us into getting rid of Bush to save it. The scary thing about it is that while the chances of a sudden global climate shift like the one described in the movie is next to impossible, the scientific facts in the movie make it seem very plausible. In short, my theory is that the movie was meant to scare people away from enviromnment-harming decisons and people who make them (like Bush) by showing them what could happen. any comments on the subject would be appreciated.

Archmage

I agree that global warming is bad... and President Bush is driven almost exclusively by the acquisition of fossil fuels and money...

But that said... the scenario you saw on The Day After Tomorrow is thermodynamically impossible... Ice Ages start and end over thousands of years...

Theoretically global warming could lead to worse and worse hurricanes, unpredictable weather patterns all over the planet... and bad agriculture failures... but it's not apocalyptic level...

A movie about tropical climates failing and hurricanes racking Florida would not be profitable... a movie about New York becoming a popsicle is profitable...

That said... movies like The Day After Tomorrow are little more than "disaster porn"... a movie meant to titillate people by showing buildings destroyed...

Global Warming is getting so bad that Canada (where I live) has reasonable weather...

If Canada has reasonable weather... something terribly wrong is going on...

The book this film is based on was written by a man who wrote a book saying he was aducted by aliens his name is Whitley Strieber and he wrote a book called "Communion : A True Story" about it. This man has mislead many ppl with his sillyness. But at least in the day after torrmorrw film he used 10 percent reality 90 percent bs unlike his other books with 99.99 crap and 1/10 percent maybe he does a hack job of writing. But it looked cool eh ? And he helps discredit good research by making this crap shame on him

Yeah. And as i was trying to tell Feste-fenris, that ten percent is what makes The Day After Tomorrow wicked cool (In both the figurative and literal sense; I got the chills every time they showed the NYC polarcane)
and while my theory is wrong, at least i can dream about people voting for environmenally-consious Senator Kerry in the election because they saw it and wondered what would happen. Good thing too. I hate Bush. And Mr. President, if you have the CIA and FCC traking this site for some reason, it's nothing personal; it's just where your leading our country.


Archmage

The Day After Tomorrow was very far fetched as the conditions shown in the movie would take many hundreds of years to take place. The events in the movie happened virtually overnight. The special effects were terrific though and there were a couple of funny bits, especially with the American people who are desperate to escape into Mexico. I liked the bit where the ship sailed down the street of New York. Overall I thought the movie was pretty good and draws people attention to global warming.

Thanks guys...

It would take hundreds, thousands of years to screw up a climate... even if the Bush Family dominates American politics perpetually...

Global warming is like meteorites... not a timely threat; but something we should all be aware of in the future...

My Dad says that too much CO2 in the air could lead to algae blooms, which would disrupt marine ecosystems but slow down global warming...

It's pretty obvious that global warming is occuring... but it's about as big a threat as Vietnamese Communists... not a current threat... but we should monitor the situation...

I go to Camp Kodiak in McKellar, Canada during four weeks in July. And sometimes the temperature gets up to 34 degrees celcius. In case you don't know, that's about 100 degrees Farenhein and it is very, very hot!

It's simply amazing that temperatures can get that high!

Christopher Grills

I thought it was a good movie. Kinda inaccurate, but very entertaining for what it is. And I mangaed to sit through it in one sitting.

I have seen this movie and feel that it is a perfectly reasonable theory, i think that we are in the very beginning stages of tis "event"

That's nothing! Back in September 2000, we had temperatures here as high as 112°F (44°C).

However, it is surprising that you would have hot weather in Canada.

The combustion engine demand was made long before Bush, right about the time of the earliest motor vehicles, the late 1890's and early 1900's. When the people chose to buy gas powered instead of the electric, steam, or any other vehicle design offered, and thus electric never prospered and so we are now about 1920 or 1930 equivalent development stage as it was basically stopped some 60 or 70 years ago. So whether you like it not we still have a few years before alternates either become cheap, effecient, or popular enough to knock off gas powered regardless of what Bush does or does not do. You can't blame one guy for decades of abuse and practice by the U.S. and the world. The car companies and oil companies had a say in this too, often buying off and out of existence any improvement in auto design. The 1948 Tucker, which only 51 were produced, was a bid by a dreamer to become a new independent auto company, got 30 mpg from a 355 cu. inch helicopter engine, crush safety features, pop out winshield, headlights that turn with wheel, fuel injection, seat belts, and comfort. These are things we take for granted today, but the Tucker was the first affordable car and for many things the first car to incorporate all these things, yet like so many others, he was pushed to the breaking point because he challenged the statis quo.

Next people will blame the separation of the continents on Bush. As I said before, Clinton did many of the same things, it is on record, only Clinton had a more corrupt reputation that seems to be fading to the flavor of the day Bush and questions about his motives and intelligence. I don't get you have almost twins. To presidents that do and say many of the same things, even the Social security investment plan has been reportedly favored by Clinton and FDR, and they both get the bad press at the time they are in power. Does this mean that if a Democrat wins the next election everyone will be saying that he is not doing things as good as Bush did, because he or she will become the new flavor of the day to place the blame for all problems on?

That's the thing, it has not been proven, in fact there is no good evidence to say that global warming is real.

The supposed rise in tempature over the last decade only shows up in measurments from ground level weather stations, most of which are in the proximity of major city and so are effected by the "heat island" created by the city. Sattelite data suggest the earth has actually cooled very slightly.

Other research has shown that CO2 levels follow tempature (due to the fact that CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm), not the other way around.

Historical evidence suggests that the earth was significantly warmer before the 1600's. Greenland was named as such because it was green, fertile land with a livable climate, now its a frozen wastland mostly covered in permafrost.

I always heard Greenland was so named to convince people to go their so the Vikings could keep the better climate land of Iceland for themselves.

The weather patterns in Canada could in no way be influenced by Global Warming. Global warming can only occur over a long time period. If the weather has changed in canada, it is only the result of a climate shift which is something unrelated to pollution.

Yes, that is often said, but it's not true. Historicaly the people who lived on greenland were inuits in the north-west and vikings in the south and east, they didn't try to trick any one else into taking it, they took it for themselves because it was good land. They've found viking farms on Greenland.

Edit: Here's a link to an article on the subject.
Note this passage

Birch! A meadow! Farmable (above zero, mostly frostless) summers for 400 years!!