You mentioned the greenland ice already, so I can skip that.
Scientists have proven (or suspect or claim, depending on personal opinion) that the greenhouse effect heats up the earth and that co2 is contributing to it.
The current co2 levels are already higher than anything ever recorded in history (yes, they know how high it was thousands of years ago) and it's rising.
Assuming that temperature will indeed rise: What happens to water if it gets warmer?
Antarctica. That LARGEST continent GILDED in ice. Mention that one too. Give us the specifics of your 'warm period' and tell me if it applied to the massive ice desert in the South, or just the NORTH ATLANTIC.
Next, polar bears losing habitat is a BIG problem for humans. If they can't make it in on their turf, they will come to ours. They like to eat humans enough already.
Whatever your opinions on the subject are, extra greenhouse gasses aren't helping. We can live without finite poison fuel.
@Ungulates The southern hemisphere has been cooling for a while now. We can shoot polar bears. There are already plenty of brown and black bears in the areas where polar bears would go, and these only eat a couple of people a year. Even if the medieval warming had been solely in the north, what would that prove? That climate is even weirder and more unpredictable than we thought?
It is true that the artic melting will not change the sea levels. But polar bears are becoming extinct. The ice caps are shrinking. But Greenland and the anartic melting will raise sea levels and it will alter ocean currents. The problem isn't that the earth can't withstand us, it is that we are threatening the delicate conditions of the earth that enable us to live on it.
Good luck trying to make head way with acolytes of the church of global warming. It's a bit like tying to explain calculus to someone who believes you can only count as far as the number of fingers on your hands. It's interesting illustration of human behavior though.
You won't convince the global warmer fanatics Lindy, - oops, sorry that should be 'climate change' fanatics now shouldn't it, since they changed their terminology to be even more hazey and non-specific a few years back (while the snow was beginning to mount around our ears) ;-). It's the end of the world don't you know!
Nice straw man you've got there. I've never heard of anyone claiming that the north pole melting would cause sea levels to rise. It's the SOUTH POLE that worries people. And indeed Greenland, which represents about 7m of rise should ALL of its ice melt.
Note that the glaciers that have melted so far are but a tiny fraction of that total. Do you think Viking farms extend all the way to the deepest glaciers?
Stick to weaponry, and leave climatology to people who know something about it.
@mcvos I have heard it said many times, and see it pictured over and over again - telly people love to show calving icebergs of the north pole to illustrate rising sea levels. The southern hemisphere is cooling, so isn't such a worry. No, there is no evidence I know of that Viking farms went to the heart of the interior.
@lindybeige Turns out TV people love dramatic images. Who'd have thought? But I think it's more an illustration of melting ice than of rising sea levels. For that, they usually point to melting glaciers. By the way, your story about spring suggests the north pole isn't really shrinking at all, but it is. Almost every summer, the icecap is smaller than the year before, and Russia, Canada Norway and others are already maneuvering to grab as much of the newly accessibly sea to drill for oil there.
@mcvos Yes, at the moment there seems to be net shrinking, viewed over the last twenty years or so. For 90% of the Earth's past, there has been no north pole ice cap, so the existence of a north pole ice cap at all is unusual. This type of climatic change used to be called 'amelioration'.
@lindybeige For over 90% of the Earth's past, there also were no humans around. That doesn't mean I'd like us to go extinct.
There have been times when the whole earth was covered in ice, there have been times it was arid, there have been lots of changes over the billions of years the earth has existed. And quite often, those changes caused mass extinctions. Society right now is adapted to and depending on our current climate. Evacuating our coasts is more expensive than cutting the CO2.
@mcvos There is a _theory_ of 'snowball Earth' yes, but most scientists in the field do not subscribe to it. Your last statement still seems to rely on the notion that cutting CO2 will make a difference to sea level.
@lindybeige Cutting CO2 will make a difference on the greenhouse effect, which has impact on the melting of icecaps and glaciers, which has impact on the sea level. This is not controversial science in any way (though politicians seem to have a hard time dealing with science).
@lindybeige It's my understanding that the reason Earth is warm is because of the ozone and the principal ingredient for this warming, CO2, which traps radiation inside the earth's atmosphere by reflecting it back at the Earth once it has hit. It has been at a pretty good level and mankind hasn't existed long enough for it to reach a bad level. However an increase in this will increase this effect, heating the earth's surface.
@lindybeige I think the main point is that, while if you leave an icecube in some water and it melts, that the water will be the same height, if you however heat that water it undergoes thermal expansion. Which is largely the worry. This is how a rise in CO2, is to be linked with a rise in sea levels.
@KonijNx2 Water expands as it freezes. That's why it floats. When it melts, it gets smaller. You have to get it above 4 degrees C before it starts to expand again.
@KonijNx2 My point was that causing ice to warm and melt and get warmer causes the level of the water to go down due to thermal contraction until the temperature gets to 4 degrees, so you have to warm ice up a hell of a lot before expansion adds to water level. A 4 degree shift is enormous. Elsewhere, in the shallower warm parts of the Pacific, the story is different.
......peak hight, they produce the same amount of CO2 and O2 and when they die and decompose, they actually produce more CO2 than O2, so if you don't cut trees down after they reach peak hight, they don't do anything. One thing we could do it use algae and grow it on the sea, in any water really, because algae actually sucks up CO2 and deposits it into the water instead of back into the air. The reason for the last ice age is due to a huge amount of algae on the sea, causing global cooling. :D
I believe that CO2 (Primarily) being released into the air does increase the world temperature, therefore supporting the greenhouse effect theory. You're correct in your video, however water becomes less dense when heated and therefore expands. Oh no! What gets me is, the misconceptions in which people go about reducing CO2 in the air. For example, trees do not suck up CO2, they actually release CO2 into the atmosphere, they also only release more O2 while they are growing, once they reach.....
Well it should not be called global warming, it should be climate change (CC)
CC currently IS WAY FASTER than it has ever been
the green house effect started riseing allmost four times as fast as it used to 10 thousand years ago.... around the same time as farming (evil cows and other things) also one thing you dont know is THAT THERE IS CO2 TRAPPED IN THE ICE, as the ice melts as well as other greenhouse gasses ( water vapor is greenhouse gas. and finally.... you are right for the most part
Well it should not be called global warming, it should be climate change (CC)
CC currently IS WAY FASTER than it has ever been
the green house effect started riseing allmost four times as fast as it used to 10 thousand years ago.... around the same time as farming (evil cows and other things) also one thing you dont know is THAT THERE IS CO2 TRAPPED IN THE ICE, as the ice melts as well as other greenhouse gasses ( water vapor is greenhouse gas. and finally... you forgot about the ice on land!!
Hi Lloyd. I used to agree with you completely. But I think the global water level may rise a little bit. Sea water is salt water, as the ice melts, the sea water becomes less salty, thus less dense and a little higher sea water level.
