😂so true 👍

🥵

Truth.

Hey man, but it the CO2 I tell ya, what ice age?

You forgot to mention good scientific discussion. That's gone too.

congrats to you and the best of lucks !

Wouldn't that lose the efficiency of scale and lead to worse impact on the climate?

@@gramgramchabadou2524 Z. M mom massik

Think it will make the average Joe more likely to watch. Personally, I liked watching some extreme skiing.

You are right that Physics Girl's normal audience doesn't need the ski dude, and the fatuous 'experiment', but a video like this is aimed at the wider public, who will watch because of the ski dude and then hopefully learn something about the scale of the glacial melt/global warming problem. So we are not really the audience here, which is why it all seems a bit odd. There is a whole series of these 'climate games' videos featuring youtube creators and athletes of various flavours. There are still a whole load of idiots claiming it's all a scam here in the comments, so we really do still need basic education for normal people, and stuff like this probably helps.

I love that quote by him

Who?

@@wolfiestreet6899 The one and only Carl Sagan

@@dapotatoguy7019 Never heard of her.

@@wolfiestreet6899 its a him-

Yeah that was kind of a weird beat. My initial thoughts from the heli shots were "wow, with all those crevasses that must be almost impossible to ski, what an amazing guy! I wonder how he's going to navigate them?" And then he just barrels straight into them and crashes XD I'm sure the guy is incredibly skilled but it was cut very weirdly.

I skied on a glacier in Germany

And think about it, 99% of the people who go and ski places like this, they don't have a helicopter circling around...

@@kukri1877 99% of people who ski places like that DO have a helicopter. There's no ski lifts up a Glacier, & judging by the terrain he parachuted over, nobody's climbing up there without a chopper.

What do you call a climate change promoter who flies around in planes and helicopters burning massive amounts of fuel as they tell you to change?

@@calholli Freddy made a song about it: "I'm a great pretender..."

That's when you know it's well funded propaganda.. You can bet that she didn't pay for any of this.

@@calholli Doesn't change the fact that it's all alarming and depressing. Quite frankly if you disagree with this video, I do see why all of this is happening, and why the human race does not have a good outlook on the future; because of people like you.

@@farlig8666 That's a very bold accusation.

@@calholli How is literally showing a place where stuff happens propaganda? Sure they talk about it but showing a video by using helicopters is propaganda? That's a very cheap argument.

@@paulgoogol2652 Ummm, lets see, the blame is heavily on the burning of fossil fuels as to probably the heaviest leading cause of global warming and thus glacial melt and yet uses a helicopter (i.e., burns more fossil fuel) to make a video that really doesn't amount to anything being that is a representation of a supposed single hour sample of a 8760hour cycle (i.e., a year cycle). You really cant get any more statistically insignificant than that. Sounds a lot like propaganda actually. She even mentions in the video that the glacial melt is at a higher rate than anticipated (predicted would have been a better word to use here but whatever...) . So if anticipation (or prediction) is off, then there is a problem elsewhere in the equation. if *A* causes *B* and *C* is a resulting evidence of *B*, then if your anticipation (or prediction) of *C* is wrong, then there's a good probability that *A* is wrong too. Is global warming real? YES (no argument there from me what so ever). Is it manmade or man heavily influenced? That is very debatable and there is supporting evidence that contradicts the general belief that man / co2 is a heavy driving influence. I honestly think that many in the field actually know this but are too afraid to admit it because the real cause is uncontrollable destiny. One question I have posed many time to people who claim to be climate scientist and yet this question causes them to disappear from the conversation every time is: _"if co2 is one of the most significant driving factors of global warming, and our current atmospheric level is just over 400ppm, can you explain why based on ice core samples, all previous interglacial periods had peak co2 levels below 300ppm except for one that hit 300 and during the same time of those peak co2 levels, average global temps were a few degree's C warmer than current and sea levels ranged from 10m to 80m higher then today. If co2 is such a driving factor and it is currently 25% higher than the last know peak, why is our average temp still considerably cooler and sea levels considerably lower? Also, why does all of the data suggest that co2 peaks occurred between 600 to 1000yrs after the peak temp and peak sea level of all the past interglacial periods?" Its rather interesting that up until that they are eager to answer or at least attempt to answer every question posed but as soon as that above (or variation of it) is posed, they always go dark.

