HornSixDegrees

====**Argument:** The argument is that humanity has already influenced the planet's average global temperature and has raised it by approximately one degree Celcius. The argument is heavily science based and attempts to break the developing opinion held by many uninformed leaders that temperature change like this is cyclical. The movie attempts to depict what the world would be like once we reach various stages of warming and argues that as we experience more warming more extreme weather conditions will plague the planet. One of the most important core messages the movie explains that isn't heard enough is that the result will be the end of the human race, and the Earth will continue on. ====

====**Problems:** The primary sustainability issue of the movie, even through all of the more scientific explanations is that people are doomed to become refugees as environmental conditions worsen in areas and force people to flee their homes and indigenous regions. As well as human death and migration, plant and animal species will continue to become extinct at a greater rate as various ecosystems become more arid and turn to desert. Climate change is already showing how some species of plants are migrating north for colder temperatures, such as the wine grape which has jumped from France, where growing seasons are yielding increasingly low quality product, while vineyard production and quality in England has spiked. Some of the threats of one degree of warming include desert forming in American Midwest, opening of Northwest passage permanently by melting ice, and migration of livestock. As heating increases, the oceans will continue to heat possibly causing the complete breakdown of deep ocean circulation. After 3 degrees of warming the extreme weather, like El Nino events and hurricanes like Katrina, begins to become the norm. Another important factor this movie brought up and re-stressed often was how these processes form a runaway cycle. Positive feedback loops emerge, meaning that one event like drought and resulting fires, leads to an enhanced effect meaning a greater release of CO2 causing increased heating and more drought and fires. ====

====**Persuasive:** I thought that the film was a well done scientific analysis of the problems. An essential element often overlooked in environmental discussion, which is becoming more emphasized, is the runaway nature of the system. Problems enhance other effects and the system moves faster, which is a good thing the movie did was to explain that these effects aren't going to be coming at the same rate, it will probably be an exponential effect like many systems thrown out of equilibrium before coming to a halt. I really enjoyed the part which illustrated how migration of crops is already occurring to new areas. Nature is showing us that shifts are occurring in subtle ways and the evidence of change is already here. ====

====**Not Compelled:** Even with the high production value of a lot of the graphic effects that were abundant in this film, I feel like they often backfire due to just the intensity of graphic quality in cinema and TV now. I view these cinematic graphics as “cheesy” and actually not that convincing. They depict too radical of situations that become so speculative that they aren't relatable. If they had the same production value as full length Hollywood movies I think it would be convincing but they can't approach it currently. I believe that simply high quality footage of current catastrophic events and then a series of diagrams which show a relatable condition that would spread that type of devastation. I especially got dis-interested at the ending when they were describing the global effects at degrees 4 through 6. All of the information got very speculative, and I think the manner that they portrayed it would call into question for some people the very nature of the entire film. I was also disappointed that local conditions weren't focused in on and used as examples that often, specifically how cultural diversity would be lost. ==== ====**Audience:** I sensed a dichotomy in the film between the audio of the video and the visuals in terms of who they were gearing the film for. Being a National Geographic film, it pretty scientific in the terms they used and the processes that they described but instead of using visuals that helped build an understanding of these systems, the visuals were devoted to shocking visuals to provoke a pure emotional response. I think that films like this need to move beyond the shocking nature of these changes and help people not involved in the scientific ecological community to understand different cycles and systems in the environment. ====

====**Enhancement:** Working off what I began directly above, the film could have greatly benefited by showing active systems diagrams that help to illustrate the more complex problems that will be creating the strong visuals that they repeat every 20 minutes. I think the public is well aware now that there is at least a debate about whether the climate is changing, but they are continually told what will happen and are afraid to ask how it's happening. Documentaries like this need to start including real science in a clear diagrammatic way to give people clear facts. ====

====**Intervention:** The primary issue with this movie is the more or less lack of suggestion as to how these problems can be handled. They are at such a massive scale that there really isn't anything that the user watching can leave with as a hopeful suggestion. I think another major problem is that it's hard for individuals to relate with not only problems but the scientific community when they bring these problems to their attention and then treat the individual like there isn't anything they can do because it is at their level to initiate change. I feel like if specific causes or groups were highlighted at the end of the movie as things to get involved in that it would be much more effect in getting the message across as a whole. ====

====**1]** Movie got me interested in finding a good source or description for the topic brought up about feedback loops in the environment. I was interested in really knowing how far back this concept was being applied to global climate change, or at least trying to peg when it became common public and scientific knowledge that this sort of cycling might occur. What I discovered was that it may not have been until 2006 that these concepts were being realized, making it even more impressive that they movie picked up on the information during production and incorporated it responsibly. ====

==== This wikipedia link gives a pretty accurate description of many climate feedbacks occurring, illustrating negative and positive ones. ====

==== **2]** The lack of specificity in regional analysis, focusing on global less human impacts, created a desire to see where in the world environmental refugees were already growing in numbers. Often times it is difficult to see when refugees are environmentally driven from their homes currently as there is such a large movement of people into cities for economic reasons. All over the developing world farmers are unable to pay for the supplies “necessary” to their economic success so they move to the slums of the city to get low paying jobs. Only when this environmental refugee tag is placed on groups can one realize how it has already affected the world even in our own country from hurricane Katrina. ====