Yet another point. I suspect that sea water thermally expands as global temperature rises.
So I just realized that using pure ice/pure water is not an example perfectly matching the real world, but close.
But looking at history, I may be wrong. It's all complicated
@zhonggao84 Yes, you are right that in a four-minute video, I do not deal with every last detail of the issue. Reality always proves more complicated.
what about global cooling? in the atmospheric records of earth's history captured in arctic ice, global cooling always follows times of high carbon content in the air, which we are creating now by releasing carbon into the air.
What about the ice that is sitting on land and then melts into the oceans? It would be just like a glass of water where the ice is sitting on the bottom and sticking out of the water.
@lindybeige and Antartica, which dose, unlike the artic, have a land mass. and the ocean currents also run really close to it as well. Its not so much the amount of freash water that enters the ocean that we have to worry about, its how fast the fresh water enters it
Well, you clearly missed the point of the problem that occurs if the arctic ice melts and global warming occurs. The point is: not the ice is the problem, and not even the ice that is on land.
The problem of global warming in the context of rising sea levels lies in the average oceanic temerature. This will rise, the warmer water expands and THIS will cause much higher sea levels, less stable weather conditions and lastly a threat to all coastal cities.
Even if it isn't catastrophic to life on Earth for the water level to rise, as you appeared to prove by pointing out that there have been no polar ice caps for 90% of the planet's history, does that necessarily mean that today's coastal settlements are safe?
Ironically enough, we're SUPPOSED to be in an Ice Age right now, and that's what has the real scientists at the forefront of Global Warming research worried.
Why Ironic? Because if we accept that GW is happening, than it may well have saved us all from freezing to death during the industrial revolution.
Does that make GW good? Not at all, but whether you believe in it or not there are plenty of logical reasons to switch to renewable energies and electric vehicles. Like gas prices, goddamn.
your right there are warming periods through out history. however if you look at a graph that displays the changes in temperature you will see that the warming we are in now is massively above average. But i do see your point about the melting ice. in fact just the other day before watched this i managed to completely stump my geography teacher when i told her ice doesnt raise water levels. it was a proud moment for me
yeah, I guess that explains how oceanic fossils are found on mountains (and in Montana where I'm from) Perhaps these creatures evolved to grow legs, then de-evolved to lose them when they got to the mountains...
@wpederson1 The Reason for that phenomenom is that when the the earths tectonic plates collide together they create uplift and make mounatains. Thats why fossils of ocean dwellers can be found at the top of Mnt Everest.
i'm actually a fan of your videos, especially the historical stuff. but you have quite a few misconceptions concerning the science of climate change (as most people do, regardless of their political views).
i've managed to do quite a bit of reading on the subject out of sheer interest, so if you'd like to have a discussion, please shoot me a youtube message.
if not, at least check out the site "skeptical science", which should answer a lot of your questions.
global warming however isn't the issue generally, it's rather the shift in climates period, any shift up or down affects the ecology at an overall level, if you count it on average yearly, and there are lots of species going extinct fairly rapidly due to human interference (not climate based so much)
so even climate change isn't enough to explain the issues given, but it's a part of it (even if overall everything is "the same") but rather that if place A gets place B's climate and vice versa ow
don't forget antarctica ice is melting, which is highly above water already as well, greenland isnt' enough to raise the water level of the world lots, but don't forget that the continents shift as well, uhh,well the chemical composition of the world has changed a lot, dinosaurs wouldn't find enough oxygen to survive nowadays much less talking about height and weight typically, land has gotten higher + lower since those times I think... which would add volume capacity though
@lindybeige ahhh, that would be worth explaining on their part, one second let me see if I can find something...who am I kidding, I'm tired and need sleep, but one possibility that I find recurring often in climate change issues and discussion... is people don't make the damn measurements in the right places, or miss entire areas
the satellites that said there was none for instance, were in a decaying orbit, which made it seem like there wasn't an atmospheric cooling when there was
@lindybeige OH, the answer's even on wikipedia apparently, look up antarctica and head off the section of "effects of global warming" it's there with citations 84-94, so 10 citations, and apparently it IS warming, slightly, by .25 celsius over 49 years
that's why I was saying a little change makes a big difference even, and yes it might be small changes but they still impact rather heavily at times
it IS an entire planet after all, small to it, big to us~
Most of this eco-friendly global warming nonsense is pushed because it is an easy way to get money. You make something, call it eco-friendly, then people will buy it because they make themselves believe they are saving the planet.
In reality, the planet isn't going anywhere, we will be long gone before the planet has any problems. It has seen a lot worse than plastic bags in its time.
we have 10 years of full mechinization of our countries, without china having cars. The thing with global warming that you dont hear is, we have high co2 level because we gain global significants with it. It has to end eventually.
This is a minor point, but the ice is mostly fresh water and it's floating in seawater.
Just as when you mix a liter of water with a liter of alcohol, you don't get 2 liters of mix, due to small molecules filling gaps between large molecules, when you mix fresh water with salt water, you don't just add up their volumes.
A small effect, but something to bear in mind. People are making all sorts of crazy predictions about the effects of slightly diluting the ocean.
Of course it's true that ice melting in water does nothing to the sealevel, and that - you know - the world won't end with us all perishing in a second flood even if all the ice does melt, but that doesn't mean the rise in sealevels won't have profound effects on large parts of the world, especially considering how fond we are of building our cities as close to the ocean as we can without falling in.
Its effects are overblown in the media but not trivial.
the scientists are not actually saying that climate change will result in disaster. This is a position that more politicians make than scientists. But the sea levels have risen somewhat, this can be easily observed, and are expected to rise somewhat more in the future..how much and what this will really do is simply a mystery. A lot more ice is melting now than 'spring' of the last couple centuries. When there were no polar ice caps half the US was underwater.
Of course the melting of the arctic polar ice cap wouldn't do much, if anything, to the sea level. However, Greenland has roughly 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice on it. If the entirety of Greenland's ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by over 6 meters. Say goodbye to most coastal cities around the world. And if Antarctica's ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by 10 times that. So, you're right that the arctic ice is no issue. But the fate of the ice on land is a big one.
Actually, sea levels really were higher in the past, Britain and Spain and whatnot included. This begins to change especially from the 15th century onwards. Your Viking aside is evidence against your main argument.
You're right, but I think that the major problem about the ice cap melting is that the entire arctic ice cap is made of freshwater. So if it melts and the freshwater mixes with the seawater the oceanic currents will change and so will the climate.
Well, for 90% of Earth's past there have been no ice caps, and at the moment the southern hemisphere is cooling. There is good reason to think that changes in ocean currents from such events as you describe are temporary. In short, yes, things may become bad, but I'm choosing not to panic.