Exact same feeling here

Yeah, where did they measure these 22 swimming pools at? How was it done?

@@Robert256 that's still a simpler calculation. Knowing volume and rates of flow, you can tell how long each would take, no?

Climate Discussion Nexus! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r9GamNJinLCYcYk.html

This is my issue with all the climate change talk. I’m not doubting that the climate is changing, I know it is and it has since the beginning of time. I just need scientists to approach this in a more realistic non feelings based way. And also acknowledge the potential positives of the earth warming. Maybe it won’t get so many people on board with “saving the planet” but it’ll be the truth and the start of all of us working together instead of working for a cause. You can’t feed me sugar and tell me it’s candy

I hadn´t even noticed the Red Bull logo!

@@isaacmartinez442 Well said. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. It wasn't that many years ago, alarmists were screaming "the planet is heading for an ice age".

@@isaacmartinez442 I'd recommend checking potholer54. He has a more objective scientific approach to the subject. I agree with you; climate change is big enough of a problem in itself that you don't need to sprinkle it with exaggerations. I think that puts people off. Well, it's certainly good to take time to talk about the problem and hence make people more aware of it, but I don't think Diana gave the problem enough justice in this video. Maybe it isn't as entertaining to some, but it would be a lot more informative with more data and statistics.

@@timjohnson979 so you must know about the debate between the effect of light reflecting pollution in the atmosphere vs infrared absorbing pollution? Just because news articles love thrilling stories doesn't mean scientists actually ever thought an ice age was coming any time soon.

It’s all misinformation to pull the leftist narrative and to give it shock value to the under educated in such matters of climate science.

The fossil fuel industry funded it.

This is a KZfaq originals video. They usually have better quality than normal because KZfaq helps them. With cameras at least and I'm pretty sure help fund it to.

@@marvintpandroid2213 so big tobacco funds anti smoking campaign, their just gas lighting to the leftist crowd, does not make it right. It just politics.

Yes, quality is more important than the message we want to spread

that's the thing about exponential growth on the level of the planet. humans think they can keep up with the "slow" changes, until one day, we won't be able to.

Simple Things, it nice to be old you have time to see things others do not. Physics Girl says things have to change, yes but how? This movie took place near Vancouver Canada... It has about 3 to 5 months of no or very limited sun ... How will wind and solar work? We have no battery that can run Vancouver electric needs even for a day. So what energy do you use? Vancouver is in a high seismic zone so nuclear is out of the question so are we not left with natural gas? How does a electric car work in minus 30F degrees? (Ottawa and Montreal) How big does the electric grid have to be to power cars and heat homes in Canada? What happens when a Canada use only electricity? How is green energy going to work in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal Canada? The cleanest energy that will work in Canada is natural gas? But it still produce carbon ... Nuclear is possible but all the green people seem to oppose it... It nice to be old, because I can ask the questions and the politician can keep on lying and it really will not affect my life because I will be dead soon. Simple Things many people care but like everything else climate is political so we have fake news from the government on how to deal with the problem So my question is the kids hear and see the problem but how to fix it? Just ask yourself what is the carbon footprint of a windmill? Don't forget all the concrete underground that keeps it from falling over. Cheers have a great day and now back to the simple things in live a nice breakfast then SSS.

@@ardentenquirer8573 tl;dr just do your part.

You mean when Texas had an unusual cold wave, and suffered the consequences of trying to build a "renewable" power supply grid like California? I think the lesson I've learned is that people are being led down a path to a much reduced standard of living, and they are accepting it.

Why do you think electricity prices has gone up?

