Ironically, the rapid adaptation of life after the end of snowball earth supports the theory. For the microorganisms that had adapted to survive snowball earth, the thawing would have been harmful to them, putting them under great evolutionary pressure to adapt to their changing environment. Along with the increasing access to nutrients and energy (such as sunlight), it makes sense life would diversify rapidly.
this is been up for nearly five years and has under 10,000 views meanwhile nonsense about Ancient Aliens has millions of views this is the problem with the world.... I already know all this data and I'm listening just so I don't have to hear dribble while I fall asleep
I believe there is some truth in the ancient alien theorys if u wont proof go outside on a clear night and spend some time looking at the sky but either way no one as the right to tell anyone else what to believe
Now SIR Tony Robinson! And that being said I can’t believe what a ridiculous outfit Sir Tony is wearing. The jacket looks too big for him and doesn’t match the jeans outfit. A real mismatch I’d say😂
@@loiseldridge5701 Yeah, forgot his title. Titles are strange to me. Grew up with Attenborough's title being a part of how he's attributed, so kind of stuck as part of his name in my head. Was an interesting wardrobe choice, that's for certain. Has a bit of a grunge aesthetic to it
I have trouble trying to figure out where all that water went when the ice melted. Did most of it get boiled, turn into steam and evaporate into the atmosphere?
The process of extensive ice sheets would stop snow rain etc on the land and only influence the seas. The process is only possible if the sun output decreased substantially which probably has happened. Such a condition is not terrestrial in origin.
A lot of scientific discussion and disagreement on the possibility of "snowball earth". I tend to be on the side of the faction which says it's unlikely or impossible that the entire earth was ever completely covered in ice.
I noted that the theory relies on the magnetic signature of rocks. However I also seem to remember that the magnetic poles wander and even flip, so how can you tell where ancient rocks were at a particular time? Or have I just not understood?
@@justinbarnes8834 The shifting of the magnetic poles is definitely a relevant variable that would need to be compensated for in calculations of the continental land masses. The moving of the magnetic field polarity slowly drifts over time and can be tracked down the ages throughout rock samples and checked against radiometric dating techniques - but I'm not sure how far back they've gotten in the earth's chronology. This is actually part of a contextual problem that affects all studies on deep time, because as well as the shifting magnetic field you have changes in atmospheric gas concentrations that will also alter your results from such tests as carbon-14 dating. All studies on the life and planetary science that far back will need to make some basic assumptions that will need to be verified in order to determine what continental land mass was where at what time, and the environmental conditions occurring during different eras. Assuming the land masses are where they think they are, the snowball earth theory makes sense generally -photosynthetic bacteria were highly prevalent back then too, so carbon dioxide would have been removed from the atmosphere by that too. However, the theory does rely on quite a few conditions that would need to be satisfied. Some of those can be checked (theoretically at least if the evidence still exists): all continental land masses are joined around the equator at the same time (which has certain consequences), rainfall is high, high rate of calcium carbonate deposition in seabed limestone, dropping atmospheric CO2 etc. If you assume that the rate of greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes is roughly constant, it also makes sense that you'd need to freeze the oceans and land (and hence prevent further weathering and limestone deposition) in order for CO2 to build up once again in the atmosphere. This theory relies entirely on the earth's own known feedback loops and requires no extraordinary events (like abnormal levels in volcano output or asteroid impact) to work, so that's a plus anyway.
23:28 Everything said about a Nuclear winter in this video is complete BS pulled out of some writers ass and Tony read it as fact. A nuclear winter event caused by global nuclear war would result in a global cooling of ~20-30 degrees(American units) for about 5 years. Seasons would still exist, crops can still be grown, the earth is not a giant snowball. And it gradually builds up and then equally gradually dissipates so the worst part is in the middle where the ends are normal conditions. The whole winter wonderland everything is snowy nuclear winter idea needs to just go away.
Overall, I like this program and presenter, but I feel sometimes he goes overboard for dramatic effect. Take, for example, the statement “you wouldn’t think a volcano could punch through a glacier…”. Seriously? Are you kidding? We’re talking about molten magma that has already punched it’s way through kilometers of rock, do you think it’s going to be baulked by a bit of ice that you can literally melt in your hand?
@@PibrochPonder Do I need to? If you compare the sea level against the glaciers from the last Ice age and it's obvious. He was saying those glacier heights can cover the entire world above it's current surface. That's impossible.
The surface area of the planet is 510 square km. The volume of water on the planet is 1.4 BILLION cubic km. So yes, there is definitely enough water to form ice sheets of the volume necessary. I think you’re underestimating the depth of the oceans.