Well of course, I've never said we should panic. Hell, I don't even think we should do anything. People tend to overreact a bit lately. Also, something very common is for people to underestimate human ability to adapt to the environment, I don't, so even if the climate changes a lot, nothing really disastrous is going to happen.
Actually, a lot of England certainly, and I assume elsewhere, WAS flooded at the time of the vikings. Cambridgeshire was mostly underwater, and the names of the places reflect tthis: 'Eye' comes from the (I believe) Saxon word for island (it might not be sxon, but that is it's root in some language).
The flat bits of Somerset, such as Weston Super Mare, and more were also flooded.
So the idea that melting Ice doesn't flood is piffle and bum.
Yes, and Glastonbury was an island. Trouble is: these places were flooded before the middle age warming period, and they ceased being flooded when they were drained by more modern farming methods.
As well as the added water from land-locked ice sheets, ice which is above ground, and ice which is stored vertically on ice sheets (i.e. far above the water), adding to the total volume of water, the world's water level will also rise as water expands when warmer. The lack of ice-covered world surface will also decrease the reflective properties of the world, and lead to more heat storage in the atmosphere, more ice melting, etc etc vicious cycle.
Have patience. Your comments take time to come through, and don't show ion your screen straight away even if others can see them. This confuses a lot of people and I commonly get multiple copies of the same comment. Also, I have my settings such that comments need approval by me. I approve pretty much everything.
The water should be the same amount- however the sea level rise prediction are because a lot of the ice in the world is on land-locked ice sheets not currently just floating around, or ice which is kind of stacked up, or on land, and because of things expanding more when warmer.
as a scientist, i fel REALLY embarrassed i didnt think of that...however im going to double check your theory by settng up some ice in a glass , ill put my science to use and do it rigorously with efore after measurements, ill keep them weighed to account for evaporation. etc etc...
did they find any newpreserved swords in greenland by any chance?? i know they always find a sword or an axe. or some sort of sharp pointed, metal thingy in that part of the world every so often.
the problem aren't the polar ice caps melting, the problem is all the ice that is trapt in places like greenland that isn't floating in the water... when that melts, presumably, it will flow down into the seas and oceans and that might produce the water level rise
Nothing motivates like fear & a good cause. Sooner or later the oil runs out. More sooner than later. So how do we get the world to retool for the inevitable day? How do you get everyone to embrace alternate types of energy. Do I hear Global Warming? Maybe. Who doesn't want to save a Polar Bear. Bottom line is, its about the oil running out. And when it runs out everything will be in place to cope with it. It will happen seamlessly. And we all have the idea of Global Warming to thank for it.
yeah, i wish.. unfortunately people seem to be extraordinarily stubborn and noones listening.
tere are other massive arguements for removing coalin particular, one being that to burn it isnt too effecient. secondly it releases lots of nasties like sulfur dioxides, arsenic, cadmium, theres also the economic unsustainability i.e town grows around coal mine, mine runs out, and the ppl are left without a means of work and so it gets abandoned.
You seem like a nice, smart guy but your understanding of the environment is way off. First, nobody's denying the warming periods. Climate is a very complex system and "global warming" is actually an awful misnomer. When the climate goes haywire, some parts get hotter while others get colder. Also, you're confusing natural climate fluctuation with the fluctuations spurred on by skyrocketing levels of CO2. Both exist. One's bad but inevitable; the other's much worse but maybe still preventable.
CO2 levels have risen very slightly, they have not skyrocketted. They are very far below levels of much of the past. MANY people are deliberately not mentioning known warm periods. I didn't say denial. All weather gets blamed on global warming now. It's like a religion where everything that doesn't fit is a test of faith. The last few years have been cold in Britain, and this gets explained as a sign of global warming.
Yes. Most of the Antarctic ice is over land, but the Antarctic is getting colder at the moment, along with most of the southern hemisphere, much of the Atlantic and Pacific, the Eastern Mediterranean and various other places.
i cant believe i didn't realize the thing about the water level not raising. i argue against global warming being the fault of man all the time, and yet i didn't know that one. this will be useful.
While I think your video rocked, I think you might have over-simplified a bit in order to make a point.
The difference in density between salt water and the ice floating on top might actually mean that a small fraction of the ice above water would indeed contribute to raising the water line. I haven't done the math (although I'll let you know if I do), but I thought I'd mention it in the interest of completeness. :)
One criticism: The ice cube on a water glass analogy isn't perfect, since the ocean's water is salty.
1.09 liters of ice = 1 kg.
0.98 liters of ocean water = 1 kg.
For every kg. of floating ice you have, a kg. of ocean water will be displaced. So far so good. Assuming the ice is entirely fresh water, then when it melts, fresh water mixes with salt water, and salt concentration levels in the ocean fall.
Salt concentration falls, ocean's density decreases, volume of ocean increases slightly.
Yes, but of course the ice cap isn't _pure_ fresh water. So what happens to the salt when the ice freezes? Does it increase the saltiness of the rest of the ocean or does it go elsewhere?
When the ice freezes, I would imagine the saltiness of the rest of the ocean increases, making the ocean water slightly more dense and lowering the water level. Analogously, when the ice melts, the ocean water becomes slightly less dense and the water level rises.
If the ice caps melted, I'd expect the water levels to rise a little, a feet or two at most. Certainly not 20 meters like Al Gore would suggest.
Correct - the sea gets saltier, and in saltier sea, the ice bergs will float higher out of the water by exactly the same amount, so this still makes no difference to the sea level.
I believe it would work the other way around- as more ice freezes, the sea gets saltier and the water level tends to drop; since the salt concentration in the water is now greater, as you said the a lower proportion of the ice will be underwater- and it's only the ice that's underwater that displaces the water, raising the water level.
Less ice underwater means less displacement of water, which again means a lower sea level.
If it helps to make the example, you can picture it like this: if the sea were so dense that the ice didn't sink -at all-, it's pretty evident to see that the water from the melting iceberg would contribute to the waterline. (It would spread over the surface)
So, yes, comparative density of the liquid and the solid does make a difference (although this is a ridiculously embellished example, obviously; the difference in density is nowhere near as high).
A matter of fact, witch is the rediculous part, is that the overall waterlevel, would (IF all the ice was on the ground, as on greenland etc.) raise like 7 metres according to someone ylleing: Were screwed!!! - Still, its a fact the real outcome, because of the effect Lloyd made clear, wouldnt even be a metre...And thats in a few hundred years, possibly - but a fact says too, that at relatively equal ammount of water will eventually freeze at Antarctica again, jus covering less = less troubles!
Wow, great video! Good thing there is no sort of continental ice pack located on land......
except ANTARTICA
and thanks for disseminating a terrible explanation that totally disregards the affects of melting Antartica, storm power, and desertification that come with climate change you limey hack.
You mention Greenland towards the very end but why do you waste a good 4 minutes ranting against a strawman arguement when everyone knows the real fear is of the water contained in the glaciers of Greenland and Antartica.
