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.
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.