Was This Really a 1 in 700,000,000,000 Year Event?! - Antarctic sea ice melting fast
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2024
- For decades, Antarctic sea ice trends seemed to defy climate change, until…they didn’t. In just two years, Antarctica lost as much sea ice as the Arctic lost in three decades. Statistics say that the record low sea ice in 2023 was a 1 in 700 BILLION year event, suggesting that the models in this case may be broken, or that this anomaly was caused by climate change. And a new study asked the question: does this represent a STATE CHANGE? And what would that mean for one of our most iconic species, the emperor penguin? And what does reduced sea ice mean for Thwaites, the Doomsday Glacier? With summer sea ice hitting the third-lowest extent in recorded history, it's time to check-in. Watch this episode to find out.
Check out the latest episode of Fascinating Fails: • How Pigeon Poop Helped...
Weathered is a show hosted by weather expert Maiya May and produced by Balance Media that helps explain the most common natural disasters, what causes them, how they’re changing, and what we can do to prepare.
*****
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateTerra
*****
Subscribe to PBS Terra so you never miss an episode! bit.ly/3mOfd77
And keep up with Weathered and PBS Terra on:
Facebook: / pbsdigitalstudios
Twitter: / pbsds
Instagram: / pbsterra
Statistical analysis says the chance of the observed low sea ice in 2023 was 1 in 700 BILLION (yes you read that right!), indicating that in this case, the statistics were broken. So, either the limited sea ice records aren't sufficient to model the natural variability, OR it's climate change. What do you think?
once per 700 billion is irrelevant as that number is much more than the existence of universe, it's irrelevant because the earth would be long gone by then after our sun that means it's more of arbitrary number that's the expression that is almost impossible or impossible like 0.0000021, precision at such tiny scale doesn't make sense because the input cannot be that precise because as we know we would need take everything into account which is not happening yet
What were the odds of Snowball Earth and what were the odds it would end?
I think you you need to go back to school.
I think it's both.
@@richardzakh7209It’s called statistics. The estimate is given under the assumption that the data of which we have been collecting since the late 1970s on Antarctic ice thickness is an accurate measurement of natural variability. The ice loss that we observed recently was seven standard deviations away from the mean, which is extremely statistically significant and unprecedented. The question is 1. Is several decades of year-over-year data on ice thickness a realistic estimate of natural variability? 2. Or is this climate change and a portent of things to come?
This might be the new normal. We could see a switch where Antartica is the largest contributor to sea level rise. The good news is sea level rise disproportionately affects the wealthy (as they lose their beachfront homes), which could create the political will to address climate change.
Give the once in 700B years guy a raise. He must have increased engagement in the comment section at a rate we'd only expect to see once every 890 trillion years.
The moment I heard what he said I jumped in comment section.
Clickbait title 👎
I think that the odds of 7 standard deviations away from the mean are better explained by saying it's a one in 700,000,000,000 chance, rather than once every 700,000,000,000 years, which is way longer than the universe has existed.
Mathematically though he is correct. Since this is a thing which occurs once per year and the chance is a 1 in 700,000,000,000 chance. Then the chance of this level of sea ice occurring "naturally" is 1 in 700 Billion years - which in his own words is bonkers.
Therefore the likely explanation is that there is some other mechanism at play - and the theory with by far the greatest amount of evidence to support it is that of anthropogenic climate change - global warming caused by humans.
It's just how we tend to parse things in Earth science - I agree with huge scales like this, it stops making as much sense.
A quick Google search says the last time there was no ice in Antarctica was about 90 million years ago, so claiming that this current record low is a one in 700 billion year event just sounds wrong. Not enough people have taken a class in statistics (at least in the U.S. in my opinion) so statements like that sound made up. Probability and statistics really should be required, at least at an introductory level, in high school because it would help a lot more people understand a calculation of the risk of something (climate change, health problems, etc.) happening isn't just a guess, it's based on real data. At least it might help people who aren't entrenched in denial.
I thought the exact same thing when I heard them open with that awkward way of putting things.
@@AmyEugeneThis is an illogical use of probabilities, as the top commenter noted. We don't have reliable enough data to determine whether this is a trend or an anomaly. Bad job PBS.
Tipping point. Not trying to be an alarmist. The fresher meltwater froze easier. Now the water has warmed to a point that it is no longer able to freeze. A new equilibrium is then met and the trend flattens. This new state will persist until more heat energy is absorbed to destabilize the system.
Yup. Bifurcation.
No you are an alarmist ... We only have about 45 years of satellite data. 1979 to today so how are they making predictions like this with 45 years of data with an Earth billions of years old. That is absurd!
If they do not go back to when the satellite data started, they do not trust what they say and even then how can you make such predictions with 45 yrs of data. They need to stop Cherry Picking Data. If they get a year that is an outlier, everyone loses their mind. God forbid you have cyclic weather that would be insane right?
Look at 2002! Go see the Charts yourself. They told us we would be underwater already and yet everyone keeps believing them... People love to fear doomsday events, hahah! Amazing!