It isn't straw man, in that I have heard many people make false statements about the melting Arctic and calving icebergs/sheets. Yes, these arguments may not be coming from the most well-informed people, but they still make it onto serious television programmes. Antarctica is different because the climate is changing differently down there. Greenland is unambiguously warming up. Exactly what's happening in Antarctica remains a mystery. The S hemisphere overall is cooling down.
It is a poor argument and to say that you have heard many people, including serious television programmes, making the statement that Arctic icecap melting will raise sea levels when they are scientifically wrong. You should have spent your time showing up the fallacy of their statement and pointed out that if Greenland, Antarctic (and, ultimately, high alpine) icecaps do melt then the sea levels will rise.
Well, yes, but there is no evidence that massive amounts of Antarctica will melt. The public is aware of such amateur publicity-seeking types like Mr Gore who have made it widely believed that the sea levels will rise vastly more than the currently scientifically informed and more modest (non-alarmist) estimates (of about two feet total).
I agree there MAY be alarmists but the risk of not heeding their alarm call is greater than heeding it and being wrong. There is no evidence that a large asteroid will hit the earth either, but there is evidence to suggest it could happen
I take it you are aware of the practice of 'risk assessment'? Comparing the likelihood of a possible outcome against the effect of that outcome? If there was evidence to suggest asteroid defences are worhtwhile and effective then, yes, we should build them. In global warming, the risk is if we release too much CO2 it will be catastrophic but the fact is, until we do we won't know if your worst case scenario is true. Cutting emmissions now is relatively low cost compared to the possible outcomes.
aww do we have to survive, i was hoping for the majority of the world to drowned, now thats a fun afternoon...sighhh...well i suppose there is always the zombie invasion to look forward to.
The Viking battle axe was a very deadly weapon. It could easily cleave through armor and still leave a mortal wound. They were made by welding a sharp cutting edge onto a shaped block of iron. The butt end was then slotted over a wooden handle and wedged tight. It served multiple purposes as it was also their working axe. This made it a very affordable weapon.
Hah, exellent video! I don't even remember how many times I've argued exactly this with "enviormentalists" and back in the day when I went to school, (some of) the teachers just ignored my, perfectly valid arguments, shows what media and a teaching plan can do :/
You may be correct on the "Arctic Icecap" (balacing in the water not causing any sort of sea level rise) but the Antarctic icecap is sitting on top of a landmass (bed rock) like Greenland. Hmm....
Also populations and population densities are a bit different then they were in the dark ages (viking times). A slight change in temperature and climate affects more than just water levels (disease for instance).
Well said. People do love it when they get a reason to say that the world will soon end.
And global warming... Which is really only the swing-back from the cold bit in the late medieval ages.
By the way, the polar bears they show on ice blocks out in the ocean are not actually stranded. Polar bears swim sometimes 60 miles just to go fishing, and they often swim to blocks of ice in the middle of the water and then swim back. Not exactly stranded.
You're not only stupid, you're also annoying.
chamolihn 1 week ago
@chamolihn Thanks for taking the time to comment.
lindybeige 1 week ago
Your example with the ice cube is correct, but I think that the claim is that the rising sea levels are caused by the melting on land based ice.
Apparently there is also a contribution from thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands. (Quoting wikipedia)
anotherelvis 3 weeks ago
I want that viking jeep pic.
hcig 1 month ago
You mentioned the greenland ice already, so I can skip that.
Scientists have proven (or suspect or claim, depending on personal opinion) that the greenhouse effect heats up the earth and that co2 is contributing to it.
The current co2 levels are already higher than anything ever recorded in history (yes, they know how high it was thousands of years ago) and it's rising.
Assuming that temperature will indeed rise: What happens to water if it gets warmer?
It expands, yes.
Indonesia underwater.
Aroddo 1 month ago
@Aroddo
co2 was higher millions of years ago. fail.
Kikarok 1 month ago
@Kikarok A LOT higher, yes.
lindybeige 1 month ago
Antarctica. That LARGEST continent GILDED in ice. Mention that one too. Give us the specifics of your 'warm period' and tell me if it applied to the massive ice desert in the South, or just the NORTH ATLANTIC.
Next, polar bears losing habitat is a BIG problem for humans. If they can't make it in on their turf, they will come to ours. They like to eat humans enough already.
Whatever your opinions on the subject are, extra greenhouse gasses aren't helping. We can live without finite poison fuel.
Ungulates 2 months ago
@Ungulates The southern hemisphere has been cooling for a while now. We can shoot polar bears. There are already plenty of brown and black bears in the areas where polar bears would go, and these only eat a couple of people a year. Even if the medieval warming had been solely in the north, what would that prove? That climate is even weirder and more unpredictable than we thought?
lindybeige 2 months ago 2
It is true that the artic melting will not change the sea levels. But polar bears are becoming extinct. The ice caps are shrinking. But Greenland and the anartic melting will raise sea levels and it will alter ocean currents. The problem isn't that the earth can't withstand us, it is that we are threatening the delicate conditions of the earth that enable us to live on it.
Lathox 2 months ago
Good luck trying to make head way with acolytes of the church of global warming. It's a bit like tying to explain calculus to someone who believes you can only count as far as the number of fingers on your hands. It's interesting illustration of human behavior though.
KnockoffNigeI 2 months ago
"Turns out that we're not all going to die. Sorry." Priceless
91Roadwarrior 2 months ago
FOR SCIENCE!!!!
TheWhoaDude 2 months ago
You won't convince the global warmer fanatics Lindy, - oops, sorry that should be 'climate change' fanatics now shouldn't it, since they changed their terminology to be even more hazey and non-specific a few years back (while the snow was beginning to mount around our ears) ;-). It's the end of the world don't you know!
rockheimr 3 months ago
Nice straw man you've got there. I've never heard of anyone claiming that the north pole melting would cause sea levels to rise. It's the SOUTH POLE that worries people. And indeed Greenland, which represents about 7m of rise should ALL of its ice melt.
Note that the glaciers that have melted so far are but a tiny fraction of that total. Do you think Viking farms extend all the way to the deepest glaciers?
Stick to weaponry, and leave climatology to people who know something about it.
mcvos 4 months ago
@mcvos I have heard it said many times, and see it pictured over and over again - telly people love to show calving icebergs of the north pole to illustrate rising sea levels. The southern hemisphere is cooling, so isn't such a worry. No, there is no evidence I know of that Viking farms went to the heart of the interior.
lindybeige 4 months ago 2
@lindybeige Turns out TV people love dramatic images. Who'd have thought? But I think it's more an illustration of melting ice than of rising sea levels. For that, they usually point to melting glaciers. By the way, your story about spring suggests the north pole isn't really shrinking at all, but it is. Almost every summer, the icecap is smaller than the year before, and Russia, Canada Norway and others are already maneuvering to grab as much of the newly accessibly sea to drill for oil there.
mcvos 4 months ago
@mcvos Yes, at the moment there seems to be net shrinking, viewed over the last twenty years or so. For 90% of the Earth's past, there has been no north pole ice cap, so the existence of a north pole ice cap at all is unusual. This type of climatic change used to be called 'amelioration'.
lindybeige 4 months ago
@lindybeige For over 90% of the Earth's past, there also were no humans around. That doesn't mean I'd like us to go extinct.
