What Everyone Gets Wrong About Global Warming

[@SeeJay2123]

As someone who studies the environment every day, I tend to forget that not everyone thinks in this way. For that, we have wonderful content creators like you guys. ty

[@vlogbrothers]

Yeah, having a strong science background has caused me to see probabilities everywhere (the vast majority of reaction chemistry is actually statistics). But I don't think we need to put people through a chemistry degree to get them to think this way.

[@bailey566]

Cole J. Have you seen cowspiracy? It's a life changing environmental documentary about an industry that is destroying the environment

[@Coxy002605]

Cowspiracy is a "life changing environmental documentary", if you're scientifically illiterate. Next you'll be using "The China Study" to support veganism.

[@clickaccept]

"I tend to forget that not everyone thinks in this way" We also tend to think of authoritarians as being evil. But actually, they are more often diligent people with goodness in their hearts, who just happen to think they know better than most everybody else.

[@mjt1517]

clickaccept, yeah...Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler...all just good boys.

[@MANA98]

I need bill wurtz to explain this to me

[@ShawnZiemba]

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him." ~Leo Tolstoy

[@RobertMilesAI]

I was considering posting a comment about "probability curves" vs "probability distributions", and then I read the video description.

[@edmsquad]

All we gotta say is HAARP!!!!! ;) & don't believe the hype about it closing down or them not having any more of these babies

[@Aint1S]

EDM Squad. I'm in the middle of the worse big city from the torrential downpour from Harvey... The flooding want so much from the rain, get it came down like I've never seen in my 36 years; however, when you find out that lakes are opening up their same... During the storm no less, you get BS propped up by false truths. That rain didn't climb up by 2 feet in 45 minutes and it sure didn't stop raining to raise it to date after... You know, when little monitor the rental at home and measure the ground level as well and all to find that the water was climbing faster than it could ever fall... The your sign Al Gore is looking to scream global warming with false positives. 28' above sea level, that's where we at as well as an hour drive from the dam South, and would you believe that people who were well below 28' were not flooding the day of the rain and we are surrounded by water. Boats on roads, kayaking was my land of checking depths for a few days and today those like laying areas are not flooding bad today to the point it is nearly impossible to travel in any vehicle. We're dry now! Vidor, TX

[@ToyKeeper]

I'm just glad he's showing people the concept of a probability distribution, or a distribution in general. People misunderstand soooo many things because they don't have this basic concept! People say and believe things like "men are from Mars, women are from Venus", while the reality generally isn't that there are two completely separate distributions or curves... but rather two overlapping curves like what he showed in the video. There is a difference, on average, but the majority of area under each curve is shared by both. And there's a huge difference between two distributions having 80% overlap versus having only 20% overlap. But in common discourse, people often act like the only options are 100% and 0%, which leads to all sorts of problems.

[@Bill-zp2mt]

Can someone please tell me why Americans don't build infrastructure to handle 100 year storms ? Is it cheaper to start from scratch every 100 years ?

[@raoulbsantiago80]

Aint1S what?! That was really hard to follow... omg, It was like reading a translated message/post/comment on Facebook ... I was like, huh? Wait, what?! Lol

[@Master_Therion]

When a flat-Earther warms up to the idea of the Earth being a globe, is that Global Warming?????

[@GordyByGordy]

And they walked a little bit taller that day. They walked knowing they had made a funny.

[@Cythil]

Naa... They just call it climate change.

[@ganaraminukshuk0]

No, that's the expanding earth theory, which is weird.

[@Grayhome]

When your friend wants you to climb a mountain, they tell you to "Climb it!" Then when you get to the top, they don't tell you to "Climb it!" anymore. That's "Climb it!" change.

[@Joe-kh2ih]

Tyler Graham never thought about it that way before

[@constancellc]

'NOT THE DOTS, THE CURVE' may become my new motto

[@violetmoon1587]

Its difficult to deal in absolutes when it comes to the weather, so it's appropriate to discuss the effects of global warming in terms of probability. Great points being made Hank

[@guygeva7375]

+

[@violetmoon1587]

Barry Allard I wish I had that level of accuracy in weather prediction where I am. It's anyone's guess what the weather will decide to do.

[@Tom10442]

Violet Moon +

[@thomasbarton1050]

Only sith deals in absolutes.

[@cupcakewithouttheicing]

Very serious Hank to chill Hank in under 4 minutes

[@saucejohnson9862]

Cupcake Without The Icing He doesn't even get it right. He didn't even mention Al Gore. We can't save the earth without Al Gore.

[@cmusba220]

Hank Chill

[@hash4badi]

Jonathan Marsh I guess u could call it "climate change"

[@kittenwispy]

Am i the only one that thumbnail looks like Rick and Morty's portal??

[@mason386]

KittenWispy was literally just saying that lol. Kinda makes me think he did it on purpose for some veiws

[@iMapleCreator]

KittenWispy it's the picture of the hurricane smh

[@jahn77]

Mason Christnagel that's a hurricane idiot

[@justAguyDs]

KittenWispy no

[@jatoru0587]

SAME

[@TheSucread]

Relative frequency of an event is an unbiased and consistent estimator of probability of an event. You may be more confident to say that it is indeed probability as the sample size grows larger and larger.

[@Stevonicus]

I love the smell of statistics in the morning

[@akatwitch]

Smells like... an above-average chance of getting the desired outcome.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

I think this video also highlights the difference between the Weather and Climate. Climate is what you can expect, but Weather is what you get. A warmer climate can make Hurricanes stronger over time, but individual storms are subjected to too many variables. It’s the same thing with temperatures, Global Warming means extreme heat will occur more often but doesn’t mean you can’t have an extreme cold event every once in a while.

[@pasttenseroyalty]

YES!! I'm an actuary & it's really frustrating to try to explain this to people who don't want to think about the problem more deeply or don't want to actually talk it through for more than a minute in passing

[@vlogbrothers]

Hey! It's one of the people who works for insurance companies! I told you!

[@pasttenseroyalty]

vlogbrothers Hi! 🤗 actuaries are doing a lot of research on climate change right now since it has such a huge effect on insurance claims. There's even a Climate Risk Index we can use to account for the changing frequency/severity distributions in our models.