Climate change isn't real
AT MIT I learned,
“All models are wrong. Some are better than others.”
I think “some are useful” is a better ending
@@ryanevans2655 Yeah, i think the “some are better than others” part was actually just trying to politely say many models are junk.
Today's scientific truth is tomorrow scientific lie.
Science has neither dogmas nor holy shrines.
@@baomao7243junk in, junk out. Data quality is a big part of the picture
@baomao ....Like # 10 ....Z
There is something about this presenter, perhaps cadence of voice, that I find comforting as we approach the end of the world.
it's a turn, I rub to her voice
She gets points for coordinating her outfit & apartment decor for sure.
the world isn't ending
Humanity will suffer, planet says business as usual.
@@DevinDTV By "world" people don't mean earth. They mean our habitable environment as we've known it to exist as far back as we can observe and predict with the methods we have. Data shows that's correct, we're likely to not have an environment that will support human life within a few decades. It's just easier to say "world" than all that since most people are smart enough to understand this.
looks like we might have tipped over one of those tipping points
It's feeling like it
That makes it at least a tripping point, doesn't it?
*Oil Industry* Sorry Folks, seems I tipped over your Ice Bin
*Emperor Pinguin* No worries mate, we'll just stand farther apart
I just don't have any optimism left that things will change without catastrophic loss of human life
Don't worry about it, it's all bullshit to support the narrative that the end of the world is coming. Fear sells and without that fear the billions in government funding that keep the lies alive would dry up and many scientists would have to find something else to work on. Ya, it looks like it's warmed up since the little ice-age ended 200 years ago, but the little ice age was actually the coldest period since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. So, it's likely natural. CO2 might play a part because it is a weak greenhouse gas, but it is also plant food and will help to bring an end to hunger around the world. The world is a vastly better place to live than it was 200 years ago, and we should only expect that trend to continue in spite of what the doomsdayers say. Afterall they've been around since the beginning of time and the earth hasn't ended yet, so why should we believe them now?
Loss of life in general
This summer will be a wake-up call for millions. If we have fires in February in Texas/Oklahoma and according to the CBC, British Colombia has already cancelled some summer events due to anticipated heat and fires....well, you see the trend we're on.
Some areas get drought and desertification, others get torrential rains and "atmospheric rivers... "
@@LinuxUser00
Another prophecy of doom.
The climate has a high degree of variability from year to year and across centuries. The earth was warmer than it is now 1,000 year ago (Medieval Warm Period), 2,000 years ago (Roman Warm Period) and 11,000 to 5,000 years ago (Holocene Climate Optimum). 200 years ago was the tail end of the Little Ice Age which was marked by the coldest global temperatures since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. Since then global temperatures have been returning closer to the average of our current inter-glacial period. What causes these temperature oscillations on the scale of centuries? What causes ice ages? Nobody knows.
What’s catastrophic about that?
a large chunk of ice could easily drop into the ocean from a long runout, this would be equivalent to the melted amount of the same ice and could add meters in a decade. kim stanley robinson imagines a scenario where a volcano causes this.
Oil companies are more interested in making money than saving penguins. Even in the industry I work in, it’s taken years for engine and fuel companies to lower emissions to the point they are at now.
And we need zero emission solutions, not just lower. The way to drive that is a steadily rising carbon fee on fossil fuel production and imports, with all proceeds rebated to everyone equally each month. Please join Citizens Climate Lobby and help create the political will to enable Congress to do it. Thank you!
years is a blink of an eye in the history of the world. Green energy has exploded in the last 20 years
idk... our cars emit less... but the manufacturing of all the new complex system (that are not made to last) pretty much even things out... or maybe it's 5 times worst...
obviously, we can't trust scientist, seems like they get it right only once every 700 billions... lol
It was the Oil companies that funded the climate change PR movement. After the deep horizons spill to be exact.
The Earth was once a giant snowball.
ExxonMobil is actually from another solar system.
They came in their spaceship and melted the ice of that frozen snowball Earth to the lush green environment we enjoy today.
The amount of suffering our sociopathic destructive capitalism causes to everything living is crushing my soul.
Cry about it. Capitalism is great, we're supposed to migrate out of the planet.
Sounds more like sensationalized media that sells because it is full of doom and gloom is crushing your soul.
Take heart. I believe we are witnessing the slow death of global gangster capitalism occurring right before our eyes. The challenge will be to replace it with something that enhances human freedom and creativity while also allowing the planet to thrive.
Brutal isn’t it!
So ask an economist about planned obsolescence and the depreciation of durable consumer goods.
When Arctic 🧊is gone. Deniers will tell us, "We don't need sea ice, we have refrigerators to make ice." 😂 BTW, end-of-century is hopium optimistic.
I've seen deniers talking about how great it'd be for trade if all the Arctic sea ice were gone. Folks just don't understand or don't care how bad things will be. That'll change in the coming decade or two. I'd be surprised if the ice makes it past 2040.