There have been times when the whole earth was covered in ice, there have been times it was arid, there have been lots of changes over the billions of years the earth has existed. And quite often, those changes caused mass extinctions. Society right now is adapted to and depending on our current climate. Evacuating our coasts is more expensive than cutting the CO2.
mcvos 4 months ago
@mcvos There is a _theory_ of 'snowball Earth' yes, but most scientists in the field do not subscribe to it. Your last statement still seems to rely on the notion that cutting CO2 will make a difference to sea level.
lindybeige 4 months ago
@lindybeige Cutting CO2 will make a difference on the greenhouse effect, which has impact on the melting of icecaps and glaciers, which has impact on the sea level. This is not controversial science in any way (though politicians seem to have a hard time dealing with science).
mcvos 4 months ago
@lindybeige It's my understanding that the reason Earth is warm is because of the ozone and the principal ingredient for this warming, CO2, which traps radiation inside the earth's atmosphere by reflecting it back at the Earth once it has hit. It has been at a pretty good level and mankind hasn't existed long enough for it to reach a bad level. However an increase in this will increase this effect, heating the earth's surface.
KonijNx2 2 months ago
@lindybeige I think the main point is that, while if you leave an icecube in some water and it melts, that the water will be the same height, if you however heat that water it undergoes thermal expansion. Which is largely the worry. This is how a rise in CO2, is to be linked with a rise in sea levels.
KonijNx2 2 months ago
@KonijNx2 Water expands as it freezes. That's why it floats. When it melts, it gets smaller. You have to get it above 4 degrees C before it starts to expand again.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige Yes but when it expands while frozen, half of it isn't contributing to the level of water, right?
KonijNx2 2 months ago
@KonijNx2 My point was that causing ice to warm and melt and get warmer causes the level of the water to go down due to thermal contraction until the temperature gets to 4 degrees, so you have to warm ice up a hell of a lot before expansion adds to water level. A 4 degree shift is enormous. Elsewhere, in the shallower warm parts of the Pacific, the story is different.
lindybeige 2 months ago
......peak hight, they produce the same amount of CO2 and O2 and when they die and decompose, they actually produce more CO2 than O2, so if you don't cut trees down after they reach peak hight, they don't do anything. One thing we could do it use algae and grow it on the sea, in any water really, because algae actually sucks up CO2 and deposits it into the water instead of back into the air. The reason for the last ice age is due to a huge amount of algae on the sea, causing global cooling. :D
2224321 4 months ago
I believe that CO2 (Primarily) being released into the air does increase the world temperature, therefore supporting the greenhouse effect theory. You're correct in your video, however water becomes less dense when heated and therefore expands. Oh no! What gets me is, the misconceptions in which people go about reducing CO2 in the air. For example, trees do not suck up CO2, they actually release CO2 into the atmosphere, they also only release more O2 while they are growing, once they reach.....
2224321 4 months ago
Well it should not be called global warming, it should be climate change (CC)
CC currently IS WAY FASTER than it has ever been
the green house effect started riseing allmost four times as fast as it used to 10 thousand years ago.... around the same time as farming (evil cows and other things) also one thing you dont know is THAT THERE IS CO2 TRAPPED IN THE ICE, as the ice melts as well as other greenhouse gasses ( water vapor is greenhouse gas. and finally.... you are right for the most part
dimondmine2 6 months ago
Well it should not be called global warming, it should be climate change (CC)
CC currently IS WAY FASTER than it has ever been
the green house effect started riseing allmost four times as fast as it used to 10 thousand years ago.... around the same time as farming (evil cows and other things) also one thing you dont know is THAT THERE IS CO2 TRAPPED IN THE ICE, as the ice melts as well as other greenhouse gasses ( water vapor is greenhouse gas. and finally... you forgot about the ice on land!!
dimondmine2 6 months ago
@dimondmine2 I did not forget about the ice on land. This comes up towards the end of the video.
lindybeige 6 months ago 2
Hi Lloyd. I used to agree with you completely. But I think the global water level may rise a little bit. Sea water is salt water, as the ice melts, the sea water becomes less salty, thus less dense and a little higher sea water level.
Yet another point. I suspect that sea water thermally expands as global temperature rises.
So I just realized that using pure ice/pure water is not an example perfectly matching the real world, but close.
But looking at history, I may be wrong. It's all complicated
zhonggao84 6 months ago
@zhonggao84 Yes, you are right that in a four-minute video, I do not deal with every last detail of the issue. Reality always proves more complicated.
lindybeige 6 months ago
what about global cooling? in the atmospheric records of earth's history captured in arctic ice, global cooling always follows times of high carbon content in the air, which we are creating now by releasing carbon into the air.
LancePoint9 7 months ago
What about the ice that is sitting on land and then melts into the oceans? It would be just like a glass of water where the ice is sitting on the bottom and sticking out of the water.
LancePoint9 7 months ago
@LancePoint9 Yes, as I do say later in the video, the ice on Greenland is a different matter.
lindybeige 6 months ago
@lindybeige and Antartica, which dose, unlike the artic, have a land mass. and the ocean currents also run really close to it as well. Its not so much the amount of freash water that enters the ocean that we have to worry about, its how fast the fresh water enters it
raysetiger285 6 months ago
Well, you clearly missed the point of the problem that occurs if the arctic ice melts and global warming occurs. The point is: not the ice is the problem, and not even the ice that is on land.
The problem of global warming in the context of rising sea levels lies in the average oceanic temerature. This will rise, the warmer water expands and THIS will cause much higher sea levels, less stable weather conditions and lastly a threat to all coastal cities.
TheSocius 8 months ago 3
Even if it isn't catastrophic to life on Earth for the water level to rise, as you appeared to prove by pointing out that there have been no polar ice caps for 90% of the planet's history, does that necessarily mean that today's coastal settlements are safe?
KrioGnosz 9 months ago
Ironically enough, we're SUPPOSED to be in an Ice Age right now, and that's what has the real scientists at the forefront of Global Warming research worried.
Why Ironic? Because if we accept that GW is happening, than it may well have saved us all from freezing to death during the industrial revolution.
Does that make GW good? Not at all, but whether you believe in it or not there are plenty of logical reasons to switch to renewable energies and electric vehicles. Like gas prices, goddamn.