[@ZoggFromBetelgeuse]

One might explain your curve like this: Imagine that each year on January 1st, some guy in a top secret weather-making facility in Area 51 launches eight dice. Each "one" results in a major storm hitting the US. The result will be what Earthling mathematicians call "Binomial distribution", a curve not unlike the curve you drew. Now, when the guy adds a nineth dice, the number of storms is still quite random, one might still have a series of "good years" or even a stormless year - but overall, higher numbers get slightly more likely, thus the curve shifts little a bit to the right. The effects of climate change on the number of storms are roughly like this (minus the guy in Area 51).

[@maxjenkinson9870]

Another brilliant way of explaining it

[@emersonjakes8119]

+

[@LFTRnow]

Zogg! I have missed you. I've watched and loved all your vids and keep hoping you will do another.

[@Xhalo1183]

What type of dice is this person rolling and can we change the type?

[@EdenNov]

Another great explanation from my favorite alien youtuber. Looking forward to the day you'd come back to making vids :D

[@austingwiazdowski2469]

This was a good clarification about something a lot of people misinterpret about probability. Good video!

[@prathameshkale9011]

Plz think about crash course statistics.

[@GelidGanef]

That would probably be the most important series they ever did

[@finitewehosh6542]

CrashCourse Mathematics.

[@Tweetie4018]

YES

[@vlogbrothers]

We're thinking!

[@PolychronisKar]

+

[@MarkThePage]

Unfortunately, in order to explain this stuff to people, you have to get them to listen. And why rack your brain understanding new concepts that challenge your worldview, when you could change channels and have an angry lady just tell you what to think? That said, Hank, you've done a great job making this science easier to understand and in a way that holds people's attention!

[@vlogbrothers]

Some people choose to see the ugliness in this world...I just ignore the people we already lost and focus on the ones who haven't been exposed to this stuff yet...which is a lot of people.

[@aenorist2431]

To a pretty large one, i´d like you to google "XKCD Climate Graph" .... just ignore that its a comic, the graph is the main point.

[@mith59]

The climate has literally never changed this much or this fast across all of the data we have collected. What else could cause this other than billions of years worth of stored CO2 being dug up and released into the atmosphere?

[@bambi3845]

@Qrow Branwen If humans controlled the climate then there wouldn't be an issue. The issue comes from the fact that we are capable of influencing it as a side-effect of our actions as a species. Yes, no individual human truly has an enormous impact on the global climate; but through the burning of fossil fuels, mass farming particularly of cattle we upset the balance when you compound it by seven billion and increasing humans. You say that the climate changes all the time and this is true. However, the geological record shows us that this occurs slowly over time due to what is known as the "Milankovitch Cycles" which are the result of three different, calculable variables in the planet's position relative to the sun. These are Eccentricity (how elliptical the planet's current orbit path and is on a ~100,000 year cycle), the Axial Tilt (how much the planet is tilted on its axis which varies on a ~41,000 year cycles) and the Precession (how much the planet 'wobbles' as it rotates on its axis, on a ~21,000 year cycles). Knowing what we do about all of these we can model their effect on the climate, however they are not the only factor in natural climate change; also in play is volcanism and other natural sources (and sinks) of greenhouse gasses such as the life on the planet. With all this, and the geological data backing it up (mostly obtained from ice cores) we have a good idea of how and why the climate changes and both the evidence and the model by which greenhouse gasses can affect it is unarguably sound. Since the industrial revolution human carbon emissions accelerated dramatically, this cannot be denied as you cannot argue that these greenhouse gasses are _not_ being emitted and a rate beyond the natural rate. This is carbon that was locked out of the carbon cycle and would have remained so had we not burned it to break the bonds of its structure and bond it instead to oxygen, thereby harnessing that excess energy produced. This massive global increase in carbon emissions correlates with a gradual global temperature increase. Since the industrial revolution the global temperature has uncharacteristically risen by almost one degree (celcius/kelvin), which may not sound like much to you but for a global temperature system that is huge. For the record, the Permo-Trias mass extinction event, the largest in the planet's history in which 95% of all species on Earth died is attributed to a 5 degree rise. We may be a way off a 5 degree increase yet but it only gets faster from here as the initial temperature increase compounds when rising temperatures begin to thaw the permafrost in the cooler parts of the world, releasing masses of trapped methane (this also occurs when sea temperature consequentially rises and melts the massive frozen methane reserves trapped at the bottom of the ocean). I apologise for not linking sources but frankly it is 23:15; I am tired and am not going to the Uni library or digging out my textbooks to get proper peer-reviewed data. For this reason I have avoided going into explicit detail.

[@naomicugini711]

Holy Rhino This was an amazing comment, thank you

[@milesbrinkley7141]

I got a skittle in my right nostril while listening to this, and because I was so engrossed in the content, I am just now aware of the skittle in my nostril.

[@philiptouw3623]

I really like the set up of this video, Hank! It's informative, but it's also attention grabbing.The video kept flowing naturally, and you kept the focus on one specific thing. The varied materials you used to show/talk about this, made it really, pretty awesome. ALSO AHHHH. YOU HAVE THE BOINKS FIDGET. I have a non marble one, and they're really noce. As a lover of fidget toys, I totally reccomend the tangle jr! They have different textures and colours and they're quiet and absolutely lovely. I now want a hank green reviews fidget toys (or just boinks, honestly) video. Look what a 10 second portion of a video has causes. Oh boy.

[@ssatva]

Boinks fidget! Came down to comments to see if anyone could tell me what that was! Thanks!

[@philiptouw3623]

Wm Reeves Haha, no problem! I can even give you a few links if you're looking to purchase some. (They usually come in packs of 3 or more!)

[@philiptouw3623]

Anonymous Persons Well, not speaking for everyone, but for me it's almost like the way people collect pokemon cards? And then combined with the fact that they've a good way to focus excess energy/a healthy coping mechanism, they just ended up being a thing that I enjoy, and I suspect that it's the same for at least a few others as well!

[@okuno54]

One time I looked at my fingers and saw there was this black residue on them. Then I realized that I had fidgeted with my rare-earth magnets so much that the plating came off of them. Is neodymium poisonous? I dunno, but I put something fidgetable in front of my magnets and haven't had a problem since. These toys are a great was to trick your brain into fidgeting safely, or less annoyingly, and once you start optimizing that sort of thing, there's a whole rabbit hole you could fall down. Check out some of r/MechanicalKeyboards, or listen to the Pen Addict podcast, or ask a clerk at a local guitar shop (not Guitar Center) about the difference between two nearly-identical guitars.