Did my best in this fight and got my ass whipped.
My grandkids know which side I was on…..theirs.
I tell my science denying friends their grandkids are going to despise them…..
Climate Change's most important aspect, is what it does to food production for Humans (from our own perspective, anyway).
This year, according to today's Guardian, England has been far to wet, these past 10 months. Farmers are losing the battle to match last year's yields. 2100? lolol
You know it wouldn't be the first or even the second time the ice caps melted and the world didn't end back then.
@@jarehelt How do you know that the ice caps have melted before? Hint: Science
You don't get to cherry pick which bits of science that you choose to believe. So when climate scientists say climate change is happening and it's bad. Believe them.
So... Let's just suppose this is a natural cycle.
Where's the harm in reducing our fossil fuel consumption? And reducing our use of plastics and pesticides? And limiting our water and electricity waste?
I can't see how any of that is a bad thing!
And if we then see that the earth is changing back - well then, it sounds like a win to me!
You can try as many things as you like, but you'll upset many people along the way, and you may also find out that humans cannot majorly influence the climate either way - i.e. the planet's going to do what it wants - as it always did.
If you could stop people lighting forest fires, and the Gods from erupting volcanoes - then that might also help.
@@beedoox5613 well... If we don't try and it isn't a natural cycle, folks are liable to be more than upset!
@@socalgal714 Well sure; don't we all expect the human race to evolve and iteratively improve things as we go?
Where I think in part this goes wrong is that we can build safe, small-scale nuclear reactors - but opponents to these claim it's too expensive and take too long to build, so are told we must build massive batteries and solar / wind farms. Then we must cease production of internal combustion engines in favour of EV's - when many people don't want EV's and would be happy with synthetic fuels and ICE engines. We still have massive amounts of CO2 going into the atmosphere from deliberately lit forest fires and volcanoes. All things considered, you'd be better off building atmospheric CO2 scrubbers if we're that concerned.
@@beedoox5613 Nah, humans are def the bacteria giving the planet a fever. Fever usually isn’t good for the bacteria, either.
I agree with SoCal. Doing good by the planet is always +EV, and if the human race was smart, they would.
@@beedoox5613Didn’t notice the extra comments. The scrubbers would be nice.
We are heading to the unknown and that's not so bad unless we're talking about the weather and the planet. There goes the neighborhood is no joke.
we are already there, we have passed 1.5 , the penguins r fcked so r we, it's not coming tho, this is kinda there , n it won't get better, that's the most crushing reality, there is no other direction , , we r in overshoot n increase emissions year after year, never less, never, ever, no blip no anomaly, the data was clear 70 years ago before it got in the mud it was clear and is happening , reality is getting harder to hear from , when looking around there is no other conclusion except bad news coming an it will be rapid n fast , flash fast, not the new normal we will like or live thru, but 😂 have a great day
maybe this crisis is the kick in the pants humanity needs in order to become a Kardashev type 1 civilization. I'm just hoping we clear this hurdle before we lose too much of the natural beauty of this planet.
For a number of years, sea ice areas were artificially inflated by the very fact of more fresh water running off various land masses, as fresh water tends to stay at the surface and freezes more easily (but more thinly). That temporary effect is ending, and the real "new standard" for winter refreeze is starting to take place.
Now you have meltwater running off land/glaciers onto warmer sea water with lower albedo, and so much less of it will freeze, form even thinner layers, and remelt faster. This is a feedback loop.
Add to this the truly staggering quantity of arctic microbe-generated methane released from millions of square miles of melting permafrosts ("cow burps" are nothing by comparison), and it almost doesn't even matter what's going on with CO2 any more. Warmer water producing more water vapor, plus geologic methane release, plus lowered albedo are going to push the total climate system to the interglacial warm phase at a triple-accelerated rate on top of the CO2 effects.
You're looking at 5-10 C ave temp increases and 5 meter sea rise in a century.
Ahem...bullshite.
Try harder hasbara
We just got 90 last week in Texas. It already feels like July and August in February. If global warming is not real, I don't know what it is.
I live in Toronto. We had no winter this year and today feels like end of May. When I was a kid it would have been minus 15 and piles of snow. Not anymore!
Same thing happening here in Rochester, NY. Where's the snow? And 71° on Feb 27th?? Yet folks still don't believe in global warming. I guess science is just too difficult for them to understand.
Long lasting changes are climate changes. These are happening. It's not just the very high temperatures this Winter in parts of the US that tell us that. Similiarly if we got a particularly cold Winter next year it wouldn't disprove that the climate is changing.
@@carelgoodheir692
yes, exactly the right way of looking at it.
One year that's abnormal is a blip. 7 in ten years that are "abnormal" isn't a blip, it is likely a new normal.
Feels like a Spring night here in Australia. We're supposed to be getting drizzly rain and a lot of wind since autumn is about to start for us.
