"limitless" hydrogen under our feet

[XFool]

OMG. In that case I gave explicit links to that in my original post (not my OP "original post" on this thread...).

On the previous page I see. Yes, it passed me by, it didn't seem important.

Oh well...

Plus note my later edit:

" In that case I both repeated what she had said (the gist, in my words, from memory) and gave an explicit link to her archived Twitter post in my original post (not my OP "original post" on this thread...). I cannot control whether people choose to follow them or not. That is entirely up to the reader, surely?"

But on the "said it", said, "said" and didn't say, if you thought that was clear then that's your view I guess. A simple addition of "others incorrectly claimed s/he said" would have made it a lot clearer, and that's my view.

Well, I could provide a TLF link to my own post. But that seems to me increasingly not to be the real issue here.

Plus, a certain base level of knowledge is surely necessarily assumed by people interested in/discussing a particular issue? Do I have to explain who "Trump" is? Do I have to explain what a "President" is? Do I have to explain what "the USA" is? Do I have to explain who "Greta Thunberg" is? Do I have to start with "A is for Apple, B is for Breakfast..."?

Don't be silly.

Well, I really don't know. Because I don't know what other people don't know. And because I already provided all the relevant facts in my post. (See above).

Strangely one of the things I don't know is what TLF posts TLF posters haven't read. A bit like I don't know how many times my home was NOT struck by lightening last year.

I only know what I know, I cannot know what others do not know.

Indeed, so if you assume what other people know then you might find that people think you come across as cryptic....

We all have to "assume" at some level - we are not machines that download our brains to each other on first contact. When the person you are responding to quotes a 'fact' I - perhaps it's just me? - feel it reasonable to assume that they do know about the 'fact' they are quoting. Perhaps I am mistaken? In which case, all bets are very definitely off...

Everything is "cryptic" if you don't know what it is about. But then, either you ask (that's what I do), or presumably, you cannot really be very interested so... a question asked more than once on TLF: "Why are you even reading it?"

[tjh290633]

These aren't beliefs, they are facts and theories, because its science. Of course without CO2 the temperature of the Earth would be below zero, that's because of its warming properties, and why more CO2 means more warming. Vague 'but scientists might be wrong, they don't know everything' comments are dangerous as they give self justification to people who don't want to change their lives. The same is true of this hydrogen nonsense.

I think that you will find that the effect of water vapour and cloud formation has a far greater effect than CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gases. A look at the absorption spectra and the relative concentrations will demonstrate this.

The difference in temperature on clear and cloudy nights is an easy way to show this effect.

TJH

[XFool]

These aren't beliefs, they are facts and theories, because its science. Of course without CO2 the temperature of the Earth would be below zero, that's because of its warming properties, and why more CO2 means more warming. Vague 'but scientists might be wrong, they don't know everything' comments are dangerous as they give self justification to people who don't want to change their lives. The same is true of this hydrogen nonsense.

I think that you will find that the effect of water vapour and cloud formation has a far greater effect than CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gases. A look at the absorption spectra and the relative concentrations will demonstrate this.

The difference in temperature on clear and cloudy nights is an easy way to show this effect.

Aarrggghhh! This, again?

Enough already.

[ursaminortaur]

I think that you will find that the effect of water vapour and cloud formation has a far greater effect than CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gases. A look at the absorption spectra and the relative concentrations will demonstrate this.

The difference in temperature on clear and cloudy nights is an easy way to show this effect.

Aarrggghhh! This, again?

Enough already.

TJH is correct that water vapour is responsible for most of the Earth's greenhouse effect. However it is only playing a minor role in climate change slightly amplifying the effects caused by the increase in CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for far longer.

https://iedro.org/articles/water-vapor-and-global-warming/

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.
.
.
.
While water vapor may be the most dominant greenhouse gas by mass and volume, it certainly is not the primary culprit responsible for global warming. Rather it is part of an amplifying effect. As other greenhouse gases such as CO2, warm the atmosphere, the air is able to hold more water vapor. The water vapor traps more heat and further warms the atmosphere. Human activities have increased CO2 output, and responsible human activities can reduce its production. Unlike water vapor that returns to Earth as precipitation within one week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 50-200 years. Therefore, the best way to control global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions.

[JohnB]

I know. I spent 20 years writing atmospheric models for the Met Office and NCAR, but don't plan to regurgitate my knowledge here.

[XFool]

Aarrggghhh! This, again?

Enough already.