I think a lot have lost hope tbh, and I don't blame them

@@dylan7476 yes. But a lot of em are trying. Rather than giving up we should support those who are at least trying, maybe that would make a change.

They do, and they don't, what makes feeling bad from what I hear my teachers say (they participate in the GIEC) is that writing it, staying it and seeing everyone in power greenwashing after while the power knows that makes them feel bad. God the first summit for the climate was 40 years ago, and we are still producing each year more carbon dioxide than the precedent. And the production over the years is exponential. And all that is shown here is the climate, but when we add like biology and ask ourselves about the crops and the future of agriculture,... In France the vine production already suffers a lot from climate change, but vine is not necessary for leaving, other plants are quite important. (I study geosciences in France and won't do research in climate, cause gosh it's depressing and not my thing, but probably research in erosion, and yeah, it's depressing and thrilling at the same time, to be where it matters, where it makes sense etc)

@Paul What do you mean 🤔.

@Paul its been soon since the 70s. Hadn't happened yet. Poles are flipping though so...

Don't believe everything, just because someone you like sells it.

​@Nātānsaurus First of all - it is one sided propaganda, and anything in propaganda is rarely the truth. Record temperatures? Look at historic (untampered) data - yes, there's actually meteorological historic data, that shows as hot or hotter weather than we've had this year. Secondly: Probably that glaciers somewhere are reclining - as they've always done - and somewhere else are expanding - as they've always done - and that it has nothing or at most a negligible amount to do with human CO2 emissions.

@@Peter_Riis_DK and where do I get this 'Untampered' data from? And what is the proof that it is untampered?

@Nātānsaurus I'm not really sure what you're on about, but I see you're a follower of the climate religion. Pay more taxes. Good luck with that - the shame is that you guys are dragging the innocent along with you. Man.

@@soutriksarangi5580 That is all information you'll have to seek out yourself - me pointing could be construed as tampering. By the way, beware that tampering often is explained as "corrections" or "alignment".

Sorta like trying to get people to admit that Biden is mentally in no condition to be trying to run a country....Or even drive a car around. I understand many people don't like Trump but that doesn't mean an old man with dementia is better for the job.

@@michaelbrinks8089 this video is about climate change. Why bring politics in? The more ppl make scientific discussions like vaccines/global warming as political, the worse those things may get.

@@michaelbrinks8089 anything is preferable than trump.

@@soutriksarangi5580 How come you can't see that the climate debate is all about politics. Insidious politics at that.

@@Peter_Riis_DK this year's Nobel prize in physics went to researchers who did their work on climate change models. So is that a big political propaganda there too?

I have seen the RedBull logo at some point, perhaps they sponsor the skier. It would be better if they also talked to some proper scientists, such as climatologist or glaciologist.

I was thinking the CD guys could pull up something that would demonstrate the water offshed as well!

It was there at the end. Problem is there's so much water coming down, how do you get a sense of scale?

Kathleen Madigan said it best in a bit about the National Debt, Might as well as tell me it's mashed potatos I was also shocked at how little I felt when she mentioned 19 pools were filled.... idk why I feel I need to 'see' it, outside my state motto.

The majority of water flowing off a glacier ends up flowing in to crevasses and moulins, and flowing under the glacier pretty quickly. There are massive rivers under that glacier that are entirely invisible to us, until it reaches the lakes and rivers below the glacier.

This video was sponsored by Pfizer

Not to mention that the title itself isn't worth a physics channel. It feels like an equivalent of measuring time in kilograms or length in kelvins.

He's there to give you perspective. He ran those mountains when they were all snow, now he's pointing out how rapidly they've receded. You see a daredevil having fun, I see a dude reminiscing about the past, and giving an idea as to how quickly things have changed in just his short lifetime. People don't care or want to see the physics behind it, so they need to see the actual results of our actions. You show a room full of average folks a physics essay on the matter, they're not going to sit around and be bored. You show them the mountains going away, maybe they'll pay attention. Hard to believe, right?