What a time to be alive
Agreed go sub
what a time to be dead lol
Not sure what you mean but let's just say that the universe wants life dead. Ask the dinos and all our other animal cousins who didn't make it until this day.
On the positive: of the +100 billion humans who were ever born, we're the only ones still alive!
Won't be alive for much longer! Lol
What a time to watch the masses be formed into brainwashed Marxist drones convinced to overthrow all systems and impose a one world government under the state of israel😂😂😂😂
Time to build giant floating platforms that can be used by penguins as a permanent nesting site until we can restore the climate.
If we can build oil platforms, we could actually do that, no joke.
that actually seems relatively feasible. expensive but feasible. I would donate to this cause.
Restore the climate? Please enlighten me... You got a plan? No. Neither has anyone else. Say bye-bye to the functionally extinct penguins.
That is actually a great idea but considering how many people will be displaced, we should start building them now for people to live on. The Philippines should start doing this now
@@ginadelsasso288 penguins need a far less stable and developed platform than humans. 2000 penguins in a 40m x 40m platform isn't exactly the same as human habitation needs.
Look into sea steading for the pitfalls of human sea surface living.
700 billion years???
Yes, translation: to get 7 standard deviations below the mean, this is an indicator of missing factor(s). Our models, of how sea ice grows and decreases, have flaws.
It's statistics speak for how long it would take for an event to be obviously expected according to the models we use. Like how scientists expect big earthquakes in some areas based on our models, how long it's been since the last big one, and other data.
Yea,r if they wanted to be accurate the mean would be determined over a million years of observation not 20 years of measurements.
@@AORD72We don't need to wait a million years to quantify events or conditions that existed a million years ago.
It means that, at the current temperature averages, an event like that (two consecutive years hitting by far the highest averages ever recorded for Antarctica) would take an hypothetical 700 billion years to repeat. Or, if you prefer, it has a probability to happen of 1/700.000.000.000.
How do you expect the selfish human being will ever learn this and so our politicians will do something about the importance of our climate?
Ohh... yes.
Well, we will impose a climate change tax.
We will also tax people by weight because large animals produce more CO2.
This tax will help the environment.
@@NBC_NCO
A tax, a real tax. on the thing we are actually try to eliminate, and a HIGH tax at that, will make people choose other things.
That real tax will make those other things cheaper, and we usually choose the cheaper thing.
When you refund the "tax", it's just a meaningless measure, to make people like you mad, so that you double down on fossil fuels.
Is it working?
@@NBC_NCO you’re throwing fat people under the bus because you don’t know anything about how the world works and don’t really see climate change as a problem. Being antisocial and disliking the people around you though, you’ll spout a lazy justification for being cruel. I guarantee you that no one thinks you’re intellectually honest or curious. The only people who find you tolerable either don’t know you well enough to dislike you or are goblin people themselves.
@@NBC_NCO throwing fat people under the bus just means you’re unconcerned with the problem. If you dislike the people around you and don’t actually care that much about climate change though, any lazy justification for being cruel will work I suppose. No one will ever judge you as intellectually honest or curious though. That’s just clearly not the path you’ve chosen in life and people know not to come to you for serious analysis.
@@jimthain8777 The Earth was a snowball.
What happened?
Climate change.
Sounds like it’s hard to model something this complex, but we should update our models with some more realistic forecasts.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Therefore use the good times now to minimize the impacts. It’s never going to get easier.
Thank you for talking about Antarctica. I am always eager to learn the state of things there, but there just isn't a lot of info most of the time.
Such a good series. Thanks SO much for the work you do.
A lot of people in the comments don't seem to understand how statics work or what the once in 700 billion year statistic means lol. They simply can't fathom it because the universe itself is only measured to be less than 15 billion years old. That is the point. If you let the Earth run it's normal annual cycle for 700 billion years, then maybe you'd see this happen once. In our case, we see it happening with the earth being ONLY 4.6 billion years old... Like the pinned comment says, either this is a freak accident like winning the lottery of every state while being attacked by a shark and struck by lightning SIMULTANEOUSLY, or there is an extrinsic factor affecting the Antarctic ice cycle.
Thank you!
Sounds like a bunch of hog 💩 to me
I think it is incredibly sad!
I’m sure you do
All I get from this is that climate scientists don't understand climate.
There are so many variables and a lot of them are still unknown.
Therefore every mathematical model has a large margin of error.
Good luck to all of us because often the reality overcome the fantasy
The End Is Nigh (still)
Thank you for sharing this.
I wonder if this is related to the recent ban on sulfur fuels in shipping
I don't think it is directly related, but every thing we do, or don't do, as a very, very, large group, make a difference in some way.
Often we don't even really understand how any changes we make work out.
Sure is. Less Sulphates in the atmosphere means less global dimming aka those polluting particulates which are actually shielding us from additional warming through the sun's rays.
Talk about a double bind. If we stop polluting sulfates but continue burning GHGs, we add warming through both the GHGs and additional sunlight. If we don't stop polluting sulfates and continue burning GHGs, we continue to warm but with a film of pollution in the atmosphere blocking the total sunlight.
