Free Documentaries Online


Documentary Updates by Email

    Sign up to get new documentaries to your Email

Week's Popular Documentaries

  • Twitter

  • Recent Comments...

    • The Gulf Stream and The Next Ice Age

      1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 3.33 out of 5)

      The Great Ocean Conveyor is also referred to as the thermohaline circulation. It’s the manner in which circulation in the ocean is created by heat and fluxes. Its condition greatly impacts the climate of the whole world.

      With the occurence of the phenomenon called global warming, scientists now say that the changes in the condition of The Great Ocean Conveyor are alarming. They are keeping watch over this, and studying every bit of abnormal events, for fear that this could trigger what could become the next Ice Age.

      The conveyor is situated in the Gulf of Mexico, where the water moves towards the Florida Strait before heading to the North Atlantic. This warm waters cool when they hit the Arctic Ocean before they loop, thus termed ‚Äúthermohaline circulation‚ÄĚ, and then set out to flow back to the Gulf Stream again. Scientists believe that this circultion has collapsed and predicted that Europe will experience a drastic change in its climate, and if it will get worse, it will affect the rest of the world.

      Our changing climate is a result of so many factors that include natural and man-made sources. Is it too late to do anything to prevent this?

      This documentary is an exposition on the subject matter and is directed by Nicolas Koutsikas.

      please share:
      Published on January 8, 2010 · Filed under: Biology, Environment
    • DK McGreeb

      there is no battle on climate change, humans do not and have never affected the weather on a scale anymore grand than the bear. i am absolutely sick of this it has been fully debunked aswell but of course with it just being a ruse to imply further illegal taxation upon the public the politicians will never let this drop. what a stupid race we can be.

    • Big Cheese

      That I am afraid is quite untrue. It is absolutely clear that humans change the climate as we are seeing the effects now and will in the future. I will not go into detail now but I can assure climate change is true and anyone who denies this is just inept or ignorant!

    • Brendan

      Great Doc! I liked the animation especially. Though certainly not to scale, it gave me a great idea of all three dimensions of the current. This was a MAJOR scientific discovery when it was made and shows how abrupt climate change can be.

      Let's hope political action is taken to steer us clear of climate change that could prove disastrous to our earth, species and economies.

    • AJ Auran

      Climate modeling and imminent catastrophe has been debunked so many times, there should be no room for this pseudo-science. Even if it is from 2006.

      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity…

    • DK McGreeb

      Exactly AJ Auran.
      Brendan, it's people like you that keep the retards in power, why do you need political action… can you not just stop polluting on your own? Is it that hard to turn the TV of when you aren't using it without being fucking told? Come on.

    • Stephen Green

      Big Cheese I bet if David Baron De Rothschild came a long and told you that in actual fact father Christmas was real, and is having a negative effect on climate you would believe him. Brendan if the mass media says so, does that make it the truth?? I bet in your current state of naivety you believe that we have democracy and an honest political system in the west, Do you think Obama is the most powerful man in the world, do you think he's going to implement the sort of "change you can believe in".
      Wake up people this is a carbon based planet teeming with carbon based life, and your going to let the gangsters running the UN tax you for that!

    • DK McGreeb

      Exactly Stephen! No one seems willing to accept the positive affects of carbon for the planet and also that we account for such a minute amount of it.

    • Cranky McStab

      I haven't had time yet to watch this documentary. But I have read some of the comments.

      The Greenhouse Effect exists, or else the earth would be a frozen planet. Some molecules trap heat far easier than others; chiefly among these -as far as the human impact on global warming is concerned- are CO2 and CH4.

      Politics can corrupt the interpretation of anything. Thankfully, even the brightest spin doctors cannot touch the laws of physics.

      There are hundreds of independent data sets confirming atmospheric temperatures are indeed rising, leaving little doubt that Global Warming is a reality.

      The grey area concerns the consequences of Global Warming. Unfortunately for the hippies, it seems like time lag documentation of glaciers receding, increased periods of summer melting at the poles, further acidification of the oceans, a gradually increasing intensity in weather phenomena (floods, droughts, storms, etc.), the spread of tropical diseases to altitudes formerly protected by temperature gradients, the rapid spread of the world's deserts, the drastic increase in levels of respiratory illnesses and allergies, the eradication of biodiversity currently being observed, do not seem to be convincing enough to get the message across.

    • Tiago C.

