Merged Home

[DC]

And that is a problem, because...

we have a problem without a solution, and still creating more of that problem.
that alot humans dont see a problem with such things, brought us into trouble in the first place.

 

[Dancing David]

we have a problem without a solution, and still creating more of that problem.
that alot humans dont see a problem with such things, brought us into trouble in the first place.

You keep storing it. that is a problem?

Why?

 

[DC]

You keep storing it. that is a problem?

Why?

no we dont, we dont have a storage to keep iit storing. we only have interim storages. thats the problem, and switzerland is not the only country with that problem.

 

[Schwarzwald]

Home seemed arlight. Finally got around to watching it last night.

I don't understand why people think its 'more of the same'. I've yet to see an abundance of environmentalist films that have near 'Planet Earth' visuals.

My question is why every one seems so quickly to dismiss it. Just because they are old points doesn't make them any less valid. And when it comes to feeding the world and keeping things sustainable, it does bring up a good argument at how much energy we invest in animal feed. I'm not a vegetarian, but I do agree with their points they seem to make.

 

[DC]

Home seemed arlight. Finally got around to watching it last night.

I don't understand why people think its 'more of the same'. I've yet to see an abundance of environmentalist films that have near 'Planet Earth' visuals.

My question is why every one seems so quickly to dismiss it. Just because they are old points doesn't make them any less valid. And when it comes to feeding the world and keeping things sustainable, it does bring up a good argument at how much energy we invest in animal feed. I'm not a vegetarian, but I do agree with their points they seem to make.

I also had the iompression , nothing new. because the topic talked about and showed in the Documentation are all know to me, in this regard it has nothing new, but still its message is one of the most important of our time, more than ever. For me it is just not new.

but indeed the visuals (and i would include music) are not reached by any "green" docu.
the Visuals can compete with "Planet Earth" from BBC.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't understand why people think its 'more of the same'. I've yet to see an abundance of environmentalist films that have near 'Planet Earth' visuals.

No one is attacking the visuals - we're talking about the arguments made, which are 'same old'.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

Copy-paste everything said so far by the "PC greenies" and you've got the transcript. Features:

• Humans are destroying our climate/upsetting balance, etc (repeated 100 times throughout film).
• Various statistics about how long we've been here, how long the Earth's been here, etc.
• We're using too much oil (repeated 100 times throughout film).
• We need to change our habits, and we aren't.
• Fair Trade, whatever that is, is good.
• Eating meat is bad.
• Some stuff about various energy sources that are "in" right now.

Etc, etc, etc.

An accurate description. The bias was clear. The fact that it's biased doesn't make it entirely wrong, and doesn't make it entirely right either. There were a couple of leaps of logic that left me wondering, "huh?" but overall, it made the point, I think accurately, that everything is linked, and actions over here need to be thought about in terms of results over there.

The imagery is absolutely stunning.

'struth

I keep wondering just where did you derive these "opinions of the film" from? I listened closely, without hearing even once the word "bad", which you apparently heard hundreds of times .

She didn't literally use the word bad, but it certainly was the message of the film

The (at least) couple of times they showed oil, water, and other materials being consumed in farming ended with the point that all these resources are being consumed in the production of meat. This was not intended to be a positive point, based on the music being played, and the sneer in the narrator's voice.

that could very well be summarized as "humans are bad".

I got the message "industry is bad". Not humans, per se, but the feeding of the beast. I also got the message that we need to consider how we're going to cope after resources are consumed.

It did raise some questions for me, though, and I hope I don't appear too much a fool (although I'm sure to be told if I am).

One of the leaps of logic for me was all the methane that's certain to be produced, with uncertain results, is the melting of the permafrost across Siberia. What is this methane? Where did it come from? Do others think that it poses a serious risk to life on earth as we know it?

 

[shadron]

One of the leaps of logic for me was all the methane that's certain to be produced, with uncertain results, is the melting of the permafrost across Siberia. What is this methane? Where did it come from? Do others think that it poses a serious risk to life on earth as we know it?

Methane is a gas formed by a single carbon atom bonded to four hydrogens. It is the lightest of the hydrocarbon gases, the major component of "natural gas". It burns/oxidizes into CO2 (carbon dioxide) and water. It is generally created by outgassing from coal or petroleum sources, or by bacterial action upon decaying carbohydrates like wood or paper. Like CO2, it is a greenhouse gas - that is it can absorb visible light and emit infrared, but it does so over a smaller part of the visible spectrum, and it is also naturally smaller in concentration in the atmosphere, and is self-limiting because it will oxidize (burn) given a source of initial energy. In the permafrost it results from slow decay of the plant matter embedded in the permafrost, but it is trapped in the ice. When the ice melts, it is released into the atmosphere. It can also be captured in frozen methane clathrates^WP, and released when these are warmed.

