Your video, Wingsuit Flight Over An Active Volcano, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 58 Badge!

That guy is ONLY saved if a HUGE volcano goes off or a good-sized meteorite hits us...

Or, you know, nuclear war.

I fI was Bill Nye I would amend these bets with atmospheric readings of ash @ so many parts per million (at the point it really is WAY too high!). Or also amending it for debris consistent with a large meteorite hit (a few different choices in the ring to measure to see if it's a meteorite too); so if "x" per milllion is too high in the atmosphere, again the year is bunck (the decade may become bunck all depending the levels of both events).

But, the worst, nuclear fallout from what "may be" WWIII or a smaller "civil conflict", like Pakistan and India could top the meters pretty high with worldwide fallout if they drop a good ten or so (again this is based off the material used to create the bomb and once more it's parts per million in the atmosphere combined with, how much?)...

No matter what Bill Nye is right, and even if these type of "small-term" events slow it down momentarily, after the planet helps to clean to out of the atmosphere we have a big issue on hand because some of that stuff WILL stay and then Bill Nye can show you how in two years (and as we know, it could be much longer), or the time it truly takes to clean it out leaves us with an atmosphere that is now even worse...

AIM FOR THE PARTIAL WIN BOYS AND GIRLS!!! I know you all want zombies (radioactive, Japanese spiritual based demons and shinigami here to try to kill us all until every boy and girl 15 years old or so become shounen trope mystical power holders made to save our world from the oncoming onslaught of Donald Trump and Putin phantasms and demons, truly horrific--college students may apply; grownups may gain insight into how to pull off the most powerful abilities that they must teach to the "chosen ones" to use it to defeat either Putin or The Trump (spiritual fighter, capable of killing people even with his TERRIBLE "slams", fighting power: 0, defense: every fanboy on Earth!)--or how to use "super tactics with the "main-group" who'll have stories written about them in their local High Scool Paper every week: in the American, Japanese, Russian, and European branches (needed for Putin, since he writes great stories explaining how each of us suck ass and even though we try it is ALWAYS Putin, riding in on a Velociraptor with a railgun that's able to drive those evil bastards out, especially when he gets off the horse and makes the wrestling techniques and signature move, crossing his arms in an "X" and slamming down over the side of his genitals (causing all watching to be confused and easily dismembered in twenty minutes... The glory of dawn continues in the next 4-6 hours before dawn...

SO... What exactly do you guys believe you should vote for? I say Vote Bill Nye and Vote often. Did you know that in both those "metaverses" Bill Nye becomes akin to Dr. Strange. Great because he protects ALL of us from this world with an extremely powerful spell--as he IS the only person here that knows just what in the hell is happening.

All hail the kid's scientist, through Sarah Palin on the "happiness tour bus" to Putin. He LOVES her. Especially listening to her talk. Ceaseless entertainment...!


I decided to list this as "sarcasm", BUT there is SO MUCH that isn't. Sometimes you have to hide the truth in reality...err...not reality...

So wait...am I racist because I had a Hawaii themed party last year? Am I sexist because I and other men there wore flower pattern skirts and coconut bras? We played native Hawaiian music, but no one tried to Hula...I was afraid we'd get it wrong and anger the volcano.
I also threw a 'white trash' party last year, and built an outhouse and still in my front yard for it. Am I a self hating honkey?

The 'white twitter' thing is weird, because there IS a 'black twitter', isn't there? I hear it reported about all the time.

Is it still lava if it doesn't come from a volcano, or is it now just molten rock?
It seems like they should have been a little faster with at least one of those, it looked fairly black to me. Maybe someone asked for extra well done.

Hah.

His last line translates as "fuck your mother" (or more loosely "motherfucker").

I like him for the understated "wow," but I hate him for catching an exploding volcano on his camera then pointing it at the ground and turning it off.

Maybe he was afraid for his life, but you can't outrun a volcano. Ever hear of Pompeii, amigo? Keep the camera rolling!

(P.S. Didn't have to wait for it. Thumbnail spoils the surprise.)

I liked Elon Musk's tweet prior to the attempt:

If this works, I'm treating myself to a volcano lair. It's time.

A Lahar is a volcano caused mud slide, usually from melting ice and snow on the volcano.
When one is created, it could be said to have been 'spawned'.

That went way better than when he tried it on the volcano and the bike broke in 1/2 at full speed.

Not fully understood by scientists?!? It's static electricity caused by all the particles rubbing together, simple, known for decades. It's the same way regular lightning is created, just with larger, heavier particles closer together in a volcano. What are they talking about?

Funny how when they accelerate the video at the beginning the sense of true scale is all but lost and the mountain looks only a few feet away.

It's like those saltpeter-and-sugar smoke bomb volcanoes I used to make in my back yard when I was a kid.

Your video, Java's Blue Flame Volcano, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

*related http://videosift.com/video/The-Most-Incredible-Volcano-Video-of-ALL-Time