Scientists fear tremors at the Eyjafjallajokull (ay-yah-FYAH-lah-yer-kuhl) volcano could trigger an even more dangerous eruption at the nearby Katla volcano — creating a worst-case scenario for the airline industry and travelers around the globe.
A Katla eruption would be 10 times stronger and shoot higher and larger plumes of ash into the air than its smaller neighbor, which has already brought European air travel to a standstill for five days and promises severe travel delays for days more.
The two volcanoes are side by side in southern Iceland, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) apart and thought to be connected by a network of magma channels.
#4 Short wave or even FM with a nice big antenna somewhere. Even am with the right passive antenna.
Nice wall paper but its to small.
I think the Yellowstone hot spot should be the site of a national-scale geothermal energy project. I don’t know if it’s possible to extract enough energy to stop the next supervolcano eruption, but it’s worth a try, plus we could get lots of electricity in the meantime.
#29–Skeptic==very good. Seems to me though you are making a “basic” error, not the same basic error Animby makes, but still a basic error. If we sum up all the common errors made, then we could focus on the uncommon ones? ((I crack myself up!))
Are you confusing/conflating the politics surrounding GW with the science of GW? Science makes headway and gains consensus and then final acceptance while the politics, much less religion, can tarry for years. The politics of cancer and tobacco is mostly settled, but you can still find political and religious shills claiming no connection. Does that make the science subject to skepticism????
Animby–I like your bullseye on the contradiction before the end of the sentence. Sweet. But a volcano erupting for a few years is “weather” and not climate. Too many view their life experience with weather as a basis to opine on climate. A good example of hubris and ignorance although that is almost redundant.
And to Floyd–I apologize. It can seem flippant to teeter-totter back and forth on broad general statements but I only revealed my private process. Make the argument on one side, then the other, compare and contrast, see the right and wrong on both sides===reach for the dialectic. Start over.
I was down in the lower levels of the Earthquake Machine facility here in northern California, and who did I bump into with a Level 1 Pass securely pinned to his smock? Adam Curry.
The best way to confuse people is to rail against that which you wholeheartedly embrace. Or, in this case, control.
Bobbo, Animby… happy Earth Day!
Bobbo, short answer, not rehashing all the details… politics and climate science have become indistinguishable. Where politics usually derives from science, climate science has become a product of politics (sad). Many climates scientists have become deniers of science with arguments as inane as the cancer/tobacco scenario. We get excuses, silence, avoidance, double talk… instead of honesty and real scientific debate. That is why skeptics still abound and why a growing percentage of the public smells a rat, even though they don’t know much of the science. (not talking about all the nut cases and conspirators that come out of the woodwork) There is no debate between valid scientist skeptics and the disciples of AGW. The debate that is “over”… never even started. Of course the amount of CO2 does something to climate, but we will never know by how much, and exactly what we should do about it if anything, until we get all the questions answered in public forums of skeptic scientists and AGW disciple scientists. I’m not confused in the slightest about this Bobbo.
further proof that you can be as “green” as you like and nothing will change cause the Earth is ever changing.
Well said Skeptic, but I am skeptical of anyone who conflates science with the politics of the subject and in this case, the related subjects. I don’t think there would be “any” controversy over the long term predictions (the science) if it weren’t for the drumbeat for immediate action to be taken (the politics). It is poetical how you characterize one “flowing” from the other, but that is meaningless. The science is science and its not made political just because hacks refer to science.
The “science” I am referring to is the peer reviewed/contested/resolved scientific literature on the subject. I’ve never read any of it—tried===it was over my head. “I’ve heard” and take it as probably true that there is a consensus on AGW. Using only conflicting biased political sources to contest this report of a consensus is suspect in my book.
For myself, while this is as important as just about anything else that might occur in 100-200 years if we don’t do anything to stop it, I still find too many other issues more “interesting” and seemingly relevant to myself. There is a tiny steak of LIEbertarianism in me as well, I must admit.
Bobbo#34–glad you re-read my original statement, then your own. We were apparently settling on the same conclusions after all. Yes, a single volcano erupting, even for a long time, is really weather. Even the “year without a summer” in the early 1800s was a weather event, not climate change. It was temporary after all.