You should look into geoengineering organizations such as Make Sunsets for additional dystopian ideas.
What I'm hearing is that it is time to move 190ft above sea level. I think everyone is too concerned about their little circle of life to care for the entire planet let alone a penguin population :(.
It's because it's not up to the individual, it's up to nations and corporations to solve this issue. The power an individual has is in voting.
@@snowballeffect7812While you’re waiting you might want to sell that beach front property.
@@Tailspin80 yep, investing in water, as well, since most sources of potable water will become salinized or dried up.
You don’t need to worry about water rise. The shift of the poles to the equator is gonna tuck you in for night night.
Love me some PBS Terra. Never too old to learn.
Had you figured for a BBC guy 😉🤤
Such hubris.
Saying the chances for an event to happen once in 50 times the age of the universe is absurd and meaningless.
It's absurd but not necessarily meaningless. For example if you make friends with every person on earth and each person shuffles one deck of cards each second, for the age of the Universe, there will still only be a one in a trillion, trillion, trillion chance of two decks matching.
However that being said I do think they misspoke. More likely a 1 in 700 billion chance, not a one in 700 billion year event.
Also those odds assume blind chance with no other outside factors. It's clear here that something had to have caused the effect.
@@4saken404Thank you for providing this good example so uninformed viewers can get a better grasp of what´s going on.
@@4saken404 Technically you are right. However this means, it is very very unLIKELY by RANDOM chance. So LIKELY there is a reason for this, and we dont know the reason. The ice will even melt faster in 1 billion years when the sun gets 10% hotter and evaporates all water on earth.
@@Randy778 Which means, you could have two decks matching with even only 2 decks shuffeling. It is "only" very very unlikely to happen by random chance only. How does that help anything?
@@4saken404 It's not incorrect at all. This type of event is modeled using a "Poisson Distribution". This tracks "recurrence time". That is, how long on average would you have to wait for such an event to occur. Poisson Distributions are used when the events are discrete instead of continuous (you can't have a partial ice sheet maximum), and the events are cyclical in discrete time steps (they happen every year, or every month, or every decade).
For a Poisson Distribution like this, a "1 in 700 billion chance" and a "1 in 700 billion year event" are the same exact thing. There is literally no difference between those statements. What that means is that, *so long as the underlying equilibrium state has not changed*, we would expect to have to wait on average 700 billion years to see this event. For climate matters, this obviously means that the underlying equilibrium state changed, and a new model/distribution needs to be applied because the old model fundamentally modeled a different climate than the one we have now.
EDIT:
Unless he meant that the MEDIAN recurrence time is 700 billion years, in which case the odds are actually worse than 1 in 700 billion.
seeing as the universe has only existed for lets say 14 billion years to be generous, I don't think it's a 1 in 700 billion years event.
Thank you some logic instead of climate grifter fear porn.
The oceans circulatory system wraps all currents around Antarctica, warmer water melts ice. The oceans make the climate. And there's enough heat in them to raise Temps we'll past 5 degrees. Hopium is thick in this video
Hopium peddling is great bu$ine$$
The direct energy weapon they used in Maui, Hawaii. They might be using it right now in Antarctica
Some skeptics say "do not trust any models" so let's just look at the observable facts. Because England was a sea-faring nation, it's navy was keeping fairly accurate measurements of sea-level height via their global network of tide gauges, and sea level was always rising (albeit more slowly than now). The average rate of rise, from 1900-2000, was 1.7 mm per year (6.7 inches per century). But satellite measurements have measured the rate increasing to 3.9 mm per year (15.3 inches per century). Do I need to mention that any increase in rate is also known as acceleration?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
4.2 mm per year 2010-2020
@@grindupBaker Yikes, even worse
You have a satellite and know how to calibrate data. Or do you get your opinion whole cloth from the same guys who say ISIS attacks on Ramadan, doesn’t scream aloha Snackbar one fuckin time. And then tryes to run instead of going balls ⚽️ deap in a gaggle or virgins. OkyDoky.
I really appreciate the car commercial during this informative expose. What about a different sponsor ?
another option is using a different browser that prevents them entirely.
CZcams channels get no say on what kinds of ads play over their videos.
You are an NPC.
Go to Canada they have a new medical program that would be perfect for you. 😉
When you’re postulating the actual odds are substantially older than the universe and all the approximately infinite possibilities, the answer is simply the following. Your models are unreliable and the odds are not what you’re saying.
I total fabrication.
Intended to divide and instill hate and distress.
One side says you don’t care about anything but your greed and arrogance. Other side says you can’t think, or understand your own Dogpma and you are not gonna lead me and mine to the sacrifice along side you.
The lose of habitat, due to climate change, and the dangerous with the penguins brings up a good point of perhaps what happened with the megafauna in North America and Eurasia, at the end of the last ice age, especially during the younger dryas?