@@MegaHooked They don't show the physics or the data because it would ruin the climate change narrative. The climate is fine. Glacier melting is normal and cyclical. Climate change is either not happening, will be mild, or a net positive. The best science is 1 to 1.5c increase by sometime in the 2100s. Hardly a problem.

The proposed loss of albedo is overrated since almost all of the planet is water or non-iced land. I would bet there is more heat retention from cities than loss of ice albedo.

I'd like to know, if you've ever encountered a climate change denier, what do they think about your own experiences, as in opposed to mainstream media telling them the facts, you tell them your own experience, will they still deny that? I can understand someone not believing numbers from an outside source, but when it is person to person, you telling them, how do they react?

The thing I resent most about it is that it is being used as a means by politicians to exploit the poor... when governments and corporations are the main culprits.

Just give them florida and build a wall, they will learn

@@twirlyhat Walls won't work in Florida - the ground is made of porous coral like a sponge, so the water rises from underneath.

Glaciers left the New York city area 20,000 years ago. If global warming was a real threat, they'd be building nuclear plants instead of "green" energy which needs to be backed by gas plants putting out emissions when solar/wind has issues and can't keep up with demand. But those gas companies and their lobbyists, they sure like to promote green energy, right??

What's annoying is that something like this is required. Because it seems idiots don't believe scientists when they're told what's happening. And need to be shocked like this to believe it.

@@Fogmeister Tell it to the Chinese. The rest of us are well aware.

@@ploppyploppy lol! Good joke. 😂 How many Americans still "roll coal" on EVs? 😂

You should check the credits, to find out which helicopter company it was and notice the mention about their carbon neutral program, which should make you go search their website and learn more, which points out they are investing in carbon offset programs........

yeh, I had the exact same question. Cool video (due to the huge budget) - but a little lite on science :p

It's propaganda. No one is being displaced by rising sea levels. She has sold her soul to the almighty dollar.

6 years isn't even half of a sun cycle. Quit being a willing victim.

@@professorfukyu744 It sounds like you've been drinking too much oil company coolaid.

@@briandoolittle3422 It seems you might be one of the high priests of the climate religion.

@@Peter_Riis_DK Everyone that actually goes outside and looks at the state of glaciers accepts climate change, while people like you that get all your information from news channels or websites and have literally no idea whats going on scream that we are wrong. *I don't just see evidence of glacier melt since I started climbing. Rock that has been under glacier has a distinct look about it. You can easily see ex-glacier from 20-30 years ago. I'm on rock like that almost every week. Washington is quickly becoming a glacier graveyard. Many of those glaciers where 1000 years old or older. Sun cycles are a childish explanation. I hope your cult is fulfilling. Its certainly not helping the rest of us.

@@briandoolittle3422 I'm not denying that climate is changing - it always has been. I'm highly questioning that it is man made, as dangerous as the climate mafia want's it to be, and as fast moving as all the alarmists want - I'm not even sure it is changing towards warmer weather. Neither was climate scientists fifty years ago. That danger is, that this is the rich man's agenda and the yoke of the poor man.

You don't get the method of discovery . . . and that's OK . . . watch again and understand that millions of humans require this sort of explanation to understand the severity of the problem that we now encounter . . . you may want to try what JT Holmes attempted and then put it on KZfaq . . . I'll wait . . . and then, I am thinking that you will have something disparaging to say about anything that any caring person does, in order to to better understand the problem that humans currently encounter with global warming . . . have a nice life and hope you know how to swim . . .

@@bmendyka I think you don't get the joke mate ;)

@@kaczorefx and I don't think you know me . . . mate . . .

@@bmendyka I apologize wholeheartedly for beeing too forward.

^ this. Wish this was at the top of the comments section

So true. This video could have been very informative *and* visually stunning. Alas, it's only the latter.

It will be hundreds of miles cubed to produce that volume of water. She would have picked the biggest one to prove her point. With the highest rate of discharge.