Squeejee09 10 months ago 6
hmm, this was interesting
claynate 11 months ago
your right there are warming periods through out history. however if you look at a graph that displays the changes in temperature you will see that the warming we are in now is massively above average. But i do see your point about the melting ice. in fact just the other day before watched this i managed to completely stump my geography teacher when i told her ice doesnt raise water levels. it was a proud moment for me
renegade94pro 11 months ago
I noticed that too, and he has a sword mounted on his back. Just like the ninjas, right?
Andernerd 1 year ago
Hah! Gotcha! The Viking at 4:03 has a double-bitted axe! ;-)
CmdrAvan 1 year ago
yeah, I guess that explains how oceanic fossils are found on mountains (and in Montana where I'm from) Perhaps these creatures evolved to grow legs, then de-evolved to lose them when they got to the mountains...
wpederson1 1 year ago
@wpederson1 The Reason for that phenomenom is that when the the earths tectonic plates collide together they create uplift and make mounatains. Thats why fossils of ocean dwellers can be found at the top of Mnt Everest.
RWW124 1 year ago
@RWW124 Yup, which is a bit of a problem for the bible's version of events.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige How so?
RWW124 1 year ago
If you care about the environment you are now considered an idiot.
Wow.
Theneongray2 1 year ago
@Theneongray2 I know, and if you care about truth and science, you are considered callous and evil. It can be a cruel world.
lindybeige 1 year ago 18
LOL I"m a viking that drives around in a gas guzzling jeep!!!
WOTASAP 1 year ago
i'm actually a fan of your videos, especially the historical stuff. but you have quite a few misconceptions concerning the science of climate change (as most people do, regardless of their political views).
i've managed to do quite a bit of reading on the subject out of sheer interest, so if you'd like to have a discussion, please shoot me a youtube message.
if not, at least check out the site "skeptical science", which should answer a lot of your questions.
dannykeat 1 year ago
Dammit I already bought scuba gear! Well maybe I can give it away to those poor polar bears.
Cyberspine 1 year ago
global warming however isn't the issue generally, it's rather the shift in climates period, any shift up or down affects the ecology at an overall level, if you count it on average yearly, and there are lots of species going extinct fairly rapidly due to human interference (not climate based so much)
so even climate change isn't enough to explain the issues given, but it's a part of it (even if overall everything is "the same") but rather that if place A gets place B's climate and vice versa ow
noobler9 1 year ago
don't forget antarctica ice is melting, which is highly above water already as well, greenland isnt' enough to raise the water level of the world lots, but don't forget that the continents shift as well, uhh,well the chemical composition of the world has changed a lot, dinosaurs wouldn't find enough oxygen to survive nowadays much less talking about height and weight typically, land has gotten higher + lower since those times I think... which would add volume capacity though
noobler9 1 year ago
@noobler9 Actually, Antarctica is getting colder, but the glaciers are moving faster, which is a puzzle.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige ahhh, that would be worth explaining on their part, one second let me see if I can find something...who am I kidding, I'm tired and need sleep, but one possibility that I find recurring often in climate change issues and discussion... is people don't make the damn measurements in the right places, or miss entire areas
the satellites that said there was none for instance, were in a decaying orbit, which made it seem like there wasn't an atmospheric cooling when there was
noobler9 1 year ago
@lindybeige OH, the answer's even on wikipedia apparently, look up antarctica and head off the section of "effects of global warming" it's there with citations 84-94, so 10 citations, and apparently it IS warming, slightly, by .25 celsius over 49 years
that's why I was saying a little change makes a big difference even, and yes it might be small changes but they still impact rather heavily at times
it IS an entire planet after all, small to it, big to us~
noobler9 1 year ago
Most of this eco-friendly global warming nonsense is pushed because it is an easy way to get money. You make something, call it eco-friendly, then people will buy it because they make themselves believe they are saving the planet.
In reality, the planet isn't going anywhere, we will be long gone before the planet has any problems. It has seen a lot worse than plastic bags in its time.
demomanchaos 1 year ago
we have 10 years of full mechinization of our countries, without china having cars. The thing with global warming that you dont hear is, we have high co2 level because we gain global significants with it. It has to end eventually.
Brianjacob5050 1 year ago
LOVE IT!
rebarazz 1 year ago
I guess we're pretty safe until Antarctica starts dwindling, which would be a few thousands of years.
minimacer 1 year ago
This is a minor point, but the ice is mostly fresh water and it's floating in seawater.
Just as when you mix a liter of water with a liter of alcohol, you don't get 2 liters of mix, due to small molecules filling gaps between large molecules, when you mix fresh water with salt water, you don't just add up their volumes.
A small effect, but something to bear in mind. People are making all sorts of crazy predictions about the effects of slightly diluting the ocean.
Funchucks 1 year ago
Didn't particularily like this rant.
Of course it's true that ice melting in water does nothing to the sealevel, and that - you know - the world won't end with us all perishing in a second flood even if all the ice does melt, but that doesn't mean the rise in sealevels won't have profound effects on large parts of the world, especially considering how fond we are of building our cities as close to the ocean as we can without falling in.
Its effects are overblown in the media but not trivial.
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
the scientists are not actually saying that climate change will result in disaster. This is a position that more politicians make than scientists. But the sea levels have risen somewhat, this can be easily observed, and are expected to rise somewhat more in the future..how much and what this will really do is simply a mystery. A lot more ice is melting now than 'spring' of the last couple centuries. When there were no polar ice caps half the US was underwater.
idlenessss 1 year ago
Most of the ice isn't actually floating on water
bugbeardood 1 year ago
@bugbeardood The northern ice cap is, and that's the bit that's melting most and the bit they always show on telly.
lindybeige 1 year ago
The danger is the ice that is on the ground, such as the Antarctic, which probably has more to do with ozone holes than some cockamamie CO2 theory
adrastea99 1 year ago
Of course the melting of the arctic polar ice cap wouldn't do much, if anything, to the sea level. However, Greenland has roughly 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice on it. If the entirety of Greenland's ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by over 6 meters. Say goodbye to most coastal cities around the world. And if Antarctica's ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by 10 times that. So, you're right that the arctic ice is no issue. But the fate of the ice on land is a big one.
mdk31 1 year ago
Did you study a lot? Or is it your common sense? It would be cool to have found that out myself...
Smoothbluehero 1 year ago
Actually, sea levels really were higher in the past, Britain and Spain and whatnot included. This begins to change especially from the 15th century onwards. Your Viking aside is evidence against your main argument.
531rgb 1 year ago
the ice berg at 0:12 looks like a penis lol
no homo
6rasta6bhoy6 1 year ago
You're right, but I think that the major problem about the ice cap melting is that the entire arctic ice cap is made of freshwater. So if it melts and the freshwater mixes with the seawater the oceanic currents will change and so will the climate.
