This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by blackfox42.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by PlayhousePals. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Sorry nock *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/What-could-possibly-go-wrong-while-golfing-on-a-frozen-lake

Water normally has some dissolved air in it, which is expelled and trapped when it's frozen leading to the white spots in the ice. To make clear ice you need to avoid the dissolved air being trapped in the ice.

One way to do this is to boil the water before freezing, which reduces the amount of dissolved gases.

What I think is happening here is that freezing only part of the water, and relatively slowly, lets the dissolved gases remain in the liquid part of the water.

Your video, What could possibly go wrong while golfing on a frozen lake?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Surprisingly uninformative video from an otherwise interesting youtube channel.

99% Invisible had a much better treatment of the subject. Have a look at/listen to "The Ice King" episode.

A glacier is basically a slow moving frozen river. Of course it can't flow backwards. Gravity continues to work even below the freezing point.

No I am not. Science totally relies on cause & effect.

Science has methods to distinguish correlation from causality. Causality means repeatable results, possibility of practical use and my hypocritical benefit. Correlation means randomness and no reason to invest.

Im not against the notion of global warming or nuclear winter.

As far as nuclear winter is concerned I dont think there is much difference between a frozen planet and one that is merely a "few" degrees colder than normal for a couple of years. In either case humans are done for. So while the hype was overdone, reality is just as frightening.

Global warming is a projection into the future, and the future is one of the hardest things to predict. I am happy to agree that we are f*cking up our planet and need to stop ASAP. There are measurable indicators that are clearly out of bounds, conclusively because of human activity.

The political hype (of climate change) is a big risk - if the climate straightens out because of external factors humans might be tempted to not stop f*cking up their environment.

Lets stick to facts and not overemphasize various projections.

But if only 3% of Earth's water is fresh water, and 70% of that is currently frozen, that's a long, slow wait for a slightly less salty ocean. I don't think your dilution theory "hold water."

I agree though, it could take decades, centuries or longer.

Where's SunDog: Frozen Legacy?

I think I believe this, they still add needless chemicals and even admitted it. Pre-fried, frozen & fried again... They may be telling the truth, but not in a way that implies that this process is most definitely very unhealthy - and I'm not being snobby, if I'm hungry while traveling and all there is - is McDonalds I'll eat it and not even grumble about it, though I wish all McDonalds were replaced by In & Out's

The simplest counter arguments to your dismissal are, 1) it's not a single degree, it's a number of degrees in a short time, releasing massive amounts of methane at once instead of over a few millennia. 2) it's exactly what happened 250 million years ago when climate change happened rapidly enough to release massive methane deposits in a short time frame, causing massively more climate change and a mass extinction event. Since then, there has not been the same kind of rapid mass increase in ocean temperature since the methane deposits were replaced.

It's about the speed of the temperature change, not just the amount of temperature change. Methane is short lived in the atmosphere, so if a change happened over 1000 years, the same total amount of methane might be released as a 100 year change, but only 10% of it will be in the atmosphere at a time. Consider, we've raised the temperature fast enough that the permafrost is melting at the same time as ice at the bottom of the ocean. That's a fairly unique situation that releases two enormous deposits of methane at the same time.

Our understanding does not need to be "complete" to be scientifically valid, or right. We may not know everything we need to know about the climate, but what we do KNOW is how methane reacts in the atmosphere, and how methane hydrates melt at certain temperatures/pressures, and we are near those levels in the deep oceans and permafrost areas today....so close that there are massive methane pockets bubbling out of the northern oceans and recently frozen ground worldwide.

If I was designing a space ark for the perpetuation of the human race and as much of Earth's biodiversity as possible, I would go with as large seed bank as possible, frozen embryos and sperm and wherever possible female animals only. And since it would not make sense to waste payload on unnecessary males the crew would need to be female. In terms of perpetuating humanity the most valuable resource would be wombs. And since the first generation colonists would be female then it would make sense for their mental health to recruit primarily lesbians.

Eh, we'll all be atomic garbage and either sucked back in as the universe prepares for the next big bang, or forever frozen, floating in a graveyard that spans all of existence.

Either way, I'm comfortable with the concept that there will still be parts of me around.

Exactly, in the same way that Pandarans from Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (2003) are a clone of Kung Fu Panda (2008). I don't know how Blizzard so consistently rips off the future.