      I'm shocked to see some of these comments.
      What about ACID RAIN.

      "Scientists discovered, and have confirmed, that sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary causes of acid rain. In the US, About 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx comes from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels like coal."
      (info taken from: "")

      Man has a direct and indirect impact on the climate and the ecosystem no matter what you say. More then any other species on the planet. And this is only one tiny example among many many others I could give.
      We're not the only cause for climate change, but we are definetly one of them.
      So stop preaching nonesense and forget your little conspiracy theories about this subject.

    • DK McGreeb

      Tiago C., I'm sorry to see someone with the blatant intelligence to source their facts using spin as the source (I'm not implying that was your intent).
      Do you really believe those figures? Maybe they are true to the odd town here and there but you are stating that that's the global figure.
      You can harp on about people that aren't so fickle minded being followers of 'conspiracy theories' all you want but you have to realise most of the things people are classing as conspiracy theories these days are things that have been clearly outlined as truth, the denial of such large effects from our race being one of them.
      If you decide to reply let's not get all up in each others' grills about it eh? Civil replies, after all it's not like any of this will make a blind bit of difference to either of our agendas :).

    • Big Cheese

      Right, that's it- it's dteail time (even though I said i wasn't going into detail)

      -CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as NO2 and CH4 are known to heat the planet up by a process know as the basic greenhouse effect.

      -They do this through the process of radiative forcing by increasing the amount of heat trapped in the Earth's atmosphere and heating up the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere.

      -A balance must be maintained in the atmosphere for stability and so if more greenhouse gases were emitted into our atmosphere- depending on the scale- the lower troposphere and surface would heat up through radiative forcing in a specific radiation unit (W m-²).

      -So we move on to the enhanced greenhouse effect in which humans are emmiting CO2 etc. From the explanation above we can deduce that increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources will alter the amount of radiation in (W m-²) in the atmosphere leading to increased lower tropospheric and surface temparatures.

      -It is KNOWN that if CO2 concentrations in the atmospheres were to double (which in my opinion is highly likely after the unsuccessfulness of Copenhagen) then the longwave radiation amounts in the atmosphere would increase by 4W m-². This is a significant amount and would cause huge disruptions on a wide scale.

      So if anyone disputes this then, well…

      I am into climatology and have read a number of studies on the case of climate change and I find it, quite frankly, laughable when people deny climate change is happening (most of them without any background in science). And even more laughable when they deny every single temperature etc data source in the world (of which there are thousands). So, let us stop being ignorant and selfish and solve what really needs to be solved.

    • Tiago C.

      Thank's Big Cheese it's always good to have some insight of factual knowledge on any subject.

      DK McGreeb I'm sorry if I sounded too harsh on my previous comment but it was like the atittude of someone warning a blind man about on-comming traffic. Only in this case the blind man might convince other people to turn blind. In any case it was in no way directed to you specifically.

      Even though I also share the same distrust as you (and others) in the political and corporate systems, and what they say or defend nowadays (and unfortunately with good reasons), let's not take it to a point were we only believe the contrary of what they say to be the truth.
      In any case I do not wish to discuss the political implications of this subject, as there would probably be enough matter to keep this comment section alive for a couple of weeks at least.
      I'll only say that (in my opinion) if they are involved in this subject right now, it's against their own interests (and we saw that in Copenhagen).
      So the fact that they were "forced" on this subject even though they didn't want it (or were ready to face it yet for that matter) only reinforces further my view of the urgency of the present situation.

      There's a saying in my country that goes: "The worst kind of blind is the one that doesn't want to see".
      And most of the cases were I can see it apllied worry me.

    • Big Cheese

      Also let us not forget that the theory of climate change was not made by politicians or governments, it was developed by scientists. Climate change deniers often treat climate change as a hoax made by the government- which is untrue. Climatic change science at the end of the day has nothing to do with the government, so while you may hate the government and say that they just want us to pay more money; really it is a science and so no politicians or governments can disturb the actual science of it and therefore neither can deniers…

    • DK McGreeb

      Good rebuttle. I do agree that people that deny us having any effect at all on the environment are needlessly incorrect, it is just the figures mainly that get me on this. Also, I think when people hear global warming or climate change it isntantly sparks the whole political thing in their mind, good or bad etc etc and they then tend to disregard what it actually is, which is of course just the phases of the earth and sun and other complex factors.
      Also I wasn't under the impression your previous comment was specifically aimed at me, I just expected a reply and don't like it when the reply isn't a good argument but rather is just slanderous nonsense. I'm glad to see a dignified response if anything, it allows me to respond with dignity too heh.