@@Diddleurdad According to the map she showed on screen, they were at Ipsoot Glacier. There are several ice fields far larger than Ipsoot even in just that area. Or they could have gone to the BC Rockies to the Saskatchewan Glacier, which makes Ipsoot look like a kiddie skating rink.

She just explain

How many swimming pools 200 years ago? I'll tell you. They've got no idea. None.

@@wolfiestreet6899 Of course not. That was before measurements began.

You can't save the world without using a little CO2. Besides the activists, nobody wants to watch a video where Diana just talks about climate change. And also I think the helicopter shots really showed the scale of what is happening. Also, what is it exactly you are proposing they do instead? Walk around with flyers?

And yet, here you are

@@bobthegoat7090 You sound like the soldier from the Vietnam War who said: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Said very well.

You have a suggestion on an EV helicopter that could have been used? Do you think the awerness this type of work brings created changes in behavior that reduce carbon output by more or less than the CO2 used in this video? Or are you just trying to virtue signal while not actually thinking through what you're saying. The entire point of the video was to educate people on why they need to change their behavior...did you miss that?

Go there again in ten years and you will realize, you are so wrong.

@@oldineamiller9007 I've watched the glaciers recede for 40 years. Are you casting bones to predict a reversal over the next 10?

@@oldineamiller9007 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q9hkfJulvtTcgGg.html

@@Enn- No. I refer to the climate science. The actual situation points clearly towards a quite impressive cooling for the next 10 years. It is caused by the very rare coincidence of three major climate cycles being in sync in 2030/31.

@@Enn- I cannot predict if this will make the glaciers worldwide grow again, but it sure stops the melting of most of them and some of them will certainly grow. But it will make the arctic sea ice grow again for sure. It already started.

Because we need them to travrl faster and give every one of us a better life experience. You want us to go back to horses?

Personal responsibility isn't going to cut it any more. We need systemic change, and that means we need to educate the voters. Ideally, we would not make things worse in our efforts to educate, but sometimes you have to endure a little pain to fix the larger problem.

The people who claim to be the most concerned about climate change also tend to have the largest carbon footprints.

at least the helicopter co have an offsetting / carbon neutrality programme (9.40 in the vid)

@@ItsGroundhogDay nah man, I have the tiniest carbon foot print.

@@davehughes9448 carbon offsetting is an accountancy trick, designed to make the rich and polluting feel better.

yes, it's not glacial melt that is causing sea level rise right now as much as thermal expansion from the heat we've already added. (If huge ice sheets like Greenland suddenly collapse, that will cause dramatic sea level rise)

@@mikemoore-hehim1149 "yes, it's not glacial melt that is causing sea level rise right now as much as thermal expansion from the heat we've already added. " Well, the point she made was about the rise of sea level if they all melt, not the current sea level rise. This video also wasn't a video to convince people who deny the science. It was really a call to action, via fundraiser, for people who are not in denial. I don't think fundraisers are part of the solution to climate change, but that is another issue. I do think both types of messages are important. People need to understand what climate change is, and people need to do something impactful about it.

its propaganda that aren't interested in facts.

Climate Discussion Nexus: humor and real science discussed. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r9GamNJinLCYcYk.html

Propaganda videos are all made like that, with a lot of emotions.

Right? Sources pls

Yes, replace the shots with the weird falling dude with science. Thanks Diana.

Do you think covering all those variables in a video would also generate as many clicks as this one? You can't convince someone who didn't click. And then there's viewer retention. Who do we need to convince? The people who love learning? Don't get me wrong, I'd love a video like you describe.

How long do you want the video to be? 10hours?

@@fischersfritz468 one more reason not to spend it on the skiing dude.

i know for a fact global warming is simply a political football...nothing more

@@roneil63 Ridiculous statement.

