Bad premise and bad conclusion.

Your urologist will not tell you to drink eight cups of water a day. Rather, your urologist will tell you to drink enough water to *pee* eight cups (about two liters) of water a day.

Depending on what you're doing, that could be a little or a lot. And when it's a lot, the thirst mechanism doesn't always work so reliably.

Inadequate hydration over a prolonged period of hot and muggy weather led to me getting kidney stones later on. Not fun. And unless medical evidence is wrong about preventing future kidney stones, the "drink when your thirsty" strategy will not have me hydrated enough.

Sure, for the limited situation he was describing, maybe the dehydration obsession is misplaced, but this was an oversimplified topic to the point of being meaningless or even dangerous to some. Adam certainly ruined something today.

So are we not supposed to preemptively hydrate when performing intense exercise in adverse conditions?

For instance, I've done 40-60 min cycling time trials (or any prolonged FTP effort really) in 30-35c+ (ambient) weather and have noticed that if I don't properly hydrate, I'll stop sweating part way through which can lead to a loss of performance. I've never noticed cramps but I can lose up to 4-6 lbs of water over a hard 2 hr ride in the heat. Since I sweat a lot when I workout, the heat doesn't bother me too much but I do need to drink more. Is it possible our brains are not tuned to quickly respond to a rapid loss of water, like during a hard cardio workout? Therefore, drinking water when you feel thirsty might only be a good recommendation when you're performing at low- to moderate-levels of exertion.

I agree that most people are likely not dehydrated but not consuming water during a hard cardio workout seems like bad advice.

no adverse outcomes? I've pointed out several adverse outcomes of very slight dehydration. In the video they use the example of sports and say hydration isn't important. So ya, if he's referring to clinical dehydration, he's basically side-stepping the fact that that's not what anyone is worried about when hydrating for sport, it's more about the intense cramping and loss of consciousness that we don't need scientific studies to confirm. Just like I don't need a scientific study to tell me to eat when I'm hungry.

You had to know what EAMC stands for to understand the abstract. EAMC = Exercise-associated muscle cramps.

This video does not always delineate between levels of hydration. The reality is, you are in general always "dehydrating". This is normal and has no adverse outcomes.

Clinical dehydration (what the video is really talking about) is way beyond the normal ups and downs of fluid loss while maintaining homeostasis.

HAIL HYDRATE!

Debunking Hydration - Adam Ruins Everything has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

There have been some interesting suggestions to solving the methane hydrate issue, but the none are very realistic. The closest thing to a possible plan would be that we introduce particulate, natural or man made, into the atmosphere to partially block the solar heating cycle. That would seal the methane back into the permafrost and give us time to try to reverse the effects of climate change or find another method of neutralizing it.

That is the main issue. We don't have a way to remove the methane safely. Basically the situation is primed, we have a methane bubble that is going to happen at some point, there is no stopping that without removing the methane deposits in a safe fashion.

Your video, Climatologist Emotional Over Arctic Methane Hydrate Release, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

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.

These methane clathrate (methane hydrate/hydromethane) deposits have been releasing both under the ocean and from permafrost melt for years now...with the rate of their melt release increasing exponentially.
Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
For those of you who are religious....this is the 'burning seas' you would expect from the apocalypse, because the pockets of gas coming from the ocean are highly flammable, even explosive.
This is why I have said for over a decade that there's absolutely no chance to avoid human extinction along with a world wide extinction of most of life. Once the methane started bubbling up from the sea floor, any chance of stopping the change was gone, and that was a while ago and we've done absolutely nothing but increase the amount of greenhouse gasses we produce. The ocean responds quite slowly to climate change, so there's nothing that can be done now that it's warm enough to release the methane, even if we stopped producing all greenhouse gasses today.