[@alexanderreusens7633]

Okuno Zankoku Neodymium is toxic when breathing it, but it's probably not neodymium on your fingers. It quickly oxidizes away in air, so all Nd magnets have some sort of protective layer. I wouldn't eat that, but it should be harmless when exposed to the skin, otherwise the company that makes these have to pay up a large sum of money.

[@paddywalsh7206]

Statistically speaking, the Green Brothers are responsible for at least 90% of my remaining sanity

[@dannnyc93]

You joke, but seeing their videos really does help my overall levels of optimism about humanity throughout the weeks. Just knowing there are people out there like this who care about these issues AND are educated about them AND use their power and influence to try and work on these issues to make the world suck less. They really do inspire me to be a better person.

[@emersonjakes8119]

+ for both the comment and response

[@woodfur00]

I like to appreciate the little things in life, like a very nicely drawn curve at 1:58.

[@Onihikage]

Is there a Crash Course on basic scientific literacy? Like, how to read a whitepaper from a journal and get an idea of how sound it is, or which kinds of studies matter more, such as systematic reviews vs experimental studies vs data analysis? These are things which should be taught in public schools but aren't - at least in my experience.

[@Rhaifha]

Reading scientific papers that are not in your field of expertise and then judging if they are reliable is quite hard to do. But I do agree that a Crash Course scientific literacy might be good, maybe more discuss the characteristics of a good paper and what are the warning signs (with examples). How to interpret results or graphs etc.

[@mcook6005]

Yes! The ability to sift through bad data and statistical studies is SO important as well as even considering what types of bias the researchers have (or how studies can magnify biased data). Or even considering studies in conjunction (something practitioners often don't take the time to do) and knowing the benefits/limits of statistical studies (esp in certain fields) and even things like meta-analysis. That'd be rad.

[@pendlera2959]

Yeah, I dislike having to take journalists' word for everything because when I try to read their references I get completely lost.

[@robertjarman3703]

Onihikage Healthcare Triage does a lot to explain how scientific research is done.

[@Coxy002605]

I'd say that books are a better bet here. Start simple with something like "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre to get an overview, then go a little more in-depth - a U.K med school favourite being "How to Read a Paper" by Trisha Greenhalgh. I'm not sure of what the U.S equivalents would be.

[@Joeobrown1]

the scary thing is that people are only going to see a downwards slope and not take anything else from this video

[@Evan94045]

That's why Statistics should be mandatory in middle or high school

[@nkn8820]

Joe Brown this was a bunch of b.s. just say climate change thats all that matters

[@mannysikario]

I'm taking a statistics class, and I get more what a probability distribution is thanks to you lol

[@hixsongarren]

I'd like to add a bit more information on how these new data points actually affect us with regard to stormwater management. WARNING VERY LONG AND BORING ENGINEERING POST INCOMING!!!! So stormwater management in a nutshell is the process engineers go through during design in which they take into account how much water could fall on any given area and how that water will leave that area. How they do this is by taking into account 3 main things. 1. What size storm will they design for (100yr, 50yr, etc.)/how much water will fall. 2. How much water will be absorbed through the ground? 3. How much water will need to be detained and eventually transported off the site? This video shows how that first variable can change but that is not the whole story, especially when talking about a situation like what is happening in Houston. See, Houston has an incredibly good problem, too many people want to live there. So many people want to live there that developers want to make subdivisions and communities as fast as possible to capitalize on all the people coming into the city. This means that subdivisions are sprouting up everywhere. These developments are all using the same data. Data that is based on how the area was before all of this development happened. Data that doesn't include the MASSIVE amount of concrete and land development installed. This development reduces the amount of land that can absorb water since water can only be absorbed through the ground, not concrete. This development also increases the speed at which water leaves these sites. The only thing water travels faster over than concrete is ice. Within 10 years the city essentially double or tripled the number of roads in the area which in terms of a big storm like this was like tripling the speed at which all reservoirs would be filled. The reservoirs in the area were built prior to all of this development and based on data that was also collected prior to development. Therefore they over-topped days prior to when they were expected to because their calculations for when they would over-top were based on pre-development data. Overall, what Houston is facing is the result of a massive predictable problem that sadly just wasn't feasibly a preventable one. I hope that this changes the zoning laws in the area regarding stormwater management and forces contracting companies to abide by them in the future. Anyway, hope someone enjoyed that. DFTBA!!

[@CChissel]

Robert Douglas Really enjoyed that. Got some insight on how that all works out. Thanks!

[@DarkJonas33]

Robert Douglas I'm a stormwater engineer and your explanation either sounds wrong or stormwater management in America is very flawed. The "pre development" case needs to take into account all the development that has occured prior. Also timing of flows needs to be taken into account. For example there is no point detaining flows in the lower catchment if this will just cause coincidence with peak flows from the upper catchment. The amount of rainfall in Hurricane Harvey was 1200 mm. That's the annual rainfall for a lot of cities. It doesn't matter what the land cover was, there was always going to be flooding. The fundamental problem is where we have chosen to build our cities. Low lying flat land is always going to be susceptible to flooding due to flows from upper catchments, high groundwater and high sea levels.

[@hixsongarren]

Please reread what I wrote. www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/ Most of what I was discussing i got from this article. What occurred in Houston is far from the norm here. But let me ask you this. How do you take into account hundreds of developers who are building things all at the same time? Do you force all of them to submit their stormwater plans to an overseer? What if they don't agree with you?Do you fight them in court while they build? What about the exploding housing market? Should they take that into account? They all did take into account all the development that was done prior to construction. But after they were done, there were a hundred more developers ready to keep building. Houston has gained over 4 million people in the past 15 years. So what it seems like happened to me was development occurred faster than data about the area could be collected. So when new developments were added they did not have correct information. Why did they do this? Houston needed houses for all the new people, fast. Also, if you work in stormwater management then you know that's a cop out to say to avoid low lying areas. Sometimes you can't. The Netherlands have been living fine below sea level and plenty of areas around the world flood every year. The trick is learning to plan accordingly and figuring out how to divert and store water. It's difficult, but it can be done and it can result in some excellent farmland for specific crops. Rather than be dismissive and insinuate the issue is the people for living in such a dangerous area, why not instead try to figure out a way to avoid this disaster in the future. Maybe look up sponge cities. It's what I think might be a decent idea, i just haven't done enough research yet. Regardless appreciate the comment! DFTBA!

