Staredit Network

Ah! Thank you for that wonderfull outburst It shows your true colors *Aplauds*

And who are you to try and claim you know everything? CFCs are not light enough (elementally) to reach the upmost reaches of our atmosphere.

You DEE-DEE-DEE! Does it snow in Britain during July? NO, it barley ever snows in Britain anyways . When it's summer in the NORTHERN hempisphere, it's winter in the SOUTHERN hemisphere. South Africa is having it's version of fall now.

You want more stupidity? Oh wait, that's the stupidest thing I've read or heard or said all day today. Who gives a shiz if it's on the eastern hemisphere? The eastern and western hemispheres are not involved in seasons whatsoever, perhaps you mean that Siberia is in the NORTHERN hemisphere? Where, in fact, it would be coldest is DECEMBER? Listen, plz-dunt-melt-my-brane.

And as for you, ViolentMoose, not only do you seem unable to grasp that "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't scientifically accurate in showing the effects of the currents from the gulf shutting off, you seem to have some form of autism. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING. Why?

- A giant hurricane forming over the Northern Hemisphere would not bring such brobdingnagian amounts of cold air down from the troposphere that it would freeze everything. Why? The air from the troposphere would encounter this little thing called WARMER AIR, and the heat would be transferred from the warmer air to the colder air until the temperature was uniform, thus making the temperatures more equal, and the colder air less cold.

Need more? The cold air from the troposphere wouldn't just come down and freeze shiz. It would go into the goddamned hurricane, and freeze the snow and create hail. The hurricane would be encountered first, after all.

- The giant hurricane wouldn't be able to sustain itself. In the movie, the hurricane was situated over LAND. A little bit of LAND. And some more LAND. Hurricanes need water to sustain themselves. Land does not equal water. Hurricane has no water. Hurricane dies. In fact, hurricane cannot even spontaneously come to existence over LAND, because there is not enough water to let Hurricane live. That's why hurricanes start dying once they come upon land.

More proof required? The hurricane was quite a bit up North, you know? Like, NYC-type north. Hurricanes don't usually come up north, go compare the amount of nor'easters a year to the amount of southern hurricanes a year. And when they do come up, they don't really stay too long and they aren't usually powerful.

What's this all mean? Hurricane will not come to existence over North America, due to lack of water. Hurricane will not come to existence in an ocean and move over most of the North American continent, due to lack of water to sustain the hurricane. If hurricane some how manages to exist, it will be weak and die quickly.

NOW THEN VIOLENTMOOSE, WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE fark UP, AND GET YOUR OWN DEGREE IN SCIENCE? Sorry for my outburst, but I simply can't this ViolentMOOSE fellow. I've tried to explain to y'all that "The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, but y'know what? Here's the crusher argument. Read it, heed it. If you want even more, I'll get even more, but as of this moment, "The Day After Tomorrow" is shown to be false in one of its most major components. I don't doubt global warming will hurt us, but don't believe these piece-of-shiz movies.

Could you flame anymore please? Your flame was un-needed...

Anyways. He obviously knows more about Earth Science (Unless he googled ) than any of us, lol. But what he does say, is logically correct if you think about it with common sense.

So.. What he said.

I wouldn't have googled it, I would have wiki'd it =P. But I did neither, and used common sense. I was pretty pissed that people weren't listening to me saying that "The Day After Tomorrow" wasn't true, and I work best when I'm angry. Sorrz about the flame.

Anyways, let's discuss more reasonable topics now, such as what global warming will actually do. Global warming, will, infact, raise sea levels. But we probably won't notice it. You don't really notice yourself growing unless you actually look back on your life. Once it does raise, we can build structures to stop the oceanwater from flooding cities and towns. I believe it will also slightly increase the violence of tropical storms. Heat and water, especially heated water, keep hurricanes going, so the hurricanes will have longer lifespans. That's why hurricanes are down south: Gulf of Mexico & Atlantic Ocean + Warmth.

Now then, I see this waiting to spring out of the box: "But Snake)Ling, dear, the cyclone in 'The Day After Tomorrow' was a blizzard, not a hurricane!". Oh, pooh pooh. Tell me why it was spinning, then? And tell me why it was actually snowing and thus precipitating* down south? Thanks to a little research on weather.com and ussartf.org, a blizzard, in fact, does not actually create snow. A blizzard is just a high amount of wind**. Back to common sense: a hurricane (and thus a nor'easter) creates precipitation, unlike a blizzard. Why? What the hell do you think it does with the water it picks up? It needs the water to live, yes, but clouds can only carry so much water, yes?

*In case you don't know, precipitating means "raining, sleeting, snowing or hailing".
**Blizzards look like they are snowing because either they are blowing around snow storms (which are not nesscesarily part of the blizzard) or blowing around just snow.

Global Warming is a natural process though.. Look at what happened before the Ice Age, then after.

I know, I pointed that out earlier in this post. And, like always, nobody listened.