This is game over, people, game over. A massive methane release will have almost immediate effects and could double the entire temperature rise since the industrial revolution almost overnight. When (not if) that happens, say goodbye to nature both on land and in the seas.
The above number, 80% of life on earth vanished, is misleading. 80% of species were lost completely forever, 98% of all biomass died, so of the 20% of species that were left, only 10% of their population survived. Humanity won't.
*doublepromote
*quality

There MUST be a miswording there, or bold faced, outright lie.
As temperatures rise, frozen underwater methane (methyl hydrate)is melted and RELEASED, not trapped. Not only that, as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane. It's been happening for a while now, and is accelerating. Methane is FAR more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, for longer times, so once this cycle takes off, we can expect exponential increase in the temperature rise.
It's POSITIVE feedback loop, not a negative one.
EDIT: Perhaps they mean when the Atlantic currents are disrupted and the lower ocean becomes colder...at that point it will have the ability to store more methane, but not the ability to capture it from the atmosphere since the upper ocean will be far warmer.
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow won't remove any in the atmosphere, it will be there for quite some time before it could be absorbed in the ocean/forests, and that time period extends daily as the ocean becomes more acidic (making it impossible for diatoms to use the CO2 to make their shells) and the forests are removed. Once the ocean stops absorbing CO2, even the amount naturally created will be far too much for the atmosphere, and temps/CO2 levels will still rise even if we produce absolutely none. The tipping point was in the 70s-80s when we could have stopped CO2 production and made a difference. Now, it's too late unless we find a way to trap CO2 and keep it trapped. The systems are quite slow to react.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now. The water shortage is becoming a bigger threat, and that's expected to increase exponentially as glaciers, snow packs, and aquifers rapidly disappear. Ocean harvests have drastically decreased, as have natural foods. We are thriving in the same way locusts 'thrive' when they swarm...but note that 99.9% of them die of starvation in the end.

My original thought was maybe a frozen methane hydrate, it didn't behave like a pure liquid.

From http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
-Methane hydrates belong to a group of substances called clathrates – substances in which one molecule type forms a crystal-like cage structure and encloses another type of molecule. If the cage-forming molecule is water, it is called a hydrate. If the molecule trapped in the water cage is a gas, it is a gas hydrate, in this case methane hydrate.
Methane hydrates can only form under very specific physical, chemical and geological conditions. High water pressures and low temperatures provide the best conditions for methane hydrate formation.

Do the models that you reference (that say it won't be disastrous by 2100) include methane? From everything I've read and seen reported, the methyl hydrates are already melting in the oceans, causing large releases of methane throughout the globe. Methane is a FAR worse greenhouse gas than CO2. What I've read is that, once that cycle gets going, it's self re-enforcing because the methane traps heat, heating the ocean, releasing more methane, trapping more heat, etc. It's hard for me to believe they are now predicting LESS warming by 2100 when the hydrates are already melting ahead of predictions....perhaps there's a part of the cycle I don't understand?

Absolute BS.
Bad math, no science. He's cherry picking data and extrapolating using partial worst case scenarios rather than actual measurements...that is not science, it's misleading propaganda.
The cost of moving away from fossil fuels is easily offset completely by the savings of the new technologies used, and likely the switch would be a gain to GDP, as it makes tens of thousands of new technology jobs and billions-trillions in additional GDP selling the tech, and once built many new techs have far lower operation costs, saving money. (That's how economies work, you sell stuff and make money...right?) It sure worked for my solar system, which you, Trance, would likely still try to talk people out of, claiming it's more expensive than it's worth, while reality is it paid for itself in less than 1/3 of it's expected lifespan AND has other benefits.
The cost of 'adapting to climate change' is infinite, as it's impossible. Plants, animals, and biota can't survive it...and people like to eat. Kind of hard to adapt if there's no food, far LESS farmable land, less or no natural food sources, etc.
Also, he ignores the facts that 1) it's almost certainly going to be MORE than 3 deg. by 2100 and 2)methane hydrates are already melting, and methane is (I think) something like 100 times more damaging to the atmosphere (as far as greenhouse effects), so even "just" 3 deg. suddenly becomes 8 deg...that's often ignored.
3 deg. means on average, but also means the spread gets larger. Winters are colder, summers are even hotter. 3 deg. doesn't sound like much by itself, but it really means 15-20 deg. hotter when it's hot, and 12-17deg. colder when it's cold.

I was with him until the end where he said "time is on our side"....sorry, but time actually ran out to 'fix' this issue decades ago. Now the best we could hope for is to mitigate the damage and not continue to exacerbate the effects by adding more CO2 and other green house gasses. Once the ocean warms enough to melt the methyl hydrates, the oceans catch fire (warming them even more) and the methane both destroys the air and starts the super green house effect, sending us on the death spiral towards a Venus like atmosphere. It's getting really close, people. In some places it's already happening. Put your fire suits and gas masks on.