[@DarkJonas33]

The way we approach development here in New Zealand is generally each development needs hydrologically neutral; that is the stormwater is treated on-site so that what is discharge is no different from the pre-developed case (in terms of timing and peak flows). Therefore it doesn't matter if there are a whole lot of other development going on as each site will only be discharging flows in the same way they did before the development occured. On the subject of building in low lying areas I do think it's a bad idea - well at least in the way it is done now. I'm not familiar with how high the land is in Houston relative to the sea but in NZ we have built on a lot of old swamps that are within 2-3 m (vertical) of current mean sea level. I think it is a matter of stormwater engineers to work with city planners to keep these areas serving a natural stormwater treatment function and also use them as parks. You can build near or below sea level but it can be very costly to constantly be running pumps. Personally I don't think the economics add up, especially when you factor in flood damage. If you want to have a purely gravity run stormwater network you have to build well above sea level.

[@CL-go2ji]

That was awesome.

[@tuckerprice9663]

I think it's important to point out that this video is not just for people who don't think climate change is occurring. Those people probably are not watching Vlogbrothers. It's largely for those people who point to the destruction in Houston and say "look: climate change" (something I am also guilty of).

[@SSGranor]

The thing is, there is a very real sense in which it is perfectly correct to point to climate change as a causal factor in Harvey's destruction. And, it's something that isn't captured by this video. Even if the number of major storms per year weren't (on average) increasing, the amount of damage caused by storms could still be made worse by warming in several ways. (Keeping in mind, in particular, that the definition of "major storm" is based only on maximum sustained wind speed.) First, global warming is raising sea levels, both due to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and due to the thermal expansion of ocean water. This means that any given storm's storm surge will cause more flooding that would otherwise occur. Second, warmer air temperatures mean that any given storm can hold more moisture than it would otherwise, leading to greater rainfall. Third, warming affects the patterns of prevailing winds, which control the overall motion of storms. In the case of Harvey, weak prevailing winds are the reason the storm basically stalled over Houston, leading to the rainfall remaining in the same area for days on end.

[@tuckerprice9663]

Thanks for the reply! Those direct impacts were not things that I had given much thought to. The storm surge point is particularly interesting to me, and for anyone else who wants to look into it, here is a nice article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research: ncar.ucar.edu/press/evaluating-the-effects-of-future-sea-level-rise-and-storm-surges-along-us-coastlines

[@donnash5813]

Maybe we have more people that building more properties in costal areas so storms do a lot more damage because there is more to destroy. Seriously I think the problem is over population using too many resources and causing more pollution. Reducing emissions is near the point of no return but no one talks about population.

[@malaciousmark3903]

No one denys climate change. Anyone educated at all that is. But what people deny is how much are we really affecting it. The earth has warm and cool cycles some are more drastic then others. For example the ice age was simply the earth cooling down drastically. So the argument isn't why don't they think earth is warming up but how much are we really affecting it. We almost undoubtable are but it could be 90% from Earth and only 10% from our own emissions.

[@luguy8347]

Always have fun visiting you. I feel the difference from my childhood to my senior years. The extremes are there in the news, too. It’s really happening.

[@clay5660]

Thank you for this video Hank! The one thing I would say is that it's important to consider why people are so hesitant to accept climate change as a significant problem or to take tangible steps to combat it. Speaking as a New Orleans resident (born and raised), Louisiana relies heavily on the oil and gas industry as a source of jobs and tax dollars. So even though many residents know that working to restore our wetlands and promoting renewable energy will decrease the likelihood of catastrophic storms like Katrina, many are hesitant to confront the oil and gas industry head on.

[@lauralab13]

You guys, today is 19 years later, the final scene in the Harry Potter books!

[@9_in_the_afternoon]

Laura L. TOO. MANY. FEELS.

[@sylviasketches]

Laura L. NO

[@General12th]

Thanks for reminding me! I loved the epilogue. I don't personally know anyone else that did, but I sure did.

[@General12th]

Watch them all!

[@sylviasketches]

It's sad to think that one of my favorite book series as a kid has its universe being closed. Still, I think I'll join you guys in watching some of the movies if I can.

[@Dbm_-oe7zv]

Lol we are screwed. We debate more about if it's true or not rather than debating on how we are going to fix it.

[@johannesstabe9959]

co2 tax + dividend for starters

[@talhatariqyuluqatdis]

Yup

[@talhatariqyuluqatdis]

@@johannesstabe9959 yeah agreed 100%

[@antran1860]

yup brother, a comment section of people denial global warming in another video is the reason i found this video.. we so screwed.

[@Jadenmic]

That's what the companies want us to do .. ever wonder why it became political in the first place?

[@caitlynjones2147]

The first 2 minutes of this video confused me so much that I've decided to go back to school. Thank you? I mean I really should've gone for my masters right away but boy what a kick in the butt this video was.

[@untappedinkwell]

Best of luck on your future educational endeavors!

[@AstroLizard]

So elegantly and simply explained. John and Hank are such great teachers!

[@AscendantStoic]

No it's not, it's criminally simplified and actually pretty damn wrong.

[@AstroLizard]

Really? I'm up for hearing a better explanation if you have one. (Not sarcastic.)

[@buzzlightbeer4215]

Too bad it's so wrong

[@gyro4250]

ignore the flat earthers Astro. This was as good an explanation as a layperson should hope for. Could he have said the predictive models show that the frequency of storms will go down? Sure but that would have just confused the issue and detracts from the fact that the storms we will have are predicted to be more intense and much wetter.

[@buzzlightbeer4215]

The deadliest hurricane in Texas was 117 years ago. 6000 people to 12000 people died.

[@Lmjacks]

Hank, thank you for this video; it was very well researched and presented. Understanding the world around us and how it is changing is not easy, and videos such as this are valuable resources for learning.

[@ariefraiser140]

I work for a car insurance companies and no one believes in climate change more than insurance companies. Our lively hood depends on our actuaries getting as much information and probability predictions as accurate as possible and offering as competitively priced policies as possible that reflects the risk for insuring your car.

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

Arie Fraiser Oh course you do, it's a great way to scam people out of money and no one scams people more than insurance companies

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

+Adam Smith So what? You think climate change is an elaborate global hoax by home insurance companies so they can increase prices for the relatively small number at risk from climate change related property damage?

