Waterworld Movie Wikipedia

Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'Notes' [ ] SciFI showed the ABC version on June 21, 2007 The tangential similarities between Waterworld and Snow crash — 'The good guy saves a girl from a big boat while being shot at' — hardly warrant an encyclopedia mention. —The preceding comment was added by () 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Strongly agreed. There is no relevance to this association and the stories have far more differences than similarities. Furthermore there is one inaccuracy (The girl Hiro needs to safe on The Raft is his ex-girlfriend, not Y.T.) The note should be removed. —The preceding comment was added by () 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Should add that even if the polar ice caps melted completely, sea level would rise only 220 feet while in the movie it depicts over 28,000 feet. Granted 220 feet would be bad, but wouldnt even come close to covering all the dry land.

If sea level were really 28,000 feet higher than today, when the Mariner and the woman dove to Denver 23,000 feet below sea level, they both would have been crushed to death by the pressure long before they ever got there. 'If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing. At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean.

Jan 8, 2018 - Waterworld je bio jedan od najambicioznijih hollywoodskih projekata svog vremena, koji je publici kroz zabavu nastojao prenijeti i ekološku. Fated to love you versi taiwan sub indo.

If it melted sea levels would not be affected. There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

' This movie is King of the Global Warming hysteria films. 'The Day After Tomorrow' would be a distant second with its -125F temperatures quick freezing helicopters in flight among dozens of other ridiculous scenes. The whole movie was ridiculous in the extreme, but it was still an entertaining movie.

They should have set the movie on another planet to make it at least seem plausible. 20:16, 24 March 2007 Anonymous Map Logic [ ] 'The concept of a map showing the location of dry land is nonsensical given the literal lack of landmarks (unless it were a star / sun map).' Still don't see how a star/sun map would work when it's impossible to determine your. 01:54, 17 May 2004 (UTC) Good point, although knowing the latitude of the site would take a lot of the guesswork out of it, it would then be a 'simple' matter of cicumnavigating the globe at that latitude!

I agree though - the whole film is a pile of pants. 15:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC) Actually the 'pile of pants' here is just the notion that melting the ice caps would cover almost all of the land with water. Do a little arithmetic.

The icecaps cover less than 10% of the surface. If they rise and average of 1000 feet above sea level then melting them should represent less than 100 feet of sea level increase. How much land is more than 100 feet above sea level? How much of the ice caps are 1000 feet above sea level?

(I realize this is a simplistic line of reasoning, but keep in mind that ice is less compact than water due to differences in atomic densities in a cubic/crystal lattice vs. The amorphous liquid form. So I'm being conservative in claiming that every ten inches of ice above sea level might result in one inch of sea level rise; it's easy to see that even if the ice caps where a mile high all the way across we'd only get 500 feet of sea rise --- significant but not the end of land on earth unless this was somehow accompanied by massive global erosion to wash the land into the oceans. —The preceding comment was added by ( • ) 19:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC) Erm. I don't think the movie bears too much analysis on any front. Isn't there a page somewhere that tracks movies by how true they are to real physics?