    • AJ Auran

      Providing clean adequate drinking water and waste sanitation for EVERYONE on the planet would be a far greater and rewarding goal…

      Big Cheese & Tiago C. are regurgitating pseudo-science talking points, which in turn are used by politicians and shrub hugging, tree cuddling, bunny sniffers.

      The greenhouse effect is a popularized misnomer. The warmth generated in a greenhouse is due to STILL AIR. In other words, there is little or no exchange of inside and outside air in the building.

      Earth's warming and cooling cycles are due, in part, to very complex atmospheric phenomenon and feedback systems. Very little is really known or understood. As an example, atmospheric water vapor accounts for up to 95% of infrared radiation retention / re-radiation. CO2, on the other hand, accounts for less than 0.03% or 0.0003 times the total; this is easily justified to be rounded to zero. In mathematics, the language of science, nothing times anything equals nothing…

      Then there are the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores that show CO2 concentrations LAG, are behind, follow, delay, trail, are subsequent to, come after – temperature changes. The time period of this delay was about 800 YEARS. Additionally, prior CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been 15 to 25 TIMES MORE than those of today.

      Even more disturbing are the climate science scandals PROVING that data, computer programs, and dissemination of information has been falsified. More simply, the scientists and government officials have been caught arrogantly, deceiving the public. Corruption in science is now synonymous with that of government.

      Part of the Scientific Method requires a hypothesis to be discarded or seriously modified in the face of ANY contrary facts. Several have been illustrated above. Any one – is enough cause to throw out the human caused climate change hypothesis – entirely.

    • climate schlimate

      for a true scientific explanion, Please see video: the "cloud mystery" on You tube. It turns out a Danish physicist has shown it's all determined by cosmic rays and the sun. The Vikings mapped northern Greenland a thousand years ago, when it was much warmer than it is today. Also, a recent study shows the carbon fraction of the earth's atmosphere has not changed in the last 165 years!

    • Big Cheese

      Wow Aj Auran, it seems clear you didn't read my explanation properly. Your 'scientific' explanations are completely incorrect and you need to brush up on climate and basic science as you clearly lack understanding of simple situations and our planet. Firstly, 'still air'. Well wow is that complete rubbish you obviously don't understand the basics of radiation. The greenhouse effect is called that because the planets atmosphere acts like a greenhouse, I have never heard a climate skeptic question that! But be sure to ask me if you want it explained to you. Right, now you say that it is the government and top climate scientists all over the world who are completely wrong, no question. And yes of course all the climate sceptics with slight scientific background are correct when they state that climate change is a hoax.

      Has it never occurred to you that your beloved climate sceptics are wrong and the top climate scientists (of which many of them have been studying the case for nearly 40 years) are in fact correct? Of course it hasn't! This is because you are ignorant and you don't see the benefits of a renewable based energy system over a carbon non-renewable energy system, the advantages are obvious

      Anyone who doesn't see these benefits is obviously inept!

    • Big Cheese

      Also you have just failed completely with climate science again, what did you say- that CO2 accounts for .003% of atmospheric heating. That is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard in my whole life- as I reiterate you really need to brush up on you science- water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse 'gas' but only when in large amounts in the stratosphere, in the troposphere it is either in the form of liquid water or clouds and clouds definitely don't account for 95% of atmospheric heating! CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas even though its GWP is only 1 as it's atmospheric lifetime is 100 years when in larger amounts like today. Your bold comment is so wrong, and you probably made it up yourself, that you might as well have said that god exists or the big bang is a hoax!

    • Big Cheese

      @ Climate Schlimate- I seriously don't know what your sources are when you said that the carbon dioxide fraction of our atmosphere hasn't changed for 165 years! Before the industrial revolution of 1750 the atmospheric composition of CO2 was 265 ppm and now the comp is 387 ppm, too small for any effect? Think again, the atmosphere is the most sensitive of all aspects of our planet, a tiny change in gas composition can have untold and unpredictable effects. So really I don't know where you climate sceptics get your 'facts' from they're probably made up by other climate sceptics who have 'studied' climate change for a year! Sigh, when will everyone learn…

    • AJ Auran

      Congratulations to the true believers of evil man corrupting the climate. You have proven your faith and allow no clear cogent arguments to distract you.