Weathered never disappoints
This video should be titled: "Just do what you've been doing, we have plenty of time." 🤣
Great piece! But...the Earth is under 5 billion years old. The universe is supposed to be under 14 billion. You may need to do a quick re-edit. 700 million sounds more believable, but you might want to ask him to give you the number again. Edit: Seems like 1 in 700 billion is the statistics based on the current data.
All you're saying is that you don't understand statistical analysis. Not a big problem since it can be confusing. But it doesn't matter how believable something is, it matters what the actual figure is.
A mean generated over a few decades of monitoring is not good statistics. How about a mean of monitoring over a million years.
@@AORD72We don't need to wait a million years to quantify events or conditions that existed a million years ago.
@@THE-X-Forcehow bout a billion
@@FinneasJedidiah Thanks! You're right. I don't know statistics, so I guess you're saying when he says 7 deviations, that's a statistical statement. ...like if a yearly rain total is 100 inches & 0.000001 inches fall, I guess? That fits into the other points they were making. I guess I'll have to take a statistic class. Thanks, again!
This is a very informative video!!
Great channel. Love the content ❤
Some shades at the L1 Lagrange point will solve all our proboems
Only if it fits our models, otherwise it doesn’t exist.
Hunga tonga depleted the ozone layer mostly in the southern hemisphere and the effect is usually the strongest 1- 1,5 years after a ozone depletion event since it takes time for the water vapor to truly spread in the stratosphere,this year looks much better for the ice in the antarctic ocean.
The life of the Sun is 10 Billion Years before it goes "Red Giant". So statistically this Event "Cannot" actually happen.
Do you think the ice would never melt?
I thrive on your productions Terra. Science studies of any sort are my thing. Your shows are such a blessing. I would like to some verification that we as Americans are not going to be able to grow our own food anymore nor will ranchers. What is happening on our planet that affecting the growth of beef, lamb, etc?
PBS Terra is doing an awesome job. Kudos!!!
Hi, isn't 90% of the ice under water? I am guessing is that the top layer melts first (because air warms faster than water). So if the top layer melts, the sub surface ice moves up, and this layer has more surface area than the layer that sat above water. So the extra ice is just a normal effect of a big ice mountain melting at sea. To confirm this would should have exact messurements of what is going on below the surface and messure the total amount of ice. My guess is that only the surface area was stable, but the total ice mass is steadily declining all along. Maybe we should point the JWST to the poles for a while.
We have satellites measuring sea ice already. If you’re interested there are multiple articles about Sea Ice propping up land based glaciers in Antarctica. You may be interested.
@@embracedmadness Hi, thank you for you reply. Mind pointing me towards a good source? Is it on this channel? I am sure it is very interesting topic with all different kinds of ice that are created under different pressures, possible creating air bubbles. The messurements themself probably don't mean much but themself if you are talking about a big object like The Antarctic.
Can’t be, I got 17 percent in my pipe 😱🤤👍🏻😇
Don’t forget your mask 😷
Can’t wait till the next spineless worm tells me to put one on.
Thank you 🙏
Models use feedback to make predictions, but are they aware of non linear feedback like thermal phase change? I predict everything will seem fine fine fine and then once a critical threshold of ice is melted then the oceans will start heating just like when the ice melts from your cup.
Given not linearity, why couldn't the overall effect be other than the ice melting?
Models are as good as the number of variables, their weight and interaction is understood.
When a model doesn't correlate any more with measurements and observations, it's time for a thorough update.
If one rapidly melts, and the other one increases. We could see a physical pole shift of Earth, due conservation of angular momentum.
Einstein and Velikovsky discussed this before their deaths.
It's very likely what happened before the onset of the younger dryas.
It would only take a few degrees to cause utter chaos on the planet.
There was, the massive wildfires in Australia and the volcanic eruption in the southern hemisphere all with those years. Could those also affect the warming of the areas affected?
Yes, as fires and volanic activity both add carbon and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Another double bind of climate change. We have to stop burning fossil fuels, but at the same time the consequences of burning fossil fuels (aka larger, more persistent wildfires) is leading to more GHGs in the atmosphere.
But hey, at least we have the "electric vehicle" scam! LOL
The ice warmed up and expanded, melted from underneath, got lighter and raised up, making it look like there was more. 😉
2045: The year that Hell froze.
As soon as the politicians start selling their beach front houses I’ll believe it.
Another outstanding video from PBS! Clear, factual and so entertaining that everyone is able to enjoy it.
Beyond that, we are being provided with usable data that encourages even the most unscientific of us to try and unravel the climate related challenges that are becoming more and more frequent. Hopefully, more of us will become aware that the planet that we're living on is a system and that the way we're living on it is really starting to stress it out!
Is there any correlation with sun activity and reaching a solar maximum?
Nope
Thanks
too many zeros in the title
Could it be because the planet shifted spin angle at about 12°, which means there's more sun hitting the edges of the polar ice caps?
