Yeah, right. This header photo was taken three years ago. Now it is about 72 degrees here and no snow is foreseen …


How Could It Be?


So here’s my question about Waterworld┬ę. You remember it, a movie about after the Earth has been covered by water due to the icecaps melting. There is no Dry Land, according to what the remaining citizens believe.

I am going to avoid the easy one, which is how sea level could rise 25000 feet from the icecaps melting. My question is this:

At one point, Kevin Costner®, to impress his girlfriend, took her down to the place where he got his dirt. They were maybe three hundred feet under water, because there was still light filtering down. As they left, some landscpe shots showed that the place was Denver. You know, the Mile-High City in Colorado.

Then at the end, when they found Dry Land, it turned out to be around Mount Everest. But if Denver was three hundred feet under, that means the sea level has only risen about 5500 feet. But for only Everest to be exposed means the sea level had risen 25000 feet.

And, by the way: if Denver was only three hundred feet under, the whole Front Range would have been poking up in sight of Denver. Even a person with gills could have seen it. I don’t see how they let this violation of physics occur.