I'm new to this channel, and not a science guy, but I am in legal research; I know what standards of evidence are required to pass muster in court cases, which can be considered the gold standard of what constitutes "proof." I ask questions like yours all the time, and never get answers. Nothing in this video can even remotely be considered factual; it is all speculation and theory. This happens in medical research a lot as well, a cross-over area for me. Problem is, people watch stuff like this and just accept the premise. So, it makes for a great political tool.

@@rolandvox2599 I wonder if they factor in how they supposedly have fond evidence that Antarctica was once a thriving dry land eco system. Continents have shifted, and poles have reversed. I am pretty sure they have strong evidence that our axis pitch and points have changed too. Yet somehow it was millions of years ago life thrived, complex life. I am not a climate change denier, I am just skeptical to the fact is it naturally inevitable these things happen. I also wont say we are not doing the atmosphere any good either. I wish someone would post research on all of these events combined.

pictures of coasts around the world look remarkably similar to those from the late 1800s. p.s. the maldive islands were predicted to have already sunk

Building more runways for aircraft. I believe I heard 4 more to be exact in the Maldives.

@@atillathehungry3145 "p.s. the maldive islands were predicted to have already sunk" Yeah, a politician made that prediction. Scientific predictions are the Maldives will be underwater by the end of this century, probably around 2080.

The Marshall Islands were due to be under 15ft ofwater in 1970, 1990, 2000,2010, and now 2020. There are goal posts moving all round the world

70 meters

On a scientific channel, I expect SI units. They may be translated into strange units used by some country not getting the advantages ;-)

It’s all misinformation, the oceans consist of trillions upon trillions of gallons of water, a few billon gallons would do nothing. It’s like tossing a 55 gallon drum of water in a swimming pool, the water only rises a few millimeters.

@@morallyinsane7639 not to mention ice takes up more space than water, so if they melted it should go down.

@@professorfukyu744 But ice is less dense and so floats on water. It is true that the local land may experience a relative sea level regression via isostatic rebound when the weight of the ice is unloaded, but the global sea level will experience a transgression.

I remember hearing the exact same thing in the 80s.

Rare, no, biblical. .

@@neonshoji Yes I remember the same thing in the 80s too. It's horrific to think that we didn't do enough then and we're seeing those predictions come true.

Yea we’ll back in the 70’s they were predicting the next ice age, it’s amazing how little they know.

@@MusicalRaichu which predictions? You realize this is all unfalsifiable pseudo science, right?

This is spectacular in production and horrifying in content.

hi, would you make a video on what life will be like on earth if global warming wins out... 50, 100, 200 years from now... thanks... off the coast of Greece there was a city.:/

how did you get 22 Olympic sized swimming pools filled in an hour? You didn't say in your video how you actually got that number.

How many swimming pools would of been filled at the same time of year 50 years ago? I bet the result would be just as high.

@@bozmaccino9156 No. The rate of glacial melt now is unprecedented since modern humans have been around. It is accelerating because humans have been treating our atmosphere as an open sewer for greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. This is just one glacier. Over 100,000 glaciers around the world are shrinking at ever increasing rates.

KZfaq’s own videos are mostly bad

Yes but why? Glaciers melts more or less all the time. They are maintained only by snowfall. So, do you have enough snow in the winter?

Give her a break she wants to get paid and she has to do as she's told sometimes so she can live an upper middle class lifestyle - that's much more important than truth

That would be silly. The fact is that more than 100,000 glaciers around the world are losing more ice in the summer than they gain in winter, and therefore shrinking. This is Very Bad, especially if you depend on the water from them that will decline, or live near a coast, or have to make room for displaced climate refugees from Florida etc, as well as a million other bad consequences.

The melting temperature of glaciers is very complicated and does not just depend on the temperature of the air. Happily climate change melting the glaciers is a hoax. Glaciers recede and extend in regular patterns over years, decades, and centuries. There is nothing odd happening. They just point at a melting glacier and say "see climate change" and ignore the other glaciers that are growing or the fact that we are coming out of a mini-ice age ending in the mid-1800s causing more melting and slightly higher sea levels.

