>> ^thegrimsleeper:

This video is actually not from the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull, this is from the eruption on Fimmvörðuháls that was before the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull.
Fimmvörðuháls is located between two glaciers called Eyjafjallajökull and Mýrdalsjökull. The eruption on Fimmvörðuháls started on 20th of March and ended on 13th of April, the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull started the night after on the 14th of April.
Here's a map of the area: http://en.ja.is/kort/#x=477014&y=347335&z=4
The small glacier on the left is Eyjafjallajökull, the bigger glacier on the right is Mýrdalsjökull and right in the middle is Fimmvörðuháls where this video was taken.


So this isn't Eyjafjallajökull, but actually Fimmvörðuháls, which is near Mýrdalsjökull.

Right, got it.

This video is actually not from the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull, this is from the eruption on Fimmvörðuháls that was before the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull.
Fimmvörðuháls is located between two glaciers called Eyjafjallajökull and Mýrdalsjökull. The eruption on Fimmvörðuháls started on 20th of March and ended on 13th of April, the eruption in Eyjafjallajökull started the night after on the 14th of April.

Here's a map of the area: http://en.ja.is/kort/#x=477014&y=347335&z=4
The small glacier on the left is Eyjafjallajökull, the bigger glacier on the right is Mýrdalsjökull and right in the middle is Fimmvörðuháls where this video was taken.

"...situated near a glacier with the same name..."

Someone learned her lesson the first time

I was trying to come up with a sarcastic anti-global warming joke (glacier next to an erupting volcano), but I just couldn't get there.

Thanks for the promote

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

I don't get global warming.

In order to 'get' this discussion you need to seperate out two completely different components. ONE: The science of climate change. TWO: The politics of 'man-made' global warming (AKA anthropogenic global warming or AGW).

ONE: THE SCIENCE
The science of climate change is undecided. Scientists create models to predict climates change. However, to date all such models are unsuccessful. There is no current valid mathematical model that serves as a platform for predicting climate change. Some models are rigorous, others are 'loose'. Some weight XYZ variables, and others focus on ABC. But anyone who claims to be able to predict temperatures, hurricanes, or the other components of global climate is full of crap. There is no 'consensus'. Real scientists would not dare to say 'the science is settled' because they are still collecting data.

As of this time the science can only tell us that there are 'variables' that effect the climate. However, science has not yet determined if the variables are causal or predictive. EG - they know atmospheric C02 is involved in the equation but they do not know whether C02 causes climate change or whether its alterations are caused by the climate changes. Science is still up in the air on the topic - no pun intended.

TWO: THE POLITICS
The AGW movement is not 'science'; it is pure agenda politics. There are lots of groups that desire to reduce human activity, for whatever reason. Some want to reduce ALL human activity. Some want to reduce a specific area. Others focus on overpopulation. Others are anti-capitalist. Whatever. The one thing in common is a generalized desire to reduce human activity on some scale or other.

The political label this movement co-opted is "AGW". They took AGW C02 (one variable out of dozens) and artificially weighted it. They dangled tons of grant money in front of sympathetic scientists, universities, labs, and clinics. They shut out dissent. They falsified data. They hid methodology. They pretended anecdotes were 'experts'. They threw way primary data. They clammed thier pieholes shut when their conclusions were wildly exaggerated. In the kindest interpretation, AGW has been proven to be no more than a very rudimentary hypothesis. In laymans terms, AGW C02 as a cause of 'climate change' is bunk.

The scientific claims are easily refuted because they are just about 100% wrong every time they say anything. Global warming causes hurricanes to be bigger and more powerful... ...eeeexcept that hurricanes became less frequent and weaker. Global warming is causing rising temperatures... ...eeeexcept that temperatures have been falling for 10 years and there's 7 feet of snow in DC. Human C02 will melt glaciars... ...eeeexcept the glaciers are actually getting thicker. You pick the topic. The 'science' predictions of the Warmers have been dead wrong every time.

Realizing that they have lost credibility when examined with real scientific rigor (or even with plain common sense) the Warmers simply moved their target. "Global Warming" not working? Well - just call it climate change. Since the climate always changes, ANY weather (good, bad, whatever) is "proof that man-made C02 emissions are destroying the planet". How rhetorically convenient.

But since the real objective is POLITICAL and not environmental, it doesn't really matter. If they can get enough gullible people to just pretend the Emperor has clothes long enough then they could still achieve the political goal - science be damned. They don't care that they've made the scientific community a laughing stock as long as they could get the IPCC to use East Anglia's bogus conclusions to try and sucker people at Carbonhagen.

So keep the divide in this issue clearly in mind. There is the 'science' side which is still undecided. Then there is the 'politics' side which is more like a religion that has the reduction of human activity as its Nicene Creed. That's all you need to know to look at any news story on this issue and arrive at a clear conclusion as to what its 'angle' is.

Ah - I see you also have chosen a religion. Have you paid for your indulgence carbon credits yet? Seriously though - no the 'science' isn't in because the leaks prove the 'science' is faulty, meddled bunk.

No it isnt. just because a few loud, ignorant fox talking heads have come up with the word "climategate" does not remove the robust underpinning of the science: The evidence is overwhelming, and there really is no scientific controversy, only a political one, human presence is having an effect on the climate, of this there is no more doubt. This is not "religion", it is science, I dont know how to spell it out more clearly. Reasonable people do not "believe" in climate change, we accept it as evidence-based fact. I also find it a curious way to argue a case by sarcastically hinting that I might find carbon tax to be expensive, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Do you mean to suggest that all scientists are cooking a devilish plan to make me pay more taxes?