When sea ice freezes, the salt gets expelled and that very briny water is one of the engines of the Great Conveyor, aka the thermohaline circulation that goes from pole to pole and top to bottom, It brings nutrients to the surface that cause plankton bloom and carries (molecular, O2) oxygen to the greatest depth.
It also transports a lot of heat, the equivalent of I can't remember how many millions or billions of barrels of oil a year to Norther Europe.
When you realize he really meant 700 Billion years and you didnt missheared it 😨😨😨
From a mean generated over a few decades to produce a hysteria percentage is just statistical manipulation to generate media sales. Or just poor science. What was the amount of ice around Antarctica before 14500 years ago when the sea level was a lot lower?
@@AORD72Mr. Climate Change Denier has to entirely change his lies again and again.
@@sentientflower7891 Who is denying climate change? You are making assumptions, that is something a simple person would say. Look at the facts, 14,5000 years ago the sea was RISING AT A RATE OF 60MM PER YEAR. We are only at 3mm per year, real scientists talk about thousands of years for the rest of the ice to melt. The most ice that is left is in the Antarctica which is cold, the south pole average temperature is -50 degree C.
How big do you think Antarctica ice sheets were 20,000 years ago when the sea level was 120 meters lower? Do some real reading and learn the reality instead of listening to sensationalized media stories that sell to make money.
@@sentientflower7891 How is he lying? You just spread nonsense using the climate change denier phrase to control and manipulate people.
In the next century, all (natural) ice will be gone, everywhere on earth.
I hope I'm not here when it all melts.
Well weve had alot of odd solar activity lately as well solar bursts.. high energy paticles hitting the Earth coupled with climate change, and well im not surprised. I remember hearing alot of polar ice caps slowed down in melting.. so this seems like a odd variable like maybe the atmosphere over there is adversely effected idk tho.
Big big load of Sierra Bravo.
01:13 the planet is *only* 4.5 *billion* years old.
the universe is estimated to be 13.8 - 14.3 billion years old….
I assume that somehow this will be corrected.
not sure how though.
It's almost like we live on a rock hurdling around a giant nuclear fireball
wow. could to know that you were listening in primary school. it's a shame that you didn't after that.
@@Cecil-yc6mc Im saying were all vulnerable. Just be happy you get to live another day.
Yeah and I just took a bong hit and I could feel it
@@jarehelt As the saying goes: "The universe wants all life dead!"
Ask our cousins, the dinos, for confirmation.
2016年に南極で大きな変化が有ったとは知らなかった。 北半球と南半球で空も海も循環が違う（海底は少し影響がある）認識ですが、日本では2017年に九州で線状降水帯が、2018年から黒潮の大蛇行が始まり今も続いている認識です。 近年の異常気象は2016年に切っ掛けが有るのかも知れませんねん。
Great News, Can't wait to get Toasted.
You won't. Only by militarized death rays maybe because otherwise climate change is total bologne.
Emperor penguins basically poop where they stand..... The poop is also a factor in melting ice😂
Come on people!!! Massive amounts of planes trains automobiles and warming buildings by humans HAS to be contributing to Earth warming up
It's not
Poles move,lava makes new tunnels,volcanos goes off,lots of co2 is spit out.
The torus field’s vortexes is what makes the ice at the poles.
When the poles move….well if you don’t get this simple fact and that it has happened many times before,you would wonder what is going on.😂
Yes, @goemboeck, we need to figure out how to remove dark triad personalities from decision-making processes.
Sounds like a good opportunity for someone to get a boat past the ice wall to the new lands admiral Byrd talked about
Wait how is this a once in a 700 Billion year event when the universe is only 13.8 billion years old?
The ocean is a much more important heat sink than the atmosphere. It will take way longer for the excess heat to dissipate from the oceans after we quit heating the atmosphere. Antarctic ice will continue melting for a very long time from the warmer ocean water than expected. Most people think of Antarctica as a giant landmass when actually much of it is actually below sea level and much of the ice is in danger of being melted from below. Greenlands ice is mostly being melted from the warming air while in the future antarctica will be mostly melted from the ocean.
Sea ice melting does not raise sea levels. It’s only natural to link melting sea ice to rising sea levels. Glacial ice sheets melting that water runoff raises sea levels. With the immense volumes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenlandic Ice Sheet, the Polar Regions hold significant risk in this regard.
I’m afraid that the extinction of any species would not change anything in people’s view on the dramatic urgency of this situation, perhaps even our own. Perhaps this is the ultimate evolutionary trap.
1 in 700 billion years. Most accurate climate prediction.
Wasn’t it the warm water coming from underneath broke off a huge shelf of ice .
What about the tectonic plates. Imagine them as a lot of rafts floating to get her on a very hot pond. The sea ice melt is like adding weight to parts of some of those rafts…….they will become unstable. Certainly might fix the planets problems, just might not fix our problems…
Accurate or not, this is a great line of thinking. Changes in interaction of shifting water body masses and tectonic plate boundary faults is definitely going to happen. The only thing is whether it will produce mild tsunamis or major quakes in the known boundary regions / fault zones.
