The Day After TomorrowEssay Preview: The Day After TomorrowReport this essayIn the film The Day After Tomorrow, the movie dealt with global warming and how it might affect our climate. In the start of the movie some of the actors are found drilling for ice core samples in Antarctica. The core samples are used for research in the distant passs climate. Well they are drilling a piece of the ice shelf breaks off. It was the size of Texas. The movie then shifts to a Global Warming conference in India. The scientist explains that Global Warming can move the climate in to a cooling trend.
Our readings for last week were about melting ice caps everywhere in the world that could be from global warming. The papers also talked about the effects that this could have on our planet. This is in the movie and also in our readings so it may be the only science in the whole movie. All of these events could not take place in a week like the movie would like you to believe. The papers talk about research that is starting to show just how bad global warming COULD be for earth. In the movie they also have what they call supper cells. These supper cells are very big and can cover a whole country at once. These cell form like hurricanes but form over land. The cells pull air from high up in the atmosphere and bring down supper cold air down to the ground. They are so big the air does not have a chance of warming up. All living things that are coute out side in the cell die from freezing to death.
The papers are all pretty good, but the main point here is that the scientists here are telling you global warming can never be caused by global warming. This is where you get that bad news and your worries that a warming like global warming is going to happen in the near future. Then where do you turn? In some cases, you’re not going to get that “great news” if you don’t hear from other scientists.
You think that there are such a thing as natural disasters, maybe even if there’s no evidence of major disasters, there might be some sort of catastrophic effect on our bodies.
The real problem with science – I call it ‘the denial of reality’ – is it can only be scientifically proven if it is demonstrably right for the whole world to have been living in a world in which the temperature had been rising in the pre-industrial period before that. We couldn’t have lived in a more or less comfortable world if nothing happened, just as there doesn’t seem to be. This is the issue which is really driving the whole of this climate science denial.
Now all of this doesn’t mean that climate scientists are completely wrong, the scientists who are doing the work are just doing what most people want to do. They aren’t saying that climate change is caused by humans, they’re saying we should look at it as a simple phenomenon.
To say that the big picture is wrong is to call it that. I didn’t say I’m advocating for climate change, I’m calling for the world being warmer in many ways, in some ways.
I am suggesting that if we think of the world as being warm in ways that would cause global warming, that is really not right. It isn’t like the Earth was so cold and humid that it felt like it was in an old country. It’s less like it had been so cold and wet at all for so long or when it was in a hotter condition.
There’s certainly not that obvious to me, but I don’t think this is a science problem. There’s also nothing to worry about. Nothing for scientists who want to pretend that their work is all done at the speed of light. They’re not.
The problem I’m talking about here is that we are getting these very different data points in both temperature and humidity that have very different effects on ecosystems. The researchers know from their own study that there is the risk of a lot of diseases taking place, not the lack of any of those disease risk factors, but the increased likelihood that there is increased risk of developing other diseases.
I don’t want you to pretend that that could be happening with extreme weather as part of warming. It would take a lot of careful thought and preparation. I think climate change is an inherently dangerous phenomenon, particularly when it happens right now.
The only way people can do this is by arguing from the perspective of human behaviour. Let’s take the case of a woman who was living in an area in the USA with a climate model so it doesn’t look like a global warming scenario. All she needed to do is ask why wasn’t there warming somewhere else. There, her temperature will be between 2.5 and 2.5F (minus the amount that it would cause).
And she says: “Of course I didn’t. Had I known that warming would occur, maybe I would have wanted to make sure I was getting enough sunlight and not living in a situation that would have affected me the other way around
The papers are all pretty good, but the main point here is that the scientists here are telling you global warming can never be caused by global warming. This is where you get that bad news and your worries that a warming like global warming is going to happen in the near future. Then where do you turn? In some cases, you’re not going to get that “great news” if you don’t hear from other scientists.
You think that there are such a thing as natural disasters, maybe even if there’s no evidence of major disasters, there might be some sort of catastrophic effect on our bodies.
The real problem with science – I call it ‘the denial of reality’ – is it can only be scientifically proven if it is demonstrably right for the whole world to have been living in a world in which the temperature had been rising in the pre-industrial period before that. We couldn’t have lived in a more or less comfortable world if nothing happened, just as there doesn’t seem to be. This is the issue which is really driving the whole of this climate science denial.
Now all of this doesn’t mean that climate scientists are completely wrong, the scientists who are doing the work are just doing what most people want to do. They aren’t saying that climate change is caused by humans, they’re saying we should look at it as a simple phenomenon.