First, I'm very sure he was referring locally to where he was (specifically, on Britain), not implying that the entire earth was a perfect sphere of ice that high above sea level. If you look at studies of old ice ages and current glaciers, you will find a great variation in heigh and depth of the ice sheet depending on topology and location - particularly in the higher latitudes). In any case, If the ice sheet was consistently 2km deep above the nearest ground below it (which could be seabed or land), that would make its actual height drop kilometres below sea level across most of the sea. You can do the rough maths to figure out if that was possible or not based on average oceanic depth. Second, you should remember that water expands significantly in volume when it freezes to become the kind of ice you would get in an ice age (and there are different kinds of ice, remember). It expands by approximately 9%, so you can easily check this theory (in rough back-of-the-envelope maths). Multiply the surface area of the earth by 2 or 4 km to get the volume of the ice sheets, then you just compare the volume of the oceans x 9% + volume of ice sheets already here. Easy.
Where it is today, though it was not burning as bright as does today. But the Earth's atmosphere has always been a more important factor than our planet's proximity to the Sun in determining how hot the surface temperature of the planet is.
Oh, "life will go on" eh? Well, unfortunately, I, am not a bacteria, and mankinds evolution is a coincidence, so yes, a global catastrophe, IS a catastrophe..
Tony: please stop using "these ones". These is no such thing. There are there's - meaning more than one or this one meaning one. I notice this ore and more on British TV. Kinda makes my ears burn. Thanking you in advance Tony
i'm with you all the way with this
Ironically, the rapid adaptation of life after the end of snowball earth supports the theory. For the microorganisms that had adapted to survive snowball earth, the thawing would have been harmful to them, putting them under great evolutionary pressure to adapt to their changing environment. Along with the increasing access to nutrients and energy (such as sunlight), it makes sense life would diversify rapidly.
What about the extremophiles that live in or near to Hydro-thermal vents?
Which snowball there were at least 4 snowballs.
Jim Gehling, what a star!.
How so?
@@thealgonquin5822 just ask him he will tell you.... actually you don't have to ask 😜
this is been up for nearly five years and has under 10,000 views meanwhile nonsense about Ancient Aliens has millions of views this is the problem with the world.... I already know all this data and I'm listening just so I don't have to hear dribble while I fall asleep
Truth hurts
I believe there is some truth in the ancient alien theorys if u wont proof go outside on a clear night and spend some time looking at the sky but either way no one as the right to tell anyone else what to believe
8 years and 25,000 views. Also I would say over half the views are likely from the same people like you and I watching it multiple times.
This is exactly why I kicked your mother out.
10 years and 40,000 now
All the best documentary presenters are British; Sir Tony Robinson, Sir David Attenborough
Now SIR Tony Robinson!
And that being said I can’t believe what a ridiculous outfit Sir Tony is wearing. The jacket looks too big for him and doesn’t match the jeans outfit. A real mismatch I’d say😂
@@loiseldridge5701 Yeah, forgot his title. Titles are strange to me. Grew up with Attenborough's title being a part of how he's attributed, so kind of stuck as part of his name in my head.
Was an interesting wardrobe choice, that's for certain. Has a bit of a grunge aesthetic to it
I have trouble trying to figure out where all that water went when the ice melted. Did most of it get boiled, turn into steam and evaporate into the atmosphere?
The oceans rose to where they are now. Pretty simple, actually.
@@johnkelly5949 😎
The process of extensive ice sheets would stop snow rain etc on the land and only influence the seas. The process is only possible if the sun output decreased substantially which probably has happened. Such a condition is not terrestrial in origin.
Assclown.
A lot of scientific discussion and disagreement on the possibility of "snowball earth". I tend to be on the side of the faction which says it's unlikely or impossible that the entire earth was ever completely covered in ice.
Maybe you`re just not all that clever, there`s EVIDENCE ffs.
Go watch some flat earth videos, american
No one gives a fuck about your ignorance and lack of education. Simple.
I noted that the theory relies on the magnetic signature of rocks. However I also seem to remember that the magnetic poles wander and even flip, so how can you tell where ancient rocks were at a particular time? Or have I just not understood?
@@justinbarnes8834 The shifting of the magnetic poles is definitely a relevant variable that would need to be compensated for in calculations of the continental land masses. The moving of the magnetic field polarity slowly drifts over time and can be tracked down the ages throughout rock samples and checked against radiometric dating techniques - but I'm not sure how far back they've gotten in the earth's chronology. This is actually part of a contextual problem that affects all studies on deep time, because as well as the shifting magnetic field you have changes in atmospheric gas concentrations that will also alter your results from such tests as carbon-14 dating. All studies on the life and planetary science that far back will need to make some basic assumptions that will need to be verified in order to determine what continental land mass was where at what time, and the environmental conditions occurring during different eras.