[@hopefletcher9182]

Thank you for SLAYING THIS EXPLANATION

[@bens5859]

suh lay grl. suh lay

[@SwaaaggyB]

"With Great power comes Great Responsibility"- Uncle Ben

[@Belboz99]

Heat = Energy... Energy is what's needed to create these storms. We're rolling the dice every year, only now the dice are loaded. As we add more heat, it's like adding more weight to the already loaded dice.

[@Pintexx]

I learned that global learning was real even before Obama was president... not politics just science

[@AscendantStoic]

It has nothing to do with Obama, look up Al Gore and his hilarious An Inconvenient Truth movie in 2006 with loads of prediction about future Climate in 2013 and 2016, NONE of which came true.

[@JustAnotherArtist123]

TheHunterWolf because we're not going to wake up one day and say look global warming did this! No it's a gradual process that can have a negative impact. Imagine you're walking in you're house and I place a brick on your floor. Are you going to trip over the brick? Not necessarily, but the likelihood of you tripping has increased. Does global warming mean we're going to get worse storms? Not necessarily, but the likelihood has increased.

[@aids7899]

TheHunterWolf That's because Al Gore isn't a bloody scientist. He's a politician himself. Why don't you actually focus on the climate SCIENCE and what actual Climatologists say in Peer-Reviewed scientific literature, science articles and textbooks instead of denouncing global warming and climate change because of a politician misconstruing scientific data to over-dramatise in a documentary? Make no mistake. Politicians who like to deny the science of global warming and climate change for political and monetary gain and politicians who like to over-dramatise global warming and climate change for political and monetary gain have damaged and confused the public and the reputation of real climate science just as much as each other.

[@coolkid33000]

AIDS well did you consider that al gore is ruining the concept by over exaggerating the impact to get money from congress, which is why these misconseptions exists?

[@josephburchanowski4636]

+AIDS Whether you like it or not, the general public isn't going to notice the actual science, only what they get feed by politicians and the media. Which if you ever hear the media talk about a study you yourself read, you'd notice the media isn't that good at presenting science. My point is that the public views what they see on the media and hear by the politicians as the actual science, you can't expect them to realize it isn't, they have no way to know it isn't. You don't hear many people trying to correct the public view on climate change. Vast majority of the public who believe in climate change don't even know much about it. I have ran into global warming skeptics with a better understanding of global warming and climate change than the average person I run into who believes it. You know you have a problem when people believe that UV rays cause global warming, or that the ozone has significant effect on global warming. The fact is that the damage is done, and you can't expect the public to fix the damage themselves, someone needs to properly explain it to them so they can at least repeat it without being completely wrong. If you think politicians are bad, just think how bad it is when a skeptic of climate change knows more about it that the believers around them, yeah I don't think they are going to change their mind to believing in it.

[@punkrockgirlpa]

I am thrilled that this is trending :) such an important video :) thanks Hank!

[@bfranklin69]

so what my simple mind is getting is that global warming is more like a slow change in weather patterns overall, like rain season areas slowly shifting over to a different state or (or harricanes reaching new areas).

[@Lolatyou332]

Brianna Franklin global warming doesn't exist, it is called climate change now. The climate has been changing for millions of years hitting an ice age about every 20,000 years or so. Carbon isn't destroying the earth since almost all life is carbon based.

[@steliostymvios3446]

@Lolayou332 The climate is becoming more hostile to us, that is the problem.Also 20,000?? Where did you even get this?

[@Lolatyou332]

Stelios Tymvios it is a cycle because the earth doesn't rotate on a perfect axis; earth freezes for the same reason that the north pole is frozen. This happens about every 20,000 years. The last ice age ended at around 10,000 BC.

[@Lolatyou332]

Stelios Tymvios also using correlation and saying in general "the planet is becoming more hostile to us" is nothing but superstitious. That is the equivalent of saying god is mad at us for using cars so he gives us disasters.

[@buschwc]

Just like you can't drown in water because we need water to survive? Nailed it.

[@bongobongo3661]

Thank you for watching this episode of Scishow

[@ilikeoranges4]

I live in a very dry area. Every year the winters seem to get slightly drier here while hurricanes and tropical storms and blizzards keep happening in the wet parts of the country. Last year in school I had a class called environmental stewardship (I needed science credits and it counted). What I learned in that class led me to this realization that climate change is taking the water away from the people who need it the most and dumping it (sometimes catastrophically so) on the people who need it the least.

[@JaceDiehl]

Who else thought there was a Rick and Morty portal in the thumbnail?

[@lunasnightshade]

+Aryan Alliance MN how is he racist

[@equinoxech0257]

Luna Light because green is racist

[@lunasnightshade]

EquInoX Ech0 are u just saying that to be funny and if so you are not

[@arundhatikulkarni8587]

I think people are willing to accept that the climate is changing but do not want to accept how much it is changing or how much the impact of that change is. Probability distribution and curves are sadly understood by a very small portion of the population and somehow we are in a world where we have to pay attention to those people's opinions on scientific FACTS. I wish we could ignore them just like they ignore us :(

[@jaybrodell1959]

Two observations: The most powerful Atlantic hurricane happened in the 17th century when both the French and British Caribbean fleets were destroyed. And hurricanes seem to form well north of the Equator instead of the warms equatorial waters. In fact, what we are seeing is a natural trend in temperatures that eventually will reverse into a new ice age. Just look at the historical and prehistorical records. News fact: it is better to be warm than very cold. See: www.cdm.org/mammothdiscovery/wheniceages.html

[@tanimation7289]

When exactly in the ice age going to start? 2050?

[@aprilp649]

Anyone here after the studying livestream?? :)

[@oneofmanyscrubsontheintern3905]

April P Ho hoh, what's this about?

[@julischrier]

April P lol YES with our tiny preview of the audio :D

[@aprilp649]

One of many scrubs on the Internet He did a livestream yesterday on youtube!

[@Whitsum90]

Hey Hank, question - I thought your visual of the curve moving was a great way to explain how incremental climate change occurs and what the effects are. It seemed to imply that as the curve moves right on your graph, weaker storms that are more common now would be more likely to develop into stronger storms. Is there a potential that we would see the graph even out and then reverse its curvature (so that it ascends moving right on the axis instead of descending) as climate change continues to occur? Or is it more likely that the curve stays the same in shape more or less, but the intensity of the storms at the far end of the spectrum increases, as the average strength of storms also increases (aka we'll eventually have category 6, 7, 8 hurricanes)?