TJH is correct that water vapour is responsible for most of the Earth's greenhouse effect. However it is only playing a minor role in climate change slightly amplifying the effects caused by the increase in CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for far longer.

So it's "true" in the same sense that "Neil Ferguson said 500,000 would die of COVID-19 in the UK" is "true". i.e. By not actually being properly "true" - perhaps we should call it "trueish" ?

(Hope this isn't confusing mc2fool )

[swill453]

I see it reported on Twitter that the Antarctic sea ice is right now more than six standard deviations less than the mean for the last 30 years.

A once-in-7.5-million-year event, apparently. Or one in 13 billion, reading some of the replies.

Seems a little concerning, anyway...

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/statu ... 1481286656

Scott.

[ursaminortaur]

I see it reported on Twitter that the Antarctic sea ice is right now more than six standard deviations less than the mean for the last 30 years.

A once-in-7.5-million-year event, apparently. Or one in 13 billion, reading some of the replies.

Seems a little concerning, anyway...

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/statu ... 1481286656

Scott.

Here is an article about it - though it talks about it being five standard deviations from the mean.

(A one in 13 billion year event would be once in the current lifetime of the universe)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

[odysseus2000]

I see it reported on Twitter that the Antarctic sea ice is right now more than six standard deviations less than the mean for the last 30 years.

A once-in-7.5-million-year event, apparently. Or one in 13 billion, reading some of the replies.

Seems a little concerning, anyway...

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/statu ... 1481286656

Scott.

Here is an article about it - though it talks about it being five standard deviations from the mean.

(A one in 13 billion year event would be once in the current lifetime of the universe)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

Looks like a pot boiler article, just comments from a few scientists & one chart showing the deviation of the ice thickness.

For a scientific approach one needs to see the data as it has varied over time & then one can draw conclusions, this article is all about sensationalism.

Regards,

[Sorcery]

Here is an article about it - though it talks about it being five standard deviations from the mean.

(A one in 13 billion year event would be once in the current lifetime of the universe)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

Looks like a pot boiler article, just comments from a few scientists & one chart showing the deviation of the ice thickness.

For a scientific approach one needs to see the data as it has varied over time & then one can draw conclusions, this article is all about sensationalism.

Regards,

It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

[Sorcery]

Looks like a pot boiler article, just comments from a few scientists & one chart showing the deviation of the ice thickness.

For a scientific approach one needs to see the data as it has varied over time & then one can draw conclusions, this article is all about sensationalism.

Regards,

It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

That should be negative y axis trick, to be conventional.

[ursaminortaur]

It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

That should be negative y axis trick, to be conventional.

Yes the twitter graph is better as it explicitly says in the graph title that it is relative to the 1991-2020 daily mean.

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/status/1683556231481286656

[GoSeigen]

That should be negative y axis trick, to be conventional.

Yes the twitter graph is better as it explicitly says in the graph title that it is relative to the 1991-2020 daily mean.

https://twitter.com/think_or_swim/status/1683556231481286656

OH COME ON!!

You don't expect people on a Science forum to read and understand what they are talking about?


GS

[XFool]

It's also the old negative x axis trick, antarctic sea ice cannot go negative, so if correct it must mean it's a graph of sea ice relative to some average. Have seen elsewhere the green activists pulling the same trick for greenland ice. All the 5/6 sigma deviations or once in 7.5 million year event is probably rubbish too, it could be just an under water/ice volcano.

Volcano? Must be a bloody big volcano if it is all around the Antarctic coastline.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204

"Earlier this year, scientists observed an all-time low in the amount of sea ice around the icy continent, following all-time lows in 2016, 2017 and 2022."

[BullDog]

Very interesting article published yesterday by a company called Getech. These guys know what they're talking about with respect geology and gas. We'll worth a read by anyone interested in geological hydrogen reserves.

https://getech.com/blog/a-mineral-syste ... -deposits/

[odysseus2000]

Very interesting article published yesterday by a company called Getech. These guys know what they're talking about with respect geology and gas. We'll worth a read by anyone interested in geological hydrogen reserves.

https://getech.com/blog/a-mineral-syste ... -deposits/

Seems way to qualitative to me, lots of ideas and speculation but no measurements to back up the ideas as far as I can tell.

Regards,

[CliffEdge]

Of course you have to acknowledge that it's possible.

[odysseus2000]

Of course you have to acknowledge that it's possible.

Many things are possible, but how many of them are probable?

Regards,