      Do not attempt to have a rational conversation with religious zealots. There are far greater uses of time…

    • Big Cheese

      You miss the point entirely don't you, you still haven't argued back against your clear lack of understanding in basic science and also therefore advanced science like climate science. I assume you still haven't read my bullet pointed explanation on the science of climate change and rather you are avoiding it by summoning up ridiculous comments that you think are scientific. Please if you are going to argue to me about the SCIENCE of climatic change then please build up a solid scientific background of this field of science.

    • AdamTM

      I couldnt give a flying fuck about climate change even if it knocked on my doorstep and offered free cookies and a blowjob.

      Im sick and tired of hearing about it, im sick and tired of being lectured instead of finding


      There is no way we can change consumption, and/or emission, start dealing with it.

      "There will be more floods in coastal regions in the next X years, ammounting in billions of dollars of damage."


      Just DO SOMETHING already, instad of fucking whining all the time about CO2 this, NOx that!

      WTF is wrong with you people?! The Industry will kiss your ass and give away free buttsex if you introduce a market for air-filters, black roof paint and electic cars.

      There is a whole new fucking economy to be made here, you IDIOTS, that will solve the problem AND FUCKING MAKE MONEY!

      Why are you cutting spending and limiting consumption if the opposite is the answer?!

      Thats why i cant give a fuck about this or any other documentary concerning climate change.

      Life is fucking overrated on this planet, and the planet will go on with or WITHOUT YOU MORONS, so buckle up and enjoy the ride because the forecast is "climate change with a chance of EPIC FAIL".

      /very very angry rant

    • DK McGreeb

      resorting to putting everyone in one basket, big cheese, if they don't believe what you do, eh? where does AJ Auran state he doesnt see the benefits of renewable energy sources? nowhere, he doesnt even mention it once (if you are a woman AJ sorry for the 'he' assumption). dont just throw little insults and wise-ass retorical questions at people jsut because they dont think youre right, thats just holding up the process of debate. quite indicative of the meek minded that believe anything is 'scientific fact' if the right people say it. people used to state christianity as scientific fact purely because the most influencial people pushed it, so dont run your mouth because others can look beyond blatant spin.

    • Tiago C.

      Well AJ Auran I'm not even sure how I should answer you, or even if I want to, as I usually try to avoid arguing with people that refuse to rationalize.

      Also Big Cheese got it pretty much covered already and you should really listen to him.

      "…summoning up ridiculous comments that you think are scientific." Just about sums up what i've seen from your comments.

      You fail to prove your theories by the lack of scientific proof and refute existing scientific proof with your own beliefs.
      But still you present your view as being the correct one. What am I missing here?

    • Big Cheese

      Thanks Tiago C! @ dkMcGreeb to be honest I have te deal with government haters and inept people all day who believe 'climate change is a hoax' every day they say to me- 'prove climate change exists'- and thus I respond accordingly- 'prove that it is safe to continue emmitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere'- and like all climate sceptics they respond either by swearing or trying to make a scientific comment which goes terribly wrong. I am quite literally sick of climate change deniers, I just don't understand how you can deny it and even more mental is the fact that they think a carbon based industry is a good thing. There is one thing for sure- we will eventually run out of coal, oil and gas and so we need to start to build up a renewable energy system now as more jobs will be lost if we don't. This is why I think all climate change deniers are stupid as they don't agree with starting a renewable industry and they just want coal, why, why, WHY? I can think of a hell of a lot more advantages of a renewable industry than a non-renewable one and if you can't see these then you shouldn't be in this debate now. Even if you don't believe in climate change, we NEED to switch to an alternative energy system now as if we don't we will eventually be left without electricity etc and energy will become more expensive and coal etc mining systems left scarce causing wars for energy. So climate change scepticism is just plain stupid!

    • Tiago C.

      AdamTM I'm not even going to bother to reply to the subjects you raised after that verbal diarrhea and nonsense you just presented us with.

    • AJ Auran

      Last words for the two unenlightened & entertainment for my fellow supporters (large thanks) –
      1) You have demonstrated a severe lack in understanding rudimentary mathematics. Converting parts-per-million to a percentage or equivalent decimal representation is exposed as beyond your, so-called, reasoning ability. The distinct evidence is in your muddled inadequate responses plus, attempts to deflect or discount intuitively obvious computations. As mentioned, earlier, math is the language of science. Your glaring inability to perform, even basic calculations, leads to the conclusion of your complete incompetence in ANY science – PERIOD.