[@vlogbrothers]

The shape the curve is turning into is a topic of much study by people who actually know what they're talking about. One thing we are seeing is that this doesn't mean there will be more storms, there may even be fewer. There will just be more /strong/ storms. But one strong hurricane can take the place of multiple named tropical storms. So there is some thought that this might be a matter of storm strength (especially wetness) as much as it is of storm frequency.

[@Sporkredfox]

I'd just like to point out though that if it is truly a probability distribution than both sides of the curve will always tend towards zero because the AUC must sum to 1. So no, the curve won't ascend going to the right.

[@meloche1syndrome]

Aren't there very many places which are called "100 year flood plain" or even 200-500 years. Insurance companies understand the Weather patterns in the ares which they insure homes or autos. There's no doubt that warm weather and cold weather hitting each other creates huge storms. But, i think that historically it's evident that there is a rise and fall in global temperature and storm activity and that we're not making as big an impact as we think we are. But, that being said, as we think we are, still allows for some affect in weather patterns, I'm chalking it up to bottling water at spring sources and shipping water around in containers, that has to make a bigger lasting effect because it nesses with the water cycle ij a big huge way

[@KevinSmith-qi5yn]

It's actually really difficult to obtain accurate temperature data over a multi-decade period. For surface temperatures, there may be urbanization around the site, the tools may be damaged, and so on. For satellite data, they have to be replaced every decade and the satellite may not measure the same area every day. As a result most data we get is corrected. A larger debate is if the corrections are valid. Most of the corrected data is for sites that have a cooling trend verse a warming trend. Yet most corrective measurements should prune warming trends instead as most of the external effects like new construction will cause warmer temperature.

[@Aphreditto]

meloche1syndrome can I see your PhD in bottled water climate studies? Scientists don't just guess carbon emissions create a warmer planet because it sounds right. They produce evidence. Evidence that Exxon mobile and others try to propogandize against to make you think it's not a big deal

[@derchesten]

Hey! He turned into vhart for a second! He lacked triangles, but it was fun

[@tristanneal9552]

If there's anything I hate, it's when people who don't understand science pretend they're expert scientists. No, I'm not referring to the well educated and supported vlogbrothers videos. I'm referring to the stubborn climate change deniers flooding this comment section, flaunting alternate climate theories that have already been explained away and disproven in a thousand different videos and journal articles but which still float around internet echo chambers regardless.

[@jmuld1]

Oh! Tristan a "man of science" please share with us a little science supporting man made global warming other than my its hot.

[@thatoneguy1207]

If you want an expert scientist, here you go. kzbin.info/www/bejne/imWWp5Zqg7-Ii8U

[@Zoot101]

+

[@andrejansen3281]

2polohunnie 7.2B?

[@thomasstewart2870]

Tristan Neal Protip: this is also an Internet echo chamber. Look up actually arguments against man caused climate change instead of repeating your echoes

[@gentlydirking4912]

Ah, hank, probability is such a useful concept to break down. Last summer, my region had first an unusually dry season, then the worst disaster I'd ever experienced. The second worst flood in recorded history, in a flood zone (I've been here over a dozen floods). I don't want to say Australia had an abnormal pressure system that caused a massive flood and now America has had the same experience, during the same season. I'm eager to see next years weather patterns, if they shift, are they really shifting, and how quickly. DFTBA and never trust statistics, they're super bias prone.

[@henryg5298]

Am I the only one that thought he was holding a fork with mac n cheese on it in the thumbnail?

[@lukeario8181]

G•nzillq The Moose that's a fantastic spot haha

[@jocyjocy9301]

I love you.

[@UtahStories]

3:09 "The more carbon we release into the atmosphere the more these curves shift" -- Could you cite from where do you get your information as your basis to make this claim? I'm trying to get to the bottom of "man-caused" global warming, and I'm having a difficult time finding the best scientific data that actually makes a conclusive connection to man's carbon and warming.

[@evgeniiakapustina]

Utah Stories ipcc reports. Check out the summary for policymakers, they are more “readable” for a non-expert

[@lonenomad8583]

@@evgeniiakapustina the IPCC uses fraudulent data and dosent listen or flat out removes quotes from scientists who disagree so

[@michac4744]

Quick note on recurrence intervals - these are heavily impacted by the length of the observational records are based on (and the average climate over that time) - so a 'one in one hundred year' flood may not be representative of a one in one hundred year flood.

[@yanitataaa]

Houstonian here, my neighborhood looks and smells like a swamp- at least my house is safe.

[@philiptouw3623]

Adriana D Glad to hear that you and your house are okay.

[@vlogbrothers]

Very glad to hear it.

[@lampardkipler7413]

gonna be honest i didn't completely understand the video but I appreciate the passion put into it

[@RazorStrap]

I'm going to be honest too. I want to hear from the MSM as much about global cooling during winter cold spells as I do about global warming during summer heat waves.

[@vigilantsycamore8750]

You might, if overall trends indicate a steadily increasing amount of cold spells and winter in general becoming longer over time, in correlation with such factors as volcanic activity or increasing absorption of carbon dioxide and decreasing emission of the same, as well as the predicted effects of such a shift in climate - increasing glaciation, less water from melting snow going into rivers, more rainfall, falling sea levels. Since, you know, such a context would make the situation analogous to what's currently going on.

[@kevingonzales9704]

Basically (could be wrong) from what I understood we shouldnt be focused on the amount of disasters that accour (the dots) but instead the change in the model. So as example if you graph sin of x youll see a infinate going wave. That would be like the trend throughout history. Disasters happen they dont cycle repeats. However instead of the graph staying consistent in recent years it has been changing. Maybe the frequency of this wave is increasing due to outside variables (humans).

[@EricYouTube578]

Can you please do a crash course on statistics / probabilities?! The world needs it!

[@evelynchavez3075]

If the probability curve is changing, due to a number of factors, will we ever be able to bring the curve back to its original state if we end global warming? Or have we caused irreversible damage?

[@vlogbrothers]

Mostly, we want to keep the curve from shifting more, rather than put it back where it once was.

[@satyadivyach4544]

I have been concerned about the same after watching this video. Thanks.