What are you talking about? If you didn't get the message maybe you're the issue and not the video.

Was that the glacier with the volcano under it?

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201207102105.htm

@@kayakMike1000 yeh bro, the ice melted by the mantle below, refreezes its a process of gaining and loosing ice, the net is mostly 0 or lil bet towards melting side, but thing is that that process has became a lot faster, the thing about climate change is that the extreme events are becoming very frequent, extreme events used to happen earlier too but they were a lot less common, in future we dont want flood to be a daily thing

I agree. This was very light on science, and I'm being kind. This was very disappointing. Not up to her normal excellence.

Never question the mainstream narrative (Newspeak) or they'll call the Ministry of Truth on you. Deny climate change? No one denies the climate changes. The question is what drives the changes and it is not CO2 or anything we can do anything about. It was hotter in the recent past without any help from humans. The climate is not dangerously changing.

@@outofcompliance1639 There is no doubt the climate has been far hotter and much much colder in the past but CO2 levels are the reason this time. In the past (without human intervention) the planet has self righted but taken ages to do so, fossil fuels have taken millions of years to store (absorb) CO2 and we (humans) have released it in a matter of decades, we need to prevent the methane from being released from the permafrost or we will really be in trouble. I do think we are going in the right direction and if needed we could re-forest the planet by planting billions of trees but billions would be what's needed. The maths is very easy to workout but the time needed for the forest plan to work might see humans really suffer until the trees can absorb the excess CO2 and then we will need to prevent the wood from rotting once harvested, no doubt the time for action is now.

@@purpleom9649 The problem with your theory is CO2 has also been much higher in the past and sometimes it was colder and sometimes it was hotter than today despite the high CO2. The science does not support the idea the CO2 drives the climate. The best model shows a temperature increase of about 1.5c with doubling of CO2. So from 1950 CO2 was 300 ppm, it will double to 600 in the 2100s, we are at 415 ppm now so we will see a gradual temperature increase of 1.5c from 1950 to 2100s (all else being equal). Hardly a problem. The climate is fine so far so why are you so worried? The methane issue was a theory but has proven to be false in the real world. I saw a science video on it but forget the mechanism that keeps the methane from being released, some microbe or something. I believe there is a 1 trillion tree planting project already. "1,045,323,045,305 Committed Trees 35,551,269,278 Planted Trees". (1 trillion trees website) I guess it is a good thing but more CO2 is probably better. No need for public action at all. In fact, the action they are proposing won't even help the non-problem but it will cost trillions and ruin millions of lives.

@@outofcompliance1639 I will admit I'm no climate scientist but the climate denying scientists are so very few and far between theses days. " The methane issue" isn't a theory, it's a fact. All said and done I'm far happier that green renewable energy supplies are being sort today, being less reliant on oil and gas makes the chance of runaway inflation less likely. Yes changing infrastructure can be costly but you can't deny burning fossil fuel isn't nice to breath and can have health issues. Ignoring experts is so 6 years ago.

@Murph the Martian Mustelid I think the point was to visually show off how large the glacier is, and how climate change it is affecting it, etc. Rather than just show a glacier on a map, or in the distance. Having a guy ski on a glacier better represents the scale. Also, I don't think it is this channel's responsibility to inform people of this problem, and plenty of resources are out there. Arguably more that give the details than are calls to action. Also, the current 33+ years of foot dragging in the US is more depressing, IMHO.

You are not supposed to ask those questions !!

CDN: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r9GamNJinLCYcYk.html

Climate Discussion Nexus! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r9GamNJinLCYcYk.html

Of course the climate has changed many times before. The reason is that the climate is a complex system, where a lot of factors can induce a change. But the question isn't what can cause a climate change. The question is what is causing the current one. And the answer to that question is that it is human emissions of co2 (though in actual climate models, they of course take into account other factors too, like changes in solar irradiance, but those same models also predict that those factors are quite insignificant in comparison to the effect of human emissions of co2 in raising the current global temperature). Other climate changes in the past obviously weren't caused by human emissions of co2, but by other factors (though it could involve an increase in greenhouse gases too). Seeing as you mentioned ice ages, I'd recommend looking up the Milankovitch cycles. These are the alternating cycles of glacial and interglacial periods the last couple of millions of years. We got out of the last ice age (glacial period) about 11 000 years ago, and we should have been in a fairly stable interglacial period right now. But as you can probably tell, we're not.