I urge you to read this article:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...-1998-2005-rip/

It's a year old, but kind of kills off global warming as a theory with much weight. I want to believe in global warming caused by Man, but it just doesn't stack up.

Global Warming was not cause by man, however men do help it, with pollution and all! Others too but I'm no scientist

I see no more point in this thread as it is clear that "The Day After Tomorrow" is almost completely false, and that the very theory of Global Warming is questionable.

You fail.

You need to read posts.

POLUTION IS NOT LIGHT ENOUGH TO REACH THE OZONE!

How many times do I have to say it, before you get it through your thick skull?!

Kellimus, don't be too sure. Thanks to wikipedia:

Ozone destruction


Chemical factors

Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radical catalysts, the most important of which are hydroxyl (OH), nitric oxide (NO) and atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). All of these radicals have both natural and anthropogenic (manmade) sources. At the present time, most of the OH and NO in the stratosphere is of natural origin, but human activity has dramatically increased the chlorine and bromine. These elements are found in certain stable organic compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which may find their way to the stratosphere without being destroyed in the troposphere. Once in the stratosphere, the Cl and Br atoms are liberated from the parent compounds by the action of ultraviolet light, and can destroy ozone molecules in a catalytic cycle. In this cycle, a chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule, taking an oxygen atom with it (forming ClO) and leaving a normal oxygen molecule. A free oxygen atom then takes away the oxygen from the ClO, and the final result is an oxygen molecule and a chlorine atom, which then reinitiates the cycle. The chemical shorthand for these reactions are:

Cl + O3 --> ClO + O2

ClO + O --> Cl + O2

In sum

O3 + O --> O2 + O2

For this mechanism to operate there must be a source of O atoms, which is primarily the photodissociation of O3.

A single chlorine atom would keep on destroying ozone for up to two years (the time scale for transport back down to the troposphere) were it not for reactions that remove them from this cycle by forming reservoir species such as hydrochloric acid and chlorine nitrate. On a per atom basis, bromine is even more efficient than chlorine at destroying ozone, but there is much less bromine in the atmosphere at present. As a result, both chlorine and bromine contribute significantly to the overall ozone depletion.

That all seems chemically sound.

I think it was retared.. lol. You can't use a chair to block a door.. I thought the whole movie was just stupidity after stupidity. I think it had more potential.

it's a genre of moovie that should have something like that. would you watch a horror moovie if nothing horrifying is happening in it ?

And I don't like how the Statue of liberty was almost completely underwater but the New York public library was barley touched.

I don't think "The Day After Tomorrow" could happen, however, there will defiantly be a lot of disasters. Just look at the tornados we had in the Middle States like Kansas-they got crushed by them. I expect alit of Katrina-like hurricanes this year too. Its very possible.

Yeah I didn't care to much for the video either.



lol yeah

Maybe when I watched it I watched it wrong. I think I was just watching for my own entertainment not looking for things that could happen or couldn't. I'm not going to go watch it again though.

Yeah I cant say its a movie I would watch when im bored either. Usually I watch movies for the entertainment to not the facts is crazy what you can miss.

back to the topic i don't think polution (or things caused by it) will kill us, i think something else will, like WW3 or a metiorite hitting earth.

i dont care too much because i live by a protected body of water that has only a narrow channel to the ocean over a hundred miles north of me, and theres a big clump of mountains between the ocean and me. so if a huge bloody hurricane does come, GL to it.

but yeah, day ofter tommorow's events were EXTREMELY overdone. you cant suddenly just get huge catastrophic events all at once pwning everyone. it would be a gradual thing, like your hurricane rate might rise by 1 or so every year and a bit of water level rising every now and then. it wouldnt just be like BOOM DEAD RAWR.

The Earth naturally cools and warms up. It will never be too devastating because we are at a rather set distance from the sun. Humans might make the Earth warm up by a few degrees, but it won't threaten our very existence. However, there are some things that need to occur. Large countries need to curtail their massive population growth. That's just not healthy for anyone. There should be a professional council that decides a good population density for all areas of the world depending on resources, land, etc. We also need to stop ruining the landscape, as it provides us with everything we need to live. Climate change will most likely kill a few species off, but there are more important things to worry about. We should try to clean up the air to stop global warming. We should try to clean it up because the air is filthy! Have you seen pictures of cities in China? They're disgusting! You can hardly see the sun. I bet you all 100 minerals that China pollutes more than any other nation, including the United States. China doesn't need more cities to house its people. It needs to keep a limit of one child per family, at least for a generation or so. That goes for India too, but at least that isn't a developed country. No, global warming is an incredibly small worry compared to resource management. There are now an estimated 7 billion humans populating this Earth. That's a big problem!

You can't control the world. And overpopulation is not a problem.

Call me a flamer, but you are an ignorant fool. Pray tell, where are you going to conjure up enough precious metals for everyone? How about food? Energy? Nuclear power is about fifty years away from becoming extinct as the already rare uranium disappears. Coal and oil won't last forever either.