[@TheWeakMinded]

Evelyn Chavez as of now, we have no ability to reverse only reduce. The most effective means of reducing impact are nuclear power plants and genocide. Only one is really an option ;)

[@pendlera2959]

I think the goal at the moment is to slow down the change so we have enough time to figure out how it can be reversed. It's worth noting that even if we magically reverse climate change in the future, some of the damage, like the extinction of species, won't be undone.

[@bailey566]

Pendlera animal agriculture is the number one cause of species extinction primarily because 1000 acres of the rainforest is chopped down every second for it, please watch cowspiracy

[@happypirate1000]

At 3:19 I was like: "What?? That's the quickest four minutes EVER." lol

[@cmfletcher123]

This is a fantastic video! Oh my gosh, more people would be more inclined to listen to concerns about global warming if more people approached it like this!

[@AB-eq9mm]

Don't let global warming distract you from the fact that the seahawks didn't run the ball.

[@goulash6737]

* * yea, we have to focus on the important things in life.

[@NOVAKza]

why did you have to remind me

[@Michael-bp5wu]

The thumbnail is actually Ricks portal gun

[@GionnyBanana]

Thank you, some notions of probability that were not clear in my courses are now a bit clearer :)

[@starcherry6814]

He made this so clear to understand!

[@connorm3436]

Weird. The thumbnail time says 4 minutes but the video says 3:59 🤔

[@vlogbrothers]

Apparently, time is subjective to KZbin.

[@LaydayEruanna]

I really appreciate learning more about those curves and probability distribution.

[@fossilfighters101]

Hank you have really nice hands.

[@CogsFixmore]

you just wanna feel them on your body

[@merri-golden8826]

Oh no , serious matters being discussed! Beware the flame war in the comments . Beware the flames in the forest . Beware the ignorance of humanity And most importantly Don't Forget to be awesome

[@alfredabraham7822]

peculiar pets I don't see any flame war yet.

[@acenog123]

I would like to say that if you want to know more about how the distribution works then look up Maxwell - Boltzman Distribution and learn how average velocity relates to temperature.

[@jimalbi]

The shifting of the curve likely means in the long term what is now classified a «tropical storm» could become a category 1 hurricane and category 4 hurricane could become a category 5 thanks to global warming because of all the energy added to the system. This is grossly put but I think you can get the idea. Of course, this doesn't just apply to hurricanes but many other things.

[@fallendaemon]

No, that's not what it means. That is not how probability works, and it's not how weather works.

[@ShorlanTanzo]

More like, up to this point we've been dealing with meager Level 1-3 Kaijus. We thought things were tough back then. Now we're dealing with category 4-5 Kaijus and the catastrophic damage is on a whole new scale! We need more Jaeger pilots! Join the Jaeger Uprising!

[@wbspidr13]

Hello friends

[@vickyceledon1215]

Sean Bates hello friend you are the actual first person to comment on this video! Have a cookie 🍪

[@Xenolilly]

Hello

[@feynstein1004]

Ollo

[@Boborbot]

This is an informative yet roundabout way to explain an interesting human bias. We suck at math, and seeing in just how many ways never gets old.

[@someonemstr1]

Anyone else who thought it was a Rick and Morty portal in the thumbnail?

[@ironmonkey349]

The Best Climate Intellectuals in the world: Insurance Companies !

[@AnimilesYT]

And if I recall correctly the curve of number of storms should shift to the left with a warmer climate. Less hurricanes per season, but the ones that will happen will on average be stronger and affect a larger area which causes more casualties and damage than a few more weaker storms

[@howtubeable]

Another good video. Hank did one of my pet peeves though. He said that Katrina hit New Orleans. It did not. The levees broke, and New Orleans flooded. Katrina hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The difference is important.

[@julieneal4256]

Harvey did not hit Houston either.

[@Thompsoncorv]

"Katrina negatively affected New Orleans" happy?

[@popeyegordon]

Idiotic semantics. It happened, fool.

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

Howard Wiggins He doesn't let facts get in the way of his video.

[@jadejenkins3215]

Oh wow what a big difference

[@krampus225]

3:05 Not necessarily the future we have to accept. If our so-called elected officials would have kept us in the Paris Climate Agreement, we challenge multinational corporations to commit to greener efficiencies, and we all accept our own (especially Americans) responsibility in the consumption of natural resources and waste we produce and work to minimize, we MIGHT expect a better future. The future is in our hands.

[@flintfredstone228]

Paris Climate Agreement is a stupid-ass public relations piece of shit that countries make to look good. There have been other climate agreements in past years, and nobody enforces them or tries to abide by them.

[@Lolatyou332]

Krampus climate accord was a wealth redistribution program with a non-binding agreement.

[@themaximus144]

Krampus I'm not happy we left the Paris climate agreement either. That said, it's also not the worst thing in the world to have happened. America still have a booming green industry on our hands, and many of our states have vowed to continue on with the agreement anyways. Further, there were also problems with the agreement to begin with. Namely, they were unnecessarily lax on China, one of the world's largest polluters, and also a known humans rights abuser. All this said, I do still wish we had stuck with the agreement, if only to keep us on good terms with the Europeans, and also so that we could have had more leverage in making changes to the deal which are more favorable to us as a country. I just don't think it's the worst thing to have happened.

[@PatrikKron]

The Paris Climate Agreement is not enougth. We need to cut emissions even more. I would argue that we need to "accept" some global warming and adjust our buildings and infrastructure to that, but we should limit the extent of the global warming by doing everything we can.

[@1Vukk1]

You said China is one of the world's largest polluters? If you look at CO2 (which is what most people go by), China pollutes more than USA, India, Russia, and Japan, combined (these numbers are 2015). My biggest problem with the Paris agreement, is the goal wasn't climate change, but to stick it to wealthy countries. If it is climate change, China would have needed to reduce CO2 emissions drastically. The agreement basically said China didn't have to do anything for years, if at all.

[@amysinger2201]

Hey Hank, great video! Can you discuss how the fires and the hurricanes are related? I don't understand why people are having such a hard time connecting THESE two dots...

