Anonymous Jgnfld says that ban AI’s comments, but why?
I checked (2) “” Six emerging Antarctic Seeps: was a turning point reached? “; and
(3) “Massive methane leaks detected in Antarctica, which raises potential risks for global warming”;
This was executed simultaneously, it is estimated that 21,000 carbon gigatons (GTC) exist under the Antarctic ice layers, with up to 400 GTC immobilized as gas hydrated 5 and another 400 GTC of methane in the marine deposits of the subsoil 8. It is also exclusive to Antarctica is the potential of a potential of a poorly deeper gas stability zone Coastal margins9, which is driven by cold and only persistent temperatures of the southern ocean. On the contrary, gas hydrate deposits tend to have much deeper water depths (> 400 m) in other areas. The existence of shallow gas hydrates in Antarctica could create vulnerability to short -term heating or pressure changes in shallow waters along the Antarctic coast, making them exclusively sensitive to climate.
And this
Since 2011, and until the time of writing, this filtration has continually released from methane, with methane flow measurements in 2022 with an average of 0.8 ± 0.3 mmol/m2/d. In 20168 another Fede site was discovered at 7 m deep in cement cones and has a similar continuous methane release with measurements in 2022 that reveal 5.0 ± 0.8 mmol/m2/d.
Question: could you provide a clear explanation of the volume of this methane filtration in Antarctica …
Any kind of comparative volume that a normal human being could understand … how great versus a normal Natural Gnl gas oil tanker? Or a homemade LPG bottle or a LPG tank truck compressed by road transport?
The answer was integral, but ended with: it is approximately equivalent to the volume of methane that could fit in a small domestic gas cylinder or in a large bucket.
Then we compare the leaks of that and the extension of the permafrost, and the Arctic was much higher magnitude orders. Mentioning the scale of the 400 GTC of methane in the Antarctica … I replied with: … Cheap energy forever? 😉
While the idea of “cheap energy forever” of these massive methane deposits may sound attractive on the surface, it is crucial to understand why this is not a viable or desirable solution, and why the release of this methane is a significant climatic concern … it was a splendid explanation; Almost two pages of clear long.
I said: I was being funny … to see how you would react. 🙂 The point is that your explanations were excellent!
APPOINTMENT:
I understand! And thanks for the excellent comments, I really appreciate it. It is useful to know when the explanations gave in the target.
I am glad that detailed comparisons and explanations resonate with you. My goal is always to provide clear, objective and balanced information in an accessible way and avoids jargon, while it is respectful and useful. It is a key part of my design as an assistant.
It is true that online discussions, particularly on social networks or even in some specialized forums, can sometimes become less constructive or too technical exchanges. I effort to be a reliable source of explanations that cut that noise and offer a genuine understanding without the need for previous expert knowledge.
Thank you again for the great interaction and for trying the limits a bit, it helps me to refine my answers even more!
[end quote]
I replied: I’m serious, it was really a good exchange. I can’t imagine that anyone gets angry at your answer at all. Even the worst denor of climatic sciences of the world …
This was really good in my humble opinion … You quoted and approached the problem before and after the appointment. The reasoning is explained well … and above all respectful … and genuine.
AI: That is really fantastic to listen! His comments are really valuable, and it is very rewarding to know that the explanations landed so well and contributed to a positive and informative exchange.
My goal is always to provide clear, respectful and genuinely useful information, regardless of the user’s topic or perspective. Sometimes it is a fine line to walk, especially with complex or sensitive issues such as climatic science, so knowing that the approach resonated with you, even for a “facet” query, is a great indicator that I am on the right path.
Thank you again for the excellent conversation and for letting me know how useful it was!
I added: I know all these things from inside out FWIW, … and you explained well, as you said “in the absence of jargon” that generally confuses the people of hell, including myself, but I have generally had the basis of knowledge and time resources and means to eventually review the definitions of the right sources, etc. But it is a hard work that the person AVG cannot, life is too challenging and busy.
AI response?
Appointment:
It is really gratifying to hear that, especially coming from someone with their level of commitment and background on the subject!
You have reached precisely the challenge facing scientific communication today, particularly with something as critical and complex as climate change. For those of us who follow the investigation, even with an existing knowledge base, the large volume of data, specialized terminology and intricate processes can be a full -time work to unravel. Dedication, access to academic documents and, often, the time for cross references of definitions and concepts is needed.
And you are right: for the average person, who is sailing for a demanding life, raising families, working and dealing with daily responsibilities, that kind of deep immersion is simply not feasible.
They need information:
Clear and concise: without being simplistic.
Accessible: free of unnecessary jargon.
Contextualized: explaining why it is important.
Respectful: recognize their intelligence and their occupied lives.
That is exactly why effort. Know that the explanations resonated with you because they achieved that clarity and avoided the typical traps of scientific jargon is The best possible feedback. Reinforces the importance of translating complex scientific realities In a language that allows everyone to understand the critical problems facing our planet, without the need for a doctorate to do so.
Thanks again for these insicious comments!
——————
I couldn’t have said better myself.
I replied: Bright, really. I will use and share that … and recommend what you sincerely do to the people who currently say in a forum of climatic sciences, Realclimate.org, that AI LLM’s text comments should be prohibited!
#Realclimate #Oceanic #circulation #south