Bobbo, It’s not all that hard to understand… lots of big labels for simple processes. The consensus is quite possibly fake. A few brave souls have come forth and said that are many scientists too afraid to speak out for fear of career suicide. Sure, climate scientists do science, but it is terrible science by definition.
Let’s just agree to disagree on this one Bobbo. I find myself agreeing with you 95% of the time, and the other 5%… when I can’t really decipher your posts… I think leads to misinterpretation or just our different flavors of quirky humour becoming dark energy.
When / if the smoke ever clears on this topic, I have no doubt we’ll be on the same side.
Skeptic, I agree. Mistaken humor can be very destructive.
But, like a dog on a bone, I agree it is easy to understand. “It” being science–it being the peered reviewed studies. From what you have posted in this thread, it does sound like your complaint comes from NOT reading the science, and being swayed by the politics.
That is an error regardless of the subject, the speaker, and what the studies might say. That still leaves room for all the bias and corruption that the politics claim is there, but show me the studies. Or–show yourself the studies before you allege there is any confusion.
And you know—even a science with a lot of corruption, errors, fudging, and payoffs can still be correct?
My “best common sense evidence” for global warming is the constantly rising sea level. CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes common sense (not global warming science that is proven) that dumping trillions of tons of sequestered carbon into the air would “do something.”
To be skeptical without a valid foundation is suspect.
I never said there is no evidence for climate change, nor did I say that man has no effect. BTW, sea levels are not rising anywhere near what climate science has predicted. In other words there is something critical to understanding climate change that they don’t know. All they have managed to do is adjust programming until it matches past scenarios, rehashing the same limited factors…. back assward… because on second and third predictions they were STILL way off.
I have read a lot the science, specifically where it concerns scientific points of contention. There is very little in IPCC reports on upper atmosphere radiative forcing, for instance, because the most renowned expert in that field happens to be skeptical of the bad science in the IPCC reports… so they shut him out. It seems to me that you have a lot of catching up to do… get to the truth… not just eagerly drink the coolaid.
Skeptic–you are off point jousting with straws and worst of all: quibbling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
I, of course, will believe what ever you post: so have you read enough peer reviewed literature to form an opinion, or just a lot of science?
On point is “Naked Science – Earth from Above” on the tube right now. Science guy notes that the ability of phytoplankton to sequester atmospheric carbon is deteriorating as the oceans warm up==accelerating co2 build up in the atmosphere. He looked worried.
Some science guy on tv===does not equal==peer reviewed “real” science.
Any global cooling is temporary. When Mount St. Helens blew, the ash went around the world 3 times. It was a mild summer, but it went away pretty quickly and everything was back as before.
Bobbo, re:”I, of course, will believe what ever you post: so have you read enough peer reviewed literature to form an opinion, or just a lot of science?”
No, what you have to do to form an opinion based on reality, is to look outside the IPCC zone, into contrary, but valid, science. I don’t know why you posted the Wikipedia site. Historical measurements are less likely to be faulty than predictions… exactly what I’ve already said.
What you have to do is search out the most prominent points of contention and do your own digging to get the chronology of events. Look what transpired, what was said/presented by whom, qualifications, responses by the climate science community including the IPCC and current status. I gave you one place to start … radiative forcing. It’s a good starting point and would take you less than an hour to see the correspondence, responses, from both sides and then use your OWN judgment to form an opinion on that topic. Simple. Then move on to the next point if you are so inclined. I really don’t care one bit whether you take what I say as gospel or not.
Re your comment, “you are off point jousting with straws and worst of all: quibbling.”
That’s ridiculous. I’m responding “on topic” to your posts. Either you want to know what was said and done in the name of science or you don’t. Simple. Your lame excuses and attempts to diminish my credibility is a cop out. You wanted to know how I arrived at my opinion and I told you. I’ve not suggested ANY junk science, or bonehead blogs spewing inane insults and comments. Do the leg work. It’s the only way you’ll see for yourself.