@@frede1905 CO2 does not drive climate. It is an insignificant green house gas. The best model per real data is the model predicting 1 to 1.5c increased temperature for doubling of CO2. So 1950 CO2 was 300 ppm, it is 415 ppm now and will be 600 ppm (double of 1950) sometime in the 2100s. A gradual increase of 1 to 1.5 degrees over 150+ years is not climate change. It is within normal variations. The increase of CO2 is great for plants and food production. The slight increase in temperature is a net gain for all life.

This. The most important thing you can do to stop climate change is vote for someone who will make the system changes necessary. Vote vote vote.

One caveat is that the US is not as population-dense as Europe, so building such a system is much more difficult.

You don't need to invest in a train system, just get people to car pool. Charge for parking with an escalating cost per empty seat. And pick up trucks should be evaluated as if the bed were passenger area.

@@Tobester_McDonkey On a per capita basis Americans emit far more CO2 than Chinese and especially Indians.

@@Tobester_McDonkey One sixth of the people in the world are Indian, China even higher. More children are born every day than there are people in the country I was born in.

@@davesutherland1864 that doesn't solve the problem in NY though.

We're toast. It's too late. We've past the tipping point. Say hello to the HOT HOUSE EARTH. So sorry, to bad , too late.

I dont have a direct answer, but i do have a semi-answer in the form of another question. Is the leading cause of climate change human selfishness? Or is it human need? I'd argue that it is the latter. Because the only people who care about it are those in the privelaged first world. Until everyone gets their basic fundamental necessities, we will continue to burn and destroy. Because good luck convincing a poor man to stop what he is doing to feed his family.

@@timelsen2236 then stop posting lol

It is not too late to stop it becoming worse than not doing anything.

The problem is two-fold: 1) We're accelerating the change, as you point out, and we're accelerating it so much that even we are struggling to adapt -- to say nothing of natural ecosystems that are already under strain from human civilization. If this was happening naturally, we would have hundreds or thousands of years -- now we have decades or less. And keep in mind, it's not the human species that's at risk (we'll be around for a long time yet), it's our civilization that's being threatened. Any civilization can withstand change, but too much change too fast will result in a collapse. To give you a concrete example, there are something like a billion people living in the middle latitudes of the planet. If the planet warmed slowly according to a natural cycle, those people would have generations to move into cooler climes and/or adapt their societies to the extra heat. But what happens when a billion people need to move out of the middle latitudes over the span of a decade or two. Europe was thrown into chaos with just a million Syrian climate refugees a few years ago, now imagine 100 million. And again note that I'm glossing over the changes required by ecosystems, which inherently adapt much more slowly that human societies. 2) Since we're already about 1.5X the highest CO2 concentrations recorded in the last 800,000 years -- and we're still climbing -- even if this was happening slowly enough, it would still result in an earth hotter than anything we've seen in the last 800,000 years. I have no doubt that we could adapt, but I don't relish the thought of the majority of humanity living in caves (or other extreme ways of living that would be required to live on a planet 7+ deg C hotter than it is now). But the real worry is that we hit one or more tipping points where we move the Earth out of the normal cycle of heating and cooling that you describe into a new cycle that is much less conducive to human life. There are gigatonnes of carbon trapped in tundra and at the bottom of the oceans. These ecosystems have heated up enough that they are starting to release that carbon. In other words, we MIGHT start a runaway process where heating releases carbon, which results in more heating, which results in more carbon being released. If you've ever looked at Venus, you'll know that this process may not end well for us.