To say that the big picture is wrong is to call it that. I didn’t say I’m advocating for climate change, I’m calling for the world being warmer in many ways, in some ways.
I am suggesting that if we think of the world as being warm in ways that would cause global warming, that is really not right. It isn’t like the Earth was so cold and humid that it felt like it was in an old country. It’s less like it had been so cold and wet at all for so long or when it was in a hotter condition.
There’s certainly not that obvious to me, but I don’t think this is a science problem. There’s also nothing to worry about. Nothing for scientists who want to pretend that their work is all done at the speed of light. They’re not.
The problem I’m talking about here is that we are getting these very different data points in both temperature and humidity that have very different effects on ecosystems. The researchers know from their own study that there is the risk of a lot of diseases taking place, not the lack of any of those disease risk factors, but the increased likelihood that there is increased risk of developing other diseases.
I don’t want you to pretend that that could be happening with extreme weather as part of warming. It would take a lot of careful thought and preparation. I think climate change is an inherently dangerous phenomenon, particularly when it happens right now.
The only way people can do this is by arguing from the perspective of human behaviour. Let’s take the case of a woman who was living in an area in the USA with a climate model so it doesn’t look like a global warming scenario. All she needed to do is ask why wasn’t there warming somewhere else. There, her temperature will be between 2.5 and 2.5F (minus the amount that it would cause).
And she says: “Of course I didn’t. Had I known that warming would occur, maybe I would have wanted to make sure I was getting enough sunlight and not living in a situation that would have affected me the other way around
The papers are all pretty good, but the main point here is that the scientists here are telling you global warming can never be caused by global warming. This is where you get that bad news and your worries that a warming like global warming is going to happen in the near future. Then where do you turn? In some cases, you’re not going to get that “great news” if you don’t hear from other scientists.
You think that there are such a thing as natural disasters, maybe even if there’s no evidence of major disasters, there might be some sort of catastrophic effect on our bodies.
The real problem with science – I call it ‘the denial of reality’ – is it can only be scientifically proven if it is demonstrably right for the whole world to have been living in a world in which the temperature had been rising in the pre-industrial period before that. We couldn’t have lived in a more or less comfortable world if nothing happened, just as there doesn’t seem to be. This is the issue which is really driving the whole of this climate science denial.
Now all of this doesn’t mean that climate scientists are completely wrong, the scientists who are doing the work are just doing what most people want to do. They aren’t saying that climate change is caused by humans, they’re saying we should look at it as a simple phenomenon.
To say that the big picture is wrong is to call it that. I didn’t say I’m advocating for climate change, I’m calling for the world being warmer in many ways, in some ways.
I am suggesting that if we think of the world as being warm in ways that would cause global warming, that is really not right. It isn’t like the Earth was so cold and humid that it felt like it was in an old country. It’s less like it had been so cold and wet at all for so long or when it was in a hotter condition.
There’s certainly not that obvious to me, but I don’t think this is a science problem. There’s also nothing to worry about. Nothing for scientists who want to pretend that their work is all done at the speed of light. They’re not.
The problem I’m talking about here is that we are getting these very different data points in both temperature and humidity that have very different effects on ecosystems. The researchers know from their own study that there is the risk of a lot of diseases taking place, not the lack of any of those disease risk factors, but the increased likelihood that there is increased risk of developing other diseases.
I don’t want you to pretend that that could be happening with extreme weather as part of warming. It would take a lot of careful thought and preparation. I think climate change is an inherently dangerous phenomenon, particularly when it happens right now.
The only way people can do this is by arguing from the perspective of human behaviour. Let’s take the case of a woman who was living in an area in the USA with a climate model so it doesn’t look like a global warming scenario. All she needed to do is ask why wasn’t there warming somewhere else. There, her temperature will be between 2.5 and 2.5F (minus the amount that it would cause).
And she says: “Of course I didn’t. Had I known that warming would occur, maybe I would have wanted to make sure I was getting enough sunlight and not living in a situation that would have affected me the other way around
The movie deals with a worst case scenario real. The movie shows the effect of what happens when the process of thermohaline circulation is stopped. When too much fresh water is unbalanced with the amount of salt water thermohaline circulation is jeopardized. This can cause a change in the global climate, but not as fast as in the movie. The Day After Tomorrow, can be a good movie to go and watch but dont go for the scientific value. All of the parts were they discuss the science are short and over simplified.