Assuming the land masses are where they think they are, the snowball earth theory makes sense generally -photosynthetic bacteria were highly prevalent back then too, so carbon dioxide would have been removed from the atmosphere by that too. However, the theory does rely on quite a few conditions that would need to be satisfied. Some of those can be checked (theoretically at least if the evidence still exists): all continental land masses are joined around the equator at the same time (which has certain consequences), rainfall is high, high rate of calcium carbonate deposition in seabed limestone, dropping atmospheric CO2 etc.
If you assume that the rate of greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes is roughly constant, it also makes sense that you'd need to freeze the oceans and land (and hence prevent further weathering and limestone deposition) in order for CO2 to build up once again in the atmosphere. This theory relies entirely on the earth's own known feedback loops and requires no extraordinary events (like abnormal levels in volcano output or asteroid impact) to work, so that's a plus anyway.
Yall are just talking about the baby snowball. The 1st big one was 300 million years.
thank yew
Why thank a tree?
Our atmpshpere, Gaia breathing.
Global warming ? How ya gonna keep warm on a snowball earth? I’ll take the tropical planet the dinosaurs lived in over a snowball earth any day…..
23:28 Everything said about a Nuclear winter in this video is complete BS pulled out of some writers ass and Tony read it as fact. A nuclear winter event caused by global nuclear war would result in a global cooling of ~20-30 degrees(American units) for about 5 years. Seasons would still exist, crops can still be grown, the earth is not a giant snowball. And it gradually builds up and then equally gradually dissipates so the worst part is in the middle where the ends are normal conditions. The whole winter wonderland everything is snowy nuclear winter idea needs to just go away.
Overall, I like this program and presenter, but I feel sometimes he goes overboard for dramatic effect. Take, for example, the statement “you wouldn’t think a volcano could punch through a glacier…”. Seriously? Are you kidding? We’re talking about molten magma that has already punched it’s way through kilometers of rock, do you think it’s going to be baulked by a bit of ice that you can literally melt in your hand?
@DontTouchMyTree somebody wrote the script. Make it “they” if it makes you feel better.
The earth doesn't have enough water to have an ice sheet completely covering it to the depth Tony is claiming.
Do you want to show your workings out?
@@PibrochPonder Do I need to? If you compare the sea level against the glaciers from the last Ice age and it's obvious. He was saying those glacier heights can cover the entire world above it's current surface. That's impossible.
The surface area of the planet is 510 square km. The volume of water on the planet is 1.4 BILLION cubic km. So yes, there is definitely enough water to form ice sheets of the volume necessary. I think you’re underestimating the depth of the oceans.
First, I'm very sure he was referring locally to where he was (specifically, on Britain), not implying that the entire earth was a perfect sphere of ice that high above sea level. If you look at studies of old ice ages and current glaciers, you will find a great variation in heigh and depth of the ice sheet depending on topology and location - particularly in the higher latitudes). In any case, If the ice sheet was consistently 2km deep above the nearest ground below it (which could be seabed or land), that would make its actual height drop kilometres below sea level across most of the sea. You can do the rough maths to figure out if that was possible or not based on average oceanic depth.
Second, you should remember that water expands significantly in volume when it freezes to become the kind of ice you would get in an ice age (and there are different kinds of ice, remember). It expands by approximately 9%, so you can easily check this theory (in rough back-of-the-envelope maths). Multiply the surface area of the earth by 2 or 4 km to get the volume of the ice sheets, then you just compare the volume of the oceans x 9% + volume of ice sheets already here. Easy.
Poo. Scared that up. No I have my glasses on.
2024May21: . . . .-
Glasseers..?
You have to say evolution alot so let's make sure you pronounce it right....
Evilution.
Your hired.
so where the hell was the SUN when all this was going on ????
Where it is today, though it was not burning as bright as does today. But the Earth's atmosphere has always been a more important factor than our planet's proximity to the Sun in determining how hot the surface temperature of the planet is.
Oh, "life will go on" eh?
Well, unfortunately, I, am not a bacteria, and mankinds evolution is a coincidence, so yes, a global catastrophe, IS a catastrophe..
Tony: please stop using "these ones". These is no such thing. There are there's - meaning more than one or this one meaning one. I notice this ore and more on British TV. Kinda makes my ears burn. Thanking you in advance Tony
"there's" means there is, I think you are confused because "these ones" does mean something.
Christa the fucking illiterate would be boring enough if she just shut the fuck up.