@@anandsharma7430 We already know how this works as we are literally just coming out of an ice age and many areas are still rebounding from the ice that was just on them 10,000 years ago. They do not spring up or cause tsunamis. It is a process of tens and hundreds of thousands of years of gradual uplift. Nothing to worry about on human time scales.
Sea ice is in the ocean anyway -it weighs the same whether it's ice or water. It's the ice sheets on land melting that will redistribute some weight. Might get some isostatic rebound eventually, but the tectonic plates are so huge relative to what we are talking about it's pretty speculative to think we'll see effects on plate tectonics. But - everything is connected.
@@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672 my point is that it sitting in one place above a very active plate. The distribution of weight is quite considerable - 27 million billion tonnes to be exact……not an insignificant redistribution.There is already some evidence that tectonic plate movements are susceptible to lunar orbits www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affect-seismicity-are-there-more-earthquakes-morningin-eveningat
Oh, my.
In the words of David Brin: "the ocean's vote wasn't in."
700bn years wow, quite a few earth lifetimes.
Although there is a rapid loss of ice on one side of Antarctica, it has been more than offset by a net increase in ice on the continent as a whole by about 100 billion tons a year. And since it is a fact that the movement of ice in such mass quantities does have an effect on the Earth's tilt, leads me to believe the Earth's constant change in tilt is the real culprit behind climate change. The changing in tilt has been going on for billions of years. Add in volcanic activity, continental shift, the Earth's changing orbit and the sun going through its cycles and you have a formula for climate change that mankind has nothing to do with.
I’m very alarmed by economic models causing the loss of Antarctic sea ice. Causality is a b*tch.
Obviously there's a big miss with models with what's happened in 2023. Models generally use basic laws of radiative physics, and their predictions are largely linear in nature. But nature isn't linear, and inherently chaotic. I'm not sure if we've reached that tipping point where conventional models don't make sense because of bifurcation, or just some unexplained and undetected forcing that has driven a natural viability with this statistical anomaly.
We're screwed regardless. At least we can't say we weren't warned.
Gupta (GPT) says that may potentially increase the imbalance by 5 w/m2 :o
We must act!
Those of you saying he should have said 1/700B chance instead of 1/700B years need to go back to school, you cannot just swap probabilities like that!
He said it like that for a reason!
Persistent westerly winds have also dragged the current in one direction for over 20 years, increasing the speed and size of the clockwise current and preventing the fresh water from leaving the Arctic Ocean. This decades-long western wind is unusual for the region, where previously, the winds changed direction every five to seven years.
Scientists have been keeping an eye on the Beaufort Gyre in case the wind changes direction again. If the direction were to change, the wind would reverse the current, pulling it counterclockwise and releasing the water it has accumulated all at once.
“If the Beaufort Gyre were to release the excess fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, it could potentially slow down its circulation. And that would have hemisphere-wide implications for the climate, especially in Western Europe,” said Tom Armitage, lead author of the study and polar scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Fresh water released from the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic can change the density of surface waters. Normally, water from the Arctic loses heat and moisture to the atmosphere and sinks to the bottom of the ocean, where it drives water from the north Atlantic Ocean down to the tropics like a conveyor belt.
This important current is called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and helps regulate the planet’s climate by carrying heat from the tropically-warmed water to northern latitudes like Europe and North America. If slowed enough, it could negatively impact marine life and the communities that depend on it.
“We don’t expect a shutting down of the Gulf Stream, but we do expect impacts. That’s why we’re monitoring the Beaufort Gyre so closely,” said Alek Petty, a co-author on the paper and polar scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The study also found that, although the Beaufort Gyre is out of balance because of the added energy from the wind, the current expels that excess energy by forming small, circular eddies of water. While the increased turbulence has helped keep the system balanced, it has the potential to lead to further ice melt because it mixes layers of cold, fresh water with relatively warm, salt water below. The melting ice could, in turn, lead to changes in how nutrients and organic material in the ocean are mixed, significantly affecting the food chain and wildlife in the Arctic. The results reveal a delicate balance between wind and ocean as the sea ice pack recedes under climate change.
“What this study is showing is that the loss of sea ice has really important impacts on our climate system that we’re only just discovering,” said Petty.
Rexana Vizza / Matthew Segal
Jet Propulsion LaboratoryPasadena, Calif.
818-393-1931/818-354-8307
Just a passing thought, MAYBE the factories that produce greenhouse gases should be closed down? PERHAPS it might stop global warming
It's not real
Disaparing sea ice does not cause sea levels to rise.
Technically true but its disappearance does directly cause costal land based ice to melt much, much faster... amongst dozens of other secondary effects.
Ice cubes melt faster sitting on the counter than sitting in the freezer.
Size of Australia = Size of continental USA.
There was a mini ice age in the 1600
How does our weather compare to the mini ice age at that time
How did it stop from getting worse ?