DRMProd 1 year ago
Well, for 90% of Earth's past there have been no ice caps, and at the moment the southern hemisphere is cooling. There is good reason to think that changes in ocean currents from such events as you describe are temporary. In short, yes, things may become bad, but I'm choosing not to panic.
lindybeige 1 year ago
Well of course, I've never said we should panic. Hell, I don't even think we should do anything. People tend to overreact a bit lately. Also, something very common is for people to underestimate human ability to adapt to the environment, I don't, so even if the climate changes a lot, nothing really disastrous is going to happen.
DRMProd 1 year ago
Well..
Few years ago I was saying the same things, I think it's simply the Archimede's principle.
But unfortunately the danger doesn't come from the melting of the Arctic cap but in the Oceans temperature increase and their dilatation.
renybot 2 years ago
I appreciate this video as it removes the worries from my mind that we might be in trouble from global warming. Thank you!
B12adSC 2 years ago
Actually, a lot of England certainly, and I assume elsewhere, WAS flooded at the time of the vikings. Cambridgeshire was mostly underwater, and the names of the places reflect tthis: 'Eye' comes from the (I believe) Saxon word for island (it might not be sxon, but that is it's root in some language).
The flat bits of Somerset, such as Weston Super Mare, and more were also flooded.
So the idea that melting Ice doesn't flood is piffle and bum.
Roriniho 2 years ago
Yes, and Glastonbury was an island. Trouble is: these places were flooded before the middle age warming period, and they ceased being flooded when they were drained by more modern farming methods.
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige Fair point. I'll get back to you on that one. Loving the videos btw, keep them coming!
Roriniho 2 years ago
o darn it, i was hoping global warming was going to kill us all....o well i suppose there is always 2012 to look forward to
Pendragondnd 2 years ago
Fingers crossed.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Why didn't my comments work?
As well as the added water from land-locked ice sheets, ice which is above ground, and ice which is stored vertically on ice sheets (i.e. far above the water), adding to the total volume of water, the world's water level will also rise as water expands when warmer. The lack of ice-covered world surface will also decrease the reflective properties of the world, and lead to more heat storage in the atmosphere, more ice melting, etc etc vicious cycle.
wisehelayna 2 years ago
Have patience. Your comments take time to come through, and don't show ion your screen straight away even if others can see them. This confuses a lot of people and I commonly get multiple copies of the same comment. Also, I have my settings such that comments need approval by me. I approve pretty much everything.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Comment removed
wisehelayna 2 years ago
The water should be the same amount- however the sea level rise prediction are because a lot of the ice in the world is on land-locked ice sheets not currently just floating around, or ice which is kind of stacked up, or on land, and because of things expanding more when warmer.
wisehelayna 2 years ago
ok, yeah i got a cup with water and ice and drew a line at the waterlevel, ice menlted, the water level MAYBE went up a half millimetre..
ok im convinced.
elgostine 2 years ago
as a scientist, i fel REALLY embarrassed i didnt think of that...however im going to double check your theory by settng up some ice in a glass , ill put my science to use and do it rigorously with efore after measurements, ill keep them weighed to account for evaporation. etc etc...
did they find any newpreserved swords in greenland by any chance?? i know they always find a sword or an axe. or some sort of sharp pointed, metal thingy in that part of the world every so often.
elgostine 2 years ago
As your people are wont to say (at least in an American's fanciful imagination): "Good show."
MisericordeConcern 2 years ago
the problem aren't the polar ice caps melting, the problem is all the ice that is trapt in places like greenland that isn't floating in the water... when that melts, presumably, it will flow down into the seas and oceans and that might produce the water level rise
MatoVuc 2 years ago
Nothing motivates like fear & a good cause. Sooner or later the oil runs out. More sooner than later. So how do we get the world to retool for the inevitable day? How do you get everyone to embrace alternate types of energy. Do I hear Global Warming? Maybe. Who doesn't want to save a Polar Bear. Bottom line is, its about the oil running out. And when it runs out everything will be in place to cope with it. It will happen seamlessly. And we all have the idea of Global Warming to thank for it.
housekitteh 2 years ago
I suspect basic economics and science will do a better job than GMT.
lindybeige 2 years ago
yeah, i wish.. unfortunately people seem to be extraordinarily stubborn and noones listening.
tere are other massive arguements for removing coalin particular, one being that to burn it isnt too effecient. secondly it releases lots of nasties like sulfur dioxides, arsenic, cadmium, theres also the economic unsustainability i.e town grows around coal mine, mine runs out, and the ppl are left without a means of work and so it gets abandoned.
elgostine 2 years ago
You seem like a nice, smart guy but your understanding of the environment is way off. First, nobody's denying the warming periods. Climate is a very complex system and "global warming" is actually an awful misnomer. When the climate goes haywire, some parts get hotter while others get colder. Also, you're confusing natural climate fluctuation with the fluctuations spurred on by skyrocketing levels of CO2. Both exist. One's bad but inevitable; the other's much worse but maybe still preventable.
angryseraph 2 years ago
CO2 levels have risen very slightly, they have not skyrocketted. They are very far below levels of much of the past. MANY people are deliberately not mentioning known warm periods. I didn't say denial. All weather gets blamed on global warming now. It's like a religion where everything that doesn't fit is a test of faith. The last few years have been cold in Britain, and this gets explained as a sign of global warming.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Is the arctic ice actually floating? And what about all the ice in antarctica?
piokul 2 years ago
Yes. Most of the Antarctic ice is over land, but the Antarctic is getting colder at the moment, along with most of the southern hemisphere, much of the Atlantic and Pacific, the Eastern Mediterranean and various other places.
lindybeige 2 years ago
i cant believe i didn't realize the thing about the water level not raising. i argue against global warming being the fault of man all the time, and yet i didn't know that one. this will be useful.
EmperorBarbarosa 2 years ago
Another awesome video!
Lloyd you are just too good!
ononsual 2 years ago
While I think your video rocked, I think you might have over-simplified a bit in order to make a point.
The difference in density between salt water and the ice floating on top might actually mean that a small fraction of the ice above water would indeed contribute to raising the water line. I haven't done the math (although I'll let you know if I do), but I thought I'd mention it in the interest of completeness. :)
Renidus 2 years ago
One criticism: The ice cube on a water glass analogy isn't perfect, since the ocean's water is salty.
1.09 liters of ice = 1 kg.
0.98 liters of ocean water = 1 kg.
For every kg. of floating ice you have, a kg. of ocean water will be displaced. So far so good. Assuming the ice is entirely fresh water, then when it melts, fresh water mixes with salt water, and salt concentration levels in the ocean fall.
Salt concentration falls, ocean's density decreases, volume of ocean increases slightly.
Taznak 2 years ago
Yes, but of course the ice cap isn't _pure_ fresh water. So what happens to the salt when the ice freezes? Does it increase the saltiness of the rest of the ocean or does it go elsewhere?
lindybeige 2 years ago
When the ice freezes, I would imagine the saltiness of the rest of the ocean increases, making the ocean water slightly more dense and lowering the water level. Analogously, when the ice melts, the ocean water becomes slightly less dense and the water level rises.
