PennacchiaFilmAnnotation10

Andrew Pennacchia Film Annotation #10

**1. Film:** Global Dimming **Director:** Duncan Copp **Release Year:** 2005

**2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**  The central argument of the film is to shed light on global dimming, which is a term for gradual decrease in solar radiation due to man made particulate matter in the atmosphere. The film starts off by the observation of the unusually clear blue skies all across the country in the days preceding September 11th, 2001. Because his research involved the vapor trails of aircrafts and their effect on the environment, he immediately realized that this was attributed to the fact that all aircrafts has been grounded, therefore causing an actually immediate and dramatic increase in temperature range. Several other scientists, through their own research and studying world wide meteorological patterns, established a link between a decrease in the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, with a counter intuitive increase in temperature, since the 1950's. Evaporation rate had also dramatically decreased, but it was discovered that sunlight is the dominant factor in deciding the evaporation rate. Because there is nothing wrong with the sun, scientists assumed that earth was the problem. The study of a nation of islands in the Indian ocean confirmed that pollution had indeed caused a large decrease in sunlight, proving that particulate pollutants in the atmosphere had a bigger effect than originally thought. These findings show that global dimming was responsible for the Ethiopian famine of 1984 which caused the death of millions of Africans. Although global dimming seems damaging, it is found to actually be shielding us from global warming, which was seen in western Europe as a successful attempt to decrease greenhouse gas emission led to dangerously high temperatures. The film also uncovers the horrible effects of global warming which will occur as a result of eliminating global dimming.

**3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**  Besides analysis of patterns such as the correlation between environmental effects and patterns of pollution, the film sustains its argument by other detailed, scientific facts. For example, it explains that pollution particles block sunlight, but an even more significant effect is that they turn clouds into giant mirrors, reflecting any sunlight back down to earth and causing increases in temperature. Clouds are made from droplets of water which are a result of the condensation of water vapor on naturally occurring airborne particles. Polluted air contains far more particles such as ash, soot, and sulfur dioxide, causing the formation of many small droplets, which reflect more light than the fewer, big droplets that are formed by naturally occurring particles. Scientific facts like these enhance the viewers understanding of the main argument of the film, which enhances the deliver of its message.

**4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

**Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?**

**Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**  The film drew out mainly ecological sustainability problems, as it focused on global dimming, and the broader issue of global warming. The film also discussed how we are producing the pollution that is causing these problems, which could be classified as a social sustainability problem.

**5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**  The most compelling part was when the film provided a detailed explanation of what will happen in the extreme case of global warming. This warning was the final piece of information that caused me to believe the main argument of the film. Temperature could rise twice as fast, melting the Greenland ice cap. This would cause sea level all over the world to rise eight meters, resulting in catastrophic flooding. Meanwhile, the tropical rainforests could wither, and catch fire, becoming Savannah and eventually dessert. The fire would release an excessive amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming even further. An increase of just ten degrees around the world could also destabilize methane hydrates in the oceans. These factors together would cause the earth's climate to spin out of control, possibly making earth inhabitable.

**6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> I did not find any part of the film unconvincing. I thought that the entire film was compelling. and that every piece of scientific information presented was logical and demonstrated the main argument.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> The film best addresses everyone, because global dimming and global warming are affecting the whole world. It is important to educate people on this topic so they can reduce pollution by changing their own lifestyles, and to encourage them to unite and make a change on a larger scale.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> In order to enhance the environmental educational value of the film, more specific details about greenhouse gases could have been discussed. It did mention that the burning of coal, oil, and gas cause the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but for people who are not familiar with this term, it would have been helpful to have a more detailed explanation of what these gases actually are, and how they are harmful to the environment.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">** 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. ** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> The message highlighted by the film was that the horrible effects of global warming is not prediction, but a warning. The film suggests that a easy solution would be to hope that global dimming will to protect us by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, however this seems irresponsible. Alternatively, the film strongly urges the world to stop burning coal, oil, and gas and reconfigure the ways we generate electricity in order to fight the root of both global dimming and warming. This needs to be done as quickly as possible because our discovery of global dimming is evidence that we are running out of time in the race against global warming.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;"> This film compelled me to seek out additional information about actions being taken by the government to reduce pollution. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was established that defined”the EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer.” The NRDC has also taken action by investing in renewable energy development in attempt to reduce pollution.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**[]** <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,serif;">**[]**