[@rfi-cryptolab4251]

No one has made more money off "climate change" than Algore

[@valayilpaul99]

Maxwell Boltzman curve ;)

[@AllAboutGamers0]

It seems like now the conversation about Global Climate Change is shifting from "we need to stop this" to "we need to prepare ourselves for it and accept responsibility for it's consequences". From what I understand is probably the reasonable approach but nonetheless incredibly humbling. Maybe more so as an American than anywhere else shocks because we are taught from the day we are born that every challenge is able to be overcome. But the damage is done (in a sense and I understand that it isn't a dichotomy but a continuum), climate change due global warming is irresistable and we must be prepared.

[@Dbm_-oe7zv]

Blow up the sun. Boom problem solved.

[@jeremy6268]

Any body else wish there was a way to come back and check the comments without giving a video any more views?

[@IanK3b]

aweeee is little jeremy salty!

[@popeyegordon]

They would never let that happen. Click bait revenue is the basis for KZbin's existence.

[@maiafarinas7189]

I need to find the halfway point between complacency and crippling anxiety. Then I need to figure out how to get there.

[@caspertv2406]

I just wanna say. Why do we get to determine what the earths "normal" temperature is. Let's say the worlds normal temperature is 6 degrees hotter than what the worlds temp is now. How would we know what it should be and that it's not global warming and it's more of that we were just in a cold stage. Also I find it funny that the earths average temp now is still colder than the average temp 6000 years ago.

[@SwtBeat]

Cape Delayz We didn't just blindly decide what earths temperature will be, math/science was used to find it. Google is at your fingertips if you want to know how its discovered, that's what I use anytime I have a question about things I don't understand. Math/science also tells us what temperature current life can survive at and math/science/computers show us what effects are likely to occur if the earths temperature changes.(extinction for some things, but not others)

[@hermitoldguy6312]

Global annual average temperature is irrelevant to life on Earth - nothing experiences it. Life experiences weather - which is _vastly_ more challenging.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

What matters to people is how many are going to starve because rainfall decreases, or drown because of increased flooding, or eventually have their homes and farmland go under water.

[@neberboi]

The earth is millions of year old and you have the audacity to make prediction based on 50 data points?

[@vigilantsycamore8750]

I've seen people committing the fallacy that because past instances of an event have had a different cause, the current instance cannot have the cause being attributed to it. This is, I believe, my first encounter with the fallacy that making a prediction on events in the near future based on recent data is audacious because the data only concerns a small portion of the timescale. And the Earth is actually billions of years old, but that's not the point. Also there are more than 50 data points - but again, not the point. The data points concern recent events and can be used to make predictions about the near future. It's not audacious to use the events of the last hundred years to make predictions for events that may happen in the next hundred years, regardless of how long other events have been occurring. If anyone's being audacious, it's you.

[@shablamrobohawk1192]

I really appreciate the layperson's explanation of what a probability distribution is

[@thematt5325]

I ate subway today.

[@anthonyweinersnose2583]

The Matt Me too! Tuna.

[@hannahdaniels1071]

The only relevant comment on this video

[@seanmike8248]

Isn't it possible we're just going through a cycle such as the ice age?

[@pennypennington593]

Please make a video about how likely we are to die from different things paired with statistics! I've been Googling but get muddled information! It would be cool to know what is/ isn't realistic to worry about and what are the best ways to avoid death!

[@ReelJustinLewis]

My theory... Manbearpig is real. LMAO

[@johnquest3102]

Well then stop driving cars, flying, heating, using electricity, you know, be a cave man, oh you do not want to? Well do not ask me to be either. You alarmists are such HYPOCRITES !!

[@ronaldmcdonaldtrump4446]

John Quest There are alternatives, but most of the climate change is coming from farm animals. Co2 is a problem that can solve it's self because plants can covert it to oxygen but can't convert methane

[@zach1262]

The issue isn't driving or "using electricity". The problem is our reliance on fossil fuels. Electricity can come from tons of cleaner, renewable places like wind, hydro, and nuclear. If you know literally nothing about the topic why are you making a comment about it?

[@the7thage576]

Ronald McDonald Trump Co2 is at a deficit. That's a fact

[@everflores9484]

That's a lie, tho. Farm animals account for around 13% of CO2 emissions.

[@aids7899]

Ever Flores You misunderstood what he said. Key point in your comment being "CO2 Emissions". Animal Agriculture is the major source of Methane pollution into the atmosphere and Methane is a greenhouse gas about 10 times as potent as Carbon Dioxide. Because of this, Animal Agriculture is thought to actually be the main driving force of Global Warming, even more than CO2 emissions by transport.

[@cominup85]

I like your explanation of the distribution of probabilities to the dots.

[@PIC18F]

When I was younger I developed a false impression that knowlegde was to be found in books, but I slowly began to realize that thet people who write the most books are in fact people who enjoy writing. Their primary passion is writing. Unfortunately a lot of people who really know what they are talking about and have something important to say often don't like to comminicate it. Likewise many people who like to make videos of themselves talking do it for the the primary reason of making videos of themselves talking; what they talk about or whether its worth listening to seems to be a secondary concern. That's a shame.

[@vikidprinciples]

Let's put this in context. The sea level is rising between 1-3mm a year. So the sea level is rising but does that mean we should abandon every coastal city and run for the hills. Do we need to destroy the world economy to mitigate a say, 2mm rise per year? So, it is the same with this curve, yes it is shifting to the right, but should you change your entire life for possibly (and most probably) an imperceptible change that will take centuries to have any meaningful effect?

[@Elena-qj5tx]

I love that this is the same channel where a #1 new York times best selling author put sharpie on his face for sharpie face question tuesday

[@1001-z9e]

Yeah the earth is warming. Its been warming since the last Ice age. The question is, is it man made or not. But even if some warming (or most warming) is man made then the question becomes 'is the warming catastrophic, benign or beneficial." For the past thousand years the warming has been beneficial and mankind has flourished in the Earth Warming temperatures. In fact, every time the warming has regressed (the mini-ice age) {Europe} the population decreased dramatically and people starved to death. When the temperature rises more farm land is created and people (China, India) flourish. Not saying this trend will continue, just want the debate (especially on the other side) to be taken seriously.

[@colsoncustoms8994]

There should also be a way to quantify and track the total amount of energy from the storms. If one storm is 10X the size of another storm, that is relevant and should be factored in.

[@narata1541]

Did he just call me "John?" LOL, no worries as I understand John is a common name and it probably represents all of us. Anyways, I love this video! More people, Johns and Janettes, should know about this! :-)

[@coeynchoi]

Thank you for being so informative, I truly appreciate it