If the ice caps melted, I'd expect the water levels to rise a little, a feet or two at most. Certainly not 20 meters like Al Gore would suggest.
Taznak 2 years ago
Correct - the sea gets saltier, and in saltier sea, the ice bergs will float higher out of the water by exactly the same amount, so this still makes no difference to the sea level.
lindybeige 2 years ago
I believe it would work the other way around- as more ice freezes, the sea gets saltier and the water level tends to drop; since the salt concentration in the water is now greater, as you said the a lower proportion of the ice will be underwater- and it's only the ice that's underwater that displaces the water, raising the water level.
Less ice underwater means less displacement of water, which again means a lower sea level.
Taznak 2 years ago
If it helps to make the example, you can picture it like this: if the sea were so dense that the ice didn't sink -at all-, it's pretty evident to see that the water from the melting iceberg would contribute to the waterline. (It would spread over the surface)
So, yes, comparative density of the liquid and the solid does make a difference (although this is a ridiculously embellished example, obviously; the difference in density is nowhere near as high).
Renidus 2 years ago
A matter of fact, witch is the rediculous part, is that the overall waterlevel, would (IF all the ice was on the ground, as on greenland etc.) raise like 7 metres according to someone ylleing: Were screwed!!! - Still, its a fact the real outcome, because of the effect Lloyd made clear, wouldnt even be a metre...And thats in a few hundred years, possibly - but a fact says too, that at relatively equal ammount of water will eventually freeze at Antarctica again, jus covering less = less troubles!
Swampax 2 years ago
Yet another global warming myth busted by physics 101. Great video.
ClockworkHobo 2 years ago
It looks like the polar bear is riding atop the head of Nero.
gorzinplatz 2 years ago
Wow, great video! Good thing there is no sort of continental ice pack located on land......
except ANTARTICA
and thanks for disseminating a terrible explanation that totally disregards the affects of melting Antartica, storm power, and desertification that come with climate change you limey hack.
pj0900 2 years ago
I mention Greenland. The southern hemisphere is cooling down at the moment, and I think Antarctica is to be found there.
lindybeige 2 years ago
I live in New Zealand and yes it is bloody cold here right now
stonehartfloydfan 2 years ago
You mention Greenland towards the very end but why do you waste a good 4 minutes ranting against a strawman arguement when everyone knows the real fear is of the water contained in the glaciers of Greenland and Antartica.
MrMonkeybat 2 years ago
It isn't straw man, in that I have heard many people make false statements about the melting Arctic and calving icebergs/sheets. Yes, these arguments may not be coming from the most well-informed people, but they still make it onto serious television programmes. Antarctica is different because the climate is changing differently down there. Greenland is unambiguously warming up. Exactly what's happening in Antarctica remains a mystery. The S hemisphere overall is cooling down.
lindybeige 2 years ago
It is a poor argument and to say that you have heard many people, including serious television programmes, making the statement that Arctic icecap melting will raise sea levels when they are scientifically wrong. You should have spent your time showing up the fallacy of their statement and pointed out that if Greenland, Antarctic (and, ultimately, high alpine) icecaps do melt then the sea levels will rise.
kage110 2 years ago
Well, yes, but there is no evidence that massive amounts of Antarctica will melt. The public is aware of such amateur publicity-seeking types like Mr Gore who have made it widely believed that the sea levels will rise vastly more than the currently scientifically informed and more modest (non-alarmist) estimates (of about two feet total).
lindybeige 2 years ago
I agree there MAY be alarmists but the risk of not heeding their alarm call is greater than heeding it and being wrong. There is no evidence that a large asteroid will hit the earth either, but there is evidence to suggest it could happen
kage110 2 years ago
I'm not sure that I follow your analogy - so are you suggesting that we should be developing anti-asteroid defences, just in case?
lindybeige 2 years ago
I take it you are aware of the practice of 'risk assessment'? Comparing the likelihood of a possible outcome against the effect of that outcome? If there was evidence to suggest asteroid defences are worhtwhile and effective then, yes, we should build them. In global warming, the risk is if we release too much CO2 it will be catastrophic but the fact is, until we do we won't know if your worst case scenario is true. Cutting emmissions now is relatively low cost compared to the possible outcomes.
kage110 2 years ago
If only all the green-liberal-eco-environmentalist blockheads would use simple logic like this. This video about sums it up.
Plisken1986 2 years ago
Very entertaining and informative, as per usual. One never stops to think about the idiocy of these theories until someone like you points it out.
TheMetalPenguin 2 years ago
Oh great now you have me picturing hordes of Vikings pillaging England on their SUVs. Glorious sight, no doubt.
KKarron 2 years ago
Apparently, they never sorted their waste for the recyclers either.
lindybeige 2 years ago
aww do we have to survive, i was hoping for the majority of the world to drowned, now thats a fun afternoon...sighhh...well i suppose there is always the zombie invasion to look forward to.
Pendragondnd 2 years ago
None, so far as I know. Northern Europe is very wet, and southern Europe is far away.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Viking axes. Wait what is the video about?
InvertedHorizon 2 years ago
And so it starts...
lindybeige 2 years ago
The Viking battle axe was a very deadly weapon. It could easily cleave through armor and still leave a mortal wound. They were made by welding a sharp cutting edge onto a shaped block of iron. The butt end was then slotted over a wooden handle and wedged tight. It served multiple purposes as it was also their working axe. This made it a very affordable weapon.
InvertedHorizon 2 years ago
keep up the good work,mate!I have enjoyed your videos,and am looking forward to new ones.
All the best.
Loveyouall91 2 years ago
Hah, exellent video! I don't even remember how many times I've argued exactly this with "enviormentalists" and back in the day when I went to school, (some of) the teachers just ignored my, perfectly valid arguments, shows what media and a teaching plan can do :/
burren1 2 years ago
You may be correct on the "Arctic Icecap" (balacing in the water not causing any sort of sea level rise) but the Antarctic icecap is sitting on top of a landmass (bed rock) like Greenland. Hmm....
Also populations and population densities are a bit different then they were in the dark ages (viking times). A slight change in temperature and climate affects more than just water levels (disease for instance).
artacree 2 years ago
Ah - but the southern hemisphere is not warming up, it's cooling.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Well said. People do love it when they get a reason to say that the world will soon end.
And global warming... Which is really only the swing-back from the cold bit in the late medieval ages.
By the way, the polar bears they show on ice blocks out in the ocean are not actually stranded. Polar bears swim sometimes 60 miles just to go fishing, and they often swim to blocks of ice in the middle of the water and then swim back. Not exactly stranded.
NathanielOfLight 2 years ago
Here, here - couldn't agree more!
bluesharkoo7 2 years ago