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
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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?
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.
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
@@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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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😂😂😂😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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
Hmmm, during the late cretatious period around 90,000,000 years ago, Antarctica was a swampy temperate train forest. This makes me question the 1 in 700,000,000,000 clickbate title😢
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 :(.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.😂
To the question of whether what is happening in Antarctica is climate change or something else, I have to say that the plausible answer is that climate change is involved. Climate change is driving rapid change on every other corner of the globe, so it doesn't make sense for Antarctica to be the exception Even if the primary cause of the current trend turns out to be unrelated to climate change, it will have been amplified by climate change at the minimum.
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?
@@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.
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.
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.
Then there is the other trend that is a bit darker for Humanity, but no less effective in having an effect on population. That trend is that the climate is changing fast and we can't adapt our countries and cities fast enough. Sure some enterprising people may sell and move to a cold state like Minnesota for instance. But on a regional or continental scale, this rapid change is already affecting populations and we see that in the peoples of Northern Africa and the Middle East and Central Asia trying to leave their countries to live in Europe. What happens when the climate starts to really negatively impact agriculture to the extent that we can no longer support 8 billion people? My thought is that we will have much worse population dynamics and frictions and there will become a need to "protect" ones own water and food growing regions and we could see famine and war spread especially in the poorest regions. We are seeing this now in the Arab Spring with the uprisings in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria, and the wars in Ethiopia and Eretria. We are seeing it in places like India where greater ethnic/religious tensions are leading to internal conflicts and population redistributions. Also in Myanmar with the expulsion of the Muslim Rohingya from Rakhine by the Buddhist majority. It's just not happening in a very massive way...yet. But the dark clouds are forming and we could see a point in as little as four years where there just isn't enough food to go around. The Human population will be impacted and probably decreased significantly with the new climate restricted food and water supply. Sorry, for such an apocalyptic thought. I still hope for the women going to school trend with just smaller and fewer families making less people that will in turn reduce the impact on the environment. Go smart Girls!
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.
Hello, may I borrow some part of this clip to use in a project about the problem of global ice melt? This is a project of the GCF Fund that helps develop Thailand. This clip is not commercial in any way.
So, anybody else looked at or considered that the 7-sigma SST change last year could’ve been cause by exothermic mass ejection perhaps in the middle of the Atlantic where we have almost zero clue what’s on the ocean floor? Maybe something like the Hungarian Tonga eruption? Or maybe it’s tied to the Earths weakening electro magnetic field? I guarantee you it is not due to a commensurate change in human CO2 emission. The temp delta is too great over too short a period. 2024 looks to be a repeat of last year regarding SST.
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.
Climate scientist in the 60s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Climate scientist in the 70s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Climate scientist in the 80s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Climate scientist in the 90s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Climate scientist in the 2000s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Climate scientist in the 2010s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Climate scientist in the 2020s: world will be ice free in 10yrs Politicians during these times: Im gonna buy a house by the beach Theres a trend somewhere in there
There is only one little issue that you all miss...Heat goes UP! COLD goes DOWN!! According to the latest data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the global estimates of CO2 emissions by source for coal, natural gas, and oil are as follows: Comprehensive table with the final gas coal and petroleum CO2 emissions analysis and results vs total annual CO2 in the atmosphere from all emissions sources: Fuel Source CO2 Emissions from Combustion (2021) Contribution to Atmospheric CO2 (ppmv) Percentage Contribution to 420 ppmv Natural Gas 7.9 billion tonnes 1.01 ppmv 0.24% Coal 15.3 billion tonnes 1.96 ppmv 0.47% Petroleum 9.7 billion tonnes 1.24 ppmv 0.30% Total 32.9 billion tonnes 4.21 ppmv 1.01%
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.
With educating people regarding climate change through this video. Maybe some hints at people changing their method of heating, their homes and schools and office buildings. Just as a reminder
Sea Ice can not affect sea levels. The volume of water in the ice is the same as the volume of water that supports the ice.That is why ice floats. It weighs the same, but is less dense, causing part of the ice to stick above the water. The only thing that causes sea level rises is the ice on land. During the little ice age, EVERY glacier in the world expanded. After the bottom of the little ice age, the earth began to get more energy from the sun to the ground, causing the ice to melt. This resulted in a gradual increase in temperature. Despites claim, the artic did not melt in 1998, or 2005, or 2013, or 2015, or 2022. There is no evidence it is going to disappear anytime soon.
The reason they say one in seven hundred billion years is to show that the model is wrong. Earth is only as old as a fraction of that, AND THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF SAYING IT. Its supposed to sound outlandish and puts the statistics into perspective.
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.
Blue Ocean event, yeah, but it doesn't equal a _Blue Sky Event_ Far from it. Over open water where the ice just melted, air humidity is higher than over ice, and clouds form easily. It's been reported by NOAA, cloud cover in the Arctic nearly _doubles_ when the ice is gone. Blue Ocean can't absorb anything if the sun rays don't reach the surface. And those clouds are even more effective in blocking the sun from the surface, because the sun doesn't get very high in the sky, and cloud shadows reach far and wide. _But_ that don't mean the air over the ocean don't warm up. On the opposite. The clouds and the water vapor in them, are extremely strong greenhouse effectors, more effective than CO2 itself. Clouds are very strong isolation, you feel it immediately at night when there are clouds. It don't get hair as cold as it would under an starry open night. Much more heat is kept under the clouds than in the open skies over ice. It's a very strong self-reinforcing effect, which will warm the polar climate even stronger. But not by Blue Ocean, but by a Cloud Covered sky.
Given human history, I'm not optimistic that humankind is prepared to seriously tackle global warming & climate change (too many influential people have too much money invested in the wrong things, ecological destruction caused by resource extraction awa damage caused by extreme events). Soooo, how do we save Arctic & Antarctic species - how about building them floating "cities"? Ocean X is a global initiative seeking to build floating cities for people. So how about we use that same tech to build floating platforms for penguins, and seals, and dens for polar bears, and habitat for other marine species????
How do penguins breed? How do they do the act itself? I am totally baffled. Can our truly stunningly beautiful narrator demonstrate this for us, please? I volunteer to be the male Emperor Penguin!
Given that the earth is “Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years” your use of years instead of odds are….pretty odd.
@@penguinuprighter6231 I dunno what's up with the RU-vid AI morality police but it's eating all my comments. - I just posted that I was about to watch an episode but my comment has vanished. - Anway I watched the episode "Toboganning", I recognized it although it was a bit beyond my toddler-days. Still, I'll watch more. I love stop-motion animation very much. Thanks for the tip!
Please correct the 1 in 700 billion year event mistake, as the planet is just 4 billion years old! Did he mean 1 in 700 thousand? or one in 700 million?
This notion of adapting to the change in climate as an option is odious. There is no adapting to the breakdown of the climate because it is contiguous. Scramble and struggle are more apt terms.
