The Day After Tomorrow

I don't think it's fair that a movie can be put down based on being non-factual if people deem that it is possible. If it's non-factual, then it's obviously not possible. I never saw anywhere that the director or writer of the movie had any intent of warning people to stop global warming. I believe it was just a good setup for the movie. There had to be a reason big ass storms.

The theories in the movie are discredited because there's no such thing as a "7 day climate change". Sudden climate changes, at the very quickest, take place over the course of decades, not days. That's why the movie is non-factual.

Either way, it's not important. I'm going to see it, and I expect to enjoy it.

Well what if the sun some how has some flares and heated the earth really quick, besides everything burning and stuff could a 7 day climate change happen then?

That's not really much of a "climate change". That's "flash-boiling the entire planet." A climate change entails the Earth naturally responding to unnatural interference in the ecosystem. The scenario you just described entails the Earth being set ablaze by the sun. That's two vastly different situations.

Well I was wondering if the sun stopped burning, the climate would still stay changed?

Clarify that question. I'm not sure what you're asking me. You're saying one of two things:

1) If the sun suddenly flared up so much that it began to burn the planet, and then the heat died down, would the climate on Earth remain changed by that sudden burst of heat? Answer: uh...yeah. That's kind of a given. The planet would be dead.

2) If the sun suddenly burnt out completely, would that have a permanent effect on the Earth's climate. Answer: uh...yeah. The planet would freeze.

I mean, lets say the sun quickly melted the ice, then the sun went back to normal... would the ice just go back to normal or would it just start leading to a major climate change?

That's exactly what I was saying... It's not a factual movie. It's fiction. Why, then, would anyone put it down because it had things that were not realistic? It down-right just doesn't make any sense. ET, Contact, Aliens, The Terminator, The Blob, and Godzilla are all fictional movies. They don't have to be realistic; nobody expects them to be realistic. Why, then, would anyone expect TDAT to be realistic and throw a fucking fit when it's not?

This movie was made for entertainment. Go watch it, then ....yeah...

I agree, an alien could come to earth, but dosent mean it will be just like ET... but then again this movie is about something that is a "topic" in the world today. I agree with both ways, I just like the movie because it was good

That's exactly what I was saying... It's not a factual movie. It's fiction. Why, then, would anyone put it down because it had things that were not realistic? It down-right just doesn't make any sense. ET, Contact, Aliens, The Terminator, The Blob, and Godzilla are all fictional movies. They don't have to be realistic; nobody expects them to be realistic. Why, then, would anyone expect TDAT to be realistic and throw a fucking fit when it's not?

Dude, Bob, calm down. I didn't insult your mother or attack you personally. I'm just pointing out a logical flaw in the movie. There's a huge difference between Aliens, The Terminator and TDAT. Aliens could very well happen at some point. So could the Terminator. There's no way to guarantee that those things can't happen because there is no scientific theorem that says time-traveling cyborgs is impossible. TDAT is different because the things they suggest in the movie are directly contradicted by scientific research. There are no studies that show that a future war between cyborgs and humans is impossible. There are numerous studies that illustrate how the events that take place in TDAT are nigh impossible.

If there is a possibility of time travelling cyborgs, then there is a possibility of a much-faster-than-expected climate shift. Stewie could make a weather controlling device and amplify its signal through the satellite dish on the top of his house... It sounds more possible to me...

Hmm, you bring a convincing argument, then again, Stewie is a super genius British Spy stuck is a 2 year old's body...

Either way, I agree with Bob. Just because science, as we now know it, doesn't think the climate shift would occur that quickly doesn't mean it won't. Who knows, for all we know, the hydrogen bomb equivalent of napalm could be invented and fired at the ice caps, causing the instant melting the way Acer (I think it was Acer) was asking about the Sun instantly melting them. There are so many unseen circumstances that could occur that we have no idea about. It's not out of the question, just about 87.315% out of the question.

If there is a possibility of time travelling cyborgs, then there is a possibility of a much-faster-than-expected climate shift. Stewie could make a weather controlling device and amplify its signal through the satellite dish on the top of his house... It sounds more possible to me...

Yes, but do you understand that in order to cause a climate shift that drastic and than sudden, it would require a catastrophic event so powerful that most of humanity probably wouldn't even live to see the sudden climate change? Yeah, it could happen, but we wouldn't have people running away from massive tonadoes and braving a new ice age in a frozen New York. We'd just all simply be dead.

Perhaps we have a war. The bombs of the day don't emit radiation of any sort. They just emit heat. Of course, we've developed bunkers designed to withstand ginormous amounts of heat. So.... we're all underground while the bombs go off... We come up, and AAAAA WTF?!?? We're fucked now, because the bunkers can't withstand cold, and they're not waterproof.