      2) Reading cognizance is also in severe doubt, in several cases. To keep this brief two examples are sufficient:
      a) Failing to recognize the unmistakably stated, much greater, more attainable goal of providing clean drinking water and sanitary waste disposal for BILLIONS of people, indicates extremely deficient compassion or consideration for anyone. How can you be so selfish, cold-hearted, and so very obtuse? ….The question is rhetorical.
      b) You have also chosen to ignore the current state of affairs concerning personal, scientific, and political MISCONDUCT and/or outright FRAUD. These very same people get their thoroughly discredited, talking point nonsense, repeated by others, at best, in denial and deeply ill-informed…

      Haven't you heard? — Fairies and Unicorns aren't part of the fauna on Earth. Put so even you two can understand it: ….Fairies and Unicorns are figments of mankind's imagination.

      3) Your very words unedited, with incoherent logic, and unacceptable reflection, illustrate a clear ineptness to think critically, much less, for yourself.

      Here is some very useful corrective homework. Enroll in and complete a remedial math course with a grade of "B" or higher. Describe Dr. Edward Lorenz, his equation, and its significance in relation to climate and climate modeling. Hint: discussion about him occurs in one of the following posted documentaries. What are the differences between a closed system versus an open system in Thermodynamics? By scientific definition, which has the more sound standing, hypothesis or theory? ….Again, the questions are rhetorical.

      Final result — You couldn't convince me to take a bucket of water from you….even if my ass was on fire!

    • Big Cheese

      Aj auran your too funny! I am glad to see that someone like you can guess a persons grades as they disagree with you, blatantly immature! I actually obtained an A star in GCSE and A-Level mathematics (and all sciences) so don't try and go against me with your judging crap, it completely fails and shows me that you are even more academically inept than I previously thought. Here you are saying I am bad at maths when you probably can't even complete a simple simultaneous equation. So please give me an estimate of the error one makes by cutting off Maclaurin's series at the nth term. Hmmm… Probably no answer unless if you blatantly google it!

    • Carol Haest

      Very usefull evidence, continue the good work

    • Robbyou

      Fast forward 50 years: Himalays still here? Humans still here? Religion and politics still here?
      Who knows? I will tell you this though, like it or not fossil fules will run out sooner or later and the powers that be in this world need to get the sheep used to the idea. Global warming is the perfect cover to teach global fear to enact global change. Good or bad, there is no argument that does not have 2 oposing sides (that is what makes it an argument). The same people who state global warming is a work fiction are the same people who will defend the bible as fact! You can not have it both ways. Facts are friendly. The issue arises when both sides lay out arguments upon an issue which CANNOT be proved or disproved! We do not have enough evidence either way yet. Seriously, the earth has been around a long time. we have been keeping vigil on statistscs for a hundred years? maybe ice cores to another million? The earth used to be a volcanic wasteland. Was that caused by geological events which are part of planet formation, or can someone pull up a record of the environment back then and prove the weather conditions were not what they were supossed to be then? The earth is a big place, and when it is through with us, it will shake us off its back like so much dandruff off a scalp

    • lib

      excellent documentary – though i’m well aware of the science presented, there’s still a lot of folks out there that just don’t get it … perhaps the “plain speak” of this film will help people understand – i agree w/the german climatologist at end of film who said we really only have about 10 more years to effect some change – please, people, act responsibly … rating 4.5 (more animation would have been fun).

    • Robbyou

      The world is flat, the earth is at the center of the universe, Humans are the main cause and reason for global warming. All claims which history will have corrected when we are gone

    • CPT Wayne

      At Europe’s latitude, atmospheric heat transport exceeds that of the ocean by several fold during the summer months and maybe even ten fold in the winter. The atmosphere, not the ocean, keeps Europe warm in the winter. The explanation lies in conservation of angular momentum of air flows from west across the Rocky mountains which are forced south then north. Cold air is forced south into eastern north America and warm air north into western Europe. You can see this happening by looking at today’s satellite photos. The warmth stored in the summer ocean is released into the air and transported eastward into Europe.
      This is not the ocean transport from the Gulf stream, which adds very little warmth. In Europe today, the temperatures were in the 30s to 40s while eastern U.S. its in the 10s or 20s. See this article: Climate mythology: The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change by
      Richard Seager, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University