Tell me, while these ingenious conspiring scientists are cooking the books, faking reports and grinning their evil faces, when to they ever find the time to whip out their hairdryers and melt glaciers? How are they making hurricanes stronger?, how did they open the north-west passage?

Nobody reasonable doubts that global warming is happening. There are multiple independent data sources showing global warming. Temperature records, either on the ground or from space. Ice and glacier records, etc...

If you rephrase to say "no reasonable person doubts that Earth's climate has cycles" then I agree. But if you mean "no reasonable person doubts Anthropogenic Global Warming as defined by Al Gore, the IPCC, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and the "Green" movement and their bought & paid for scientists" then I strongly disagree.

Temperatures change, sure. I have seen no credible evidence to date that proves human activity has (A) caused it (B) could possibly prevent it or (C) can do jack-squat to 'fix' things. I don't mind sensible resource management. But the AGW movement is not about pollution so much as it is about wealth redistribution. No thanks. The next energy revolution will happen on its own without a multi-trillion dollar tax scheme.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - what do you know - even Jon Stewart occasionally swerves into accuracy. Nice to see he isn't trying to just ignore it like Obama's administration, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the AP, and every other major media outlet. One wonders what the media reaction would be if the hacker had stolen files from Exxon about how they used 'tricks' to 'hide' temperature increases...
Still I can't help but shake my head. "Does this mean warming doesn't exist? Of course not!" Uh - yeah it kind of does... When the lead climate lab used by the IPCC admits it has thrown away primary data, deliberately hidden data that contradicts their claims, and engaged in a practice of censoring opposing science then it pretty much dismisses the concept of there being 'consensus' on the so-called 'science' of AGW.


Let's assume that these out of context emails did discredit all of the work from this lab (although, they don't), that does not mean that global warming doesn't exist. You have a significant misunderstanding of science. If a scientist's work is completely fraudulent, then the work is uninformative. It doesn't prove the opposite of what he was trying to show.

Nobody reasonable doubts that global warming is happening. There are multiple independent data sources showing global warming. Temperature records, either on the ground or from space. Ice and glacier records, etc...

As a scientist, I do wince when I hear about some of the stuff from this lab. Not either of these emails -- those were just fine (the "trick" was nothing nefarious, nothing was "hidden"). But the fact that they're hiding the raw data and the fact that they're making personal attacks on other scientists and skeptics is pathetic.

Yesterday: NASA finds water in moon.

Today: NASA plans to fund Moon Base by bottling "Moon Glacier Spring Natural Water"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TED, James Balog, Extreme Ice Survey, time lapse' to 'TED, James Balog, Extreme Ice Survey, time lapse, glacier, global warming, climate' - edited by eric3579

I just can't believe all the C02 Crap we are being fed - Feels too much like an adjenda to me. We arn't going to stop the glaciers from thawing!

thanks for providing a fix, mate

In reply to this comment by silvercord:
Fix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8beCXY6waAE

I don't know. Doesn't seem overly foolish to me: it is a plane he's using, not a schoolbus. And he's not counting on his engine, just the physics and the known flight characteristics of his aicraft....which he probably knows like the back of his hand. Plus a skilled pilot should be able to land a plane with no power.

He picked a clear day, presumably little to no wind, and knew the area (I'm also going to assume he checked his takeoff slope for anything that would really mess him up). His landing zone was massive...lots of room for error. The takeoff was a bit weird, but running a plane down a hill to takeoff isn't unheard of either (bush pilots with ski landing gear do this all the time on glaciers for instance, albeit under power)

Actually, having flown with a few bush pilots myself, but almost seems a bit tame...those guys are generally nuts, and regularly fly in conditions that make this look like a walk in the park. ;-)

Ok WP , you still cant provide good links to peer reviewed data huh ?
This is a report ( sorry pdf ) that details paleoclimate carbon ppm measurements ,
and surprise , theorizes those high levels are the case of the high temperatures .
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1991/04.1991.03Cerling.pdf

also
The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation MAY lead the way to better governance
The word is MAY , as in might , or possibly .

Have you ever heard the ultimate conspiracy theory?
It goes like this .
I don't believe in any conspiracies , because if i believed in a conspiracy , it would mean i knew something about said conspiracy , and therefore would be a danger to it , and therefore it would be a danger to me , therefore i don't believe in any conspiracies .
Circular logic is what it's called .
So what your saying is ALL the governments in the whole world except the U.S. , as they did not sign the Kyoto Accord , are working together to rip you off .
Paranoia is the easiest form of narcissism.

So lets say they win , and it's false, what do they do with all the tax money ?
How do they keep from getting whacked by a disgruntled polity?

Ok lets say they lose , and it's real .
We lose 1/3 of the worlds population , weighted more heavily among the poor , and populations near any coastline . Wasn't it well over 50% of the world population that lives within 50 miles of the coast ? We gain 40 feet , 12.19 meters , of sea level . Hence the title of this video .

Option 3 is obviously , They win and it's real .
Well they may be able to slow it down before it goes into a self-sustaining loop .
All that methane hydrate stored at the bottom of glaciers doesn't come bubbling lose . All that carbon sequestered in the permafrost stays put. Which it isn't .
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/lamontagne/lamontagne080109.html
Maybe governments have a few extra resources to deal with all the problems that will be caused by it . They still wont have enough because even their reports have been watered down .

Option 4 , They lose , and it's false .
I have a hard time addressing this one , as the odds of the latter are so low, though the odds of the former are well , a real possibility .