The risk to life comes through additional global warming. It is a greenhouse gas just like CO2 (and even if it burns, it burns into CO2) so if it is released by global warming, it will make the situation worse. This is called positive feedback, as an increase in warming results in a cause for an even larger increase. Studies of ancient climate (through ice cores) seem to indicate that when global warming picks up naturally, it generally proceeds to result in such a positive feedback, cause a lot of warming, and this is one mechanism by which that observed situation could occur, so scientists are watching it closely. Of course, should this positive feedback be true, and should it start kicking in (and some scientists claim it is doing just that now), it will then be too late to stop the effects from running to their rather warm end.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

Thanks, Shadron, for the explanation.

Is it possible that the methane in the permafrost will be released slowly enough to be absorbed/converted to its final byproducts as it is released? I'm not doubting that even a slow release could have a warming effect, but it seems as though we won't turn into Venus over the course of a summer season...

Nothing in the very beautiful movie convinces me that the effects we're seeing aren't the ending of the last ice age. It's just that we're convinced that we're the cause of it. We must be, because we're here, and we're recording it, and we're humans after all: we are the source, the cause, and the result of all nature's efforts.

 

[shadron]

Thanks, Shadron, for the explanation.

Is it possible that the methane in the permafrost will be released slowly enough to be absorbed/converted to its final byproducts as it is released? I'm not doubting that even a slow release could have a warming effect, but it seems as though we won't turn into Venus over the course of a summer season...

Unfortunately, the methane that is held in the permafrost is merely held there mechanically - it is not dissolved in the ice or bound chemically to it, so the only thing holding it back from joining the atmosphere is the physical ice structure of the permafrost. Once that heats up to 32 degrees in the summer, and then the considerable further latent heat of melting is added, the ice turns to water and the methane formerly held by that ice is permanently released. Now, obviously not all the permafrost, from 3" down through 20 or so feet will melt in a single year, but each years melt will add methane which will add more greenhouse effect to make the next summer even warmer, releasing more methane, etc, etc, until it is all released. A classic positive feedback loop.

How long might that take? A hundred years, a thousand? People thought the melting of the Artic ice might take a long time too, but the last twenty years have proven those predictions to be disastrously underestimated. In term of geological time, of course, a thousand years is nothing; and anything less is hugely quick - not that the Earth cares, but you and I (or more likely, our grandchildren) will.

Nothing in the very beautiful movie convinces me that the effects we're seeing aren't the ending of the last ice age. It's just that we're convinced that we're the cause of it. We must be, because we're here, and we're recording it, and we're humans after all: we are the source, the cause, and the result of all nature's efforts.

Well, the evidence from the IPCC and the hundreds of papers show that there is something different about this period of warming. The biggest difference is the speed with which it is happening - the amount of change that we've seen since, say, 1970, might have taken on the average 5 ot 6 thousand years in previous episodes of warming. The other side of the coin, as one person noted to me, that all the coal and oil we are burning must be having some effects, and these are the most obvious effects it could be having. These are not proof, of course, but I'm not a climatologist, so I have to trust them on that.

At any rate, that is what the narrator meant when she said that melting the permafrost poses a serious threat to life. I disagree to the extent that I believe that Earth and life in general will continue on, but it will, I think, provide our civilization and our species with a challenge the magnitude of which it hasn't faced for over 70,000 years. I'm sorry to say.

I have two series of videos that explain the backgrounds and the controversies about global warming. The first is from an Australian journalist who was trained as a geologist and has spent most of his career following the global warming debate. You'll find the first of four videos (more to come, he says) here:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A4F0994AFB057BB8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL

The second is a video blog about specific controversies about global warming, called the Climate Denial Crock of the Week:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610&view=videos

 

[Tapio]

The (at least) couple of times they showed oil, water, and other materials being consumed in farming ended with the point that all these resources are being consumed in the production of meat. This was not intended to be a positive point, based on the music being played, and the sneer in the narrator's voice.

Agreed, and I think an absolutely justified non-positive point as it is. I challenge anyone thinking that all is well/in balance with the environment in the way meat is "produced", distributed, sold and consumed on a global scale, to give conclusive evidence to support their position.

But to jump to the conclusion of claiming the film stating "eating meat is bad"...I think that's way off. However, this is a matter of interpretation, and I'm fine with it.

I got the message "industry is bad". Not humans, per se, but the feeding of the beast. I also got the message that we need to consider how we're going to cope after resources are consumed.

This is more like I also understood the message. And to be more precise, "industry, as well as consumers not taking responsibility for the effects of their actions are bad". Though the word bad is, for me, still too dramatic to use when discussing the message of the film.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you (all of you) something. Since it's clear at least some people will hear the message of the film as "humans being bad", do you think this will only drive people away from the true agenda of the film (which I feel as trying to inspire people to act now)?

I mean, at least in my experience some lazy individuals can be dragged off their sitting bones only by as harsh and direct, personal "attacks" as possible. Not that I think this is a positive way of influencing the masses, but I believe some people may actually need the "guilt-trip" they possibly derive from the film, in order to change their ways, that is. What do you think?