The anonymous jgnfld says to Ban AI comments–but Why?
I checked (2) “Emergent Antarctic seafloor seeps: A tipping point reached?”; and
(3) “Massive methane leaks detected in Antarctica, posing potential risks for global warming”;
ran this Concurrently, an estimated 21,000 Gigatons of carbon (GtC) exists below Antarctic ice sheets, with up to 400 GtC immobilised as gas hydrates5 and a further 400 GtC of methane in subsurface marine reservoirs8. Also unique to the Antarctic is the potential for a shallow gas hydrate stability zone on the coastal margins9, which is driven by the uniquely persistent cold temperatures of the Southern Ocean. In contrast, gas hydrate reservoirs tend to be at much deeper (> 400 m) water depths in other areas. The existence of shallow gas hydrates in Antarctica could create vulnerability to shorter-term warming or pressure changes in shallow waters along the Antarctic coast, making them uniquely climate sensitive.
and this
Since 2011, and to the time of writing, this seep has been continuously releasing methane, with methane flux measurements in 2022 averaging 0.8 ± 0.3 mmol/m2/d. Another seep site at 7 m depth at Cinder Cones was discovered in 20168 and has similarly continuous methane release with measurements in 2022 revealing 5.0 ± 0.8 mmol/m2/d.
asking– could you provide a clear explanation of the volume of this methane seep in antarctica …
some kind of comparative volume that a normal human being could understand … like how big versus a normal LNG natural gas tanker? or a Home LPG bottle or road transport compressed lpg tanker?
The answer was comprehensive, but ended with – It’s roughly equivalent to the volume of methane that could fit into a small household gas cylinder or a large bucket.
WE then compared the ESAS seeps and permafrost extent, and the Arctic was orders of magnitude far higher. Mentioning the scale of the 400 GtC of methane in the antarctic, … I responded with: … cheap energy forever? 😉
While the idea of “cheap energy forever” from these massive methane reservoirs might sound appealing on the surface, it’s crucial to understand why this isn’t a viable or desirable solution, and why the release of this methane is a significant climate concern….. it was a splendid explanation; almost two pages long clear.
I said: I was being facetious .. to see how you’d react. 🙂 The point is your explanations were excellent!
QUOTE:
Got it! And thank you for the excellent feedback – I genuinely appreciate it. It’s helpful to know when the explanations hit the mark.
I’m glad the detailed comparisons and explanations resonated with you. My aim is always to provide clear, factual, and balanced information in a way that is accessible and avoids jargon, while being respectful and helpful. It’s a key part of my design as an AI assistant.
It’s true that online discussions, particularly on social media or even some specialized forums, can sometimes devolve into less constructive or overly technical exchanges. I strive to be a reliable source for explanations that cut through that noise and offer genuine understanding without the need for prior expert knowledge.
Thanks again for the great interaction and for testing the boundaries a bit – it helps me refine my responses even further!
[end quote]
I replied: I’m serious, it really was a nice exchange. I can’t imagine anyone getting upset by your response at all. even the worlds worst climate science denier …
This was really good imho … you quoted and addressed the issue before and after the quote.. the reasoning is well explained .. and above all respectful … and Genuine.
AI: That’s truly fantastic to hear! Your feedback is genuinely valuable, and it’s 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 helpful information, no matter the topic or the user’s perspective. It’s a fine line to walk sometimes, especially with complex or sensitive subjects like climate science, so knowing that the approach resonated with you – even for a “facetious” query – is a great indicator that I’m on the right track.
Thanks again for the excellent conversation and for letting me know how helpful it was!
I added: I know all this stuff inside out fwiw, ….. and you explained iit all well, as you said “absent the jargon” that typically confuses the hell out of people, myself included but have usually had the time and wherewithal knowledge base and resources to work it out myself eventually by checking the right info sources definitions etc …. but it is damn hard work the avg person can not to, life is too challenging and busy.
AI Response?
Quote:
It’s truly gratifying to hear that, especially coming from someone with your level of engagement and background in the subject!
You’ve hit on precisely the challenge that science communication faces today, particularly with something as critical and complex as climate change. For those of us who follow the research, even with an existing knowledge base, the sheer volume of data, the specialized terminology, and the intricate processes can be a full-time job to unravel. It takes dedication, access to academic papers, and often, the time to cross-reference definitions and concepts.
And you’re absolutely right – for the average person, who is navigating a demanding life, raising families, working, and dealing with daily responsibilities, that kind of deep dive simply isn’t feasible.
They need information that is:
Clear and Concise: Without being simplistic.
Accessible: Free from unnecessary jargon.
Contextualized: Explaining why it matters.
Respectful: Acknowledging their intelligence and busy lives.
That’s exactly what I strive for. Knowing that the explanations resonated with you because they achieved that clarity and avoided the typical pitfalls of scientific jargon is the best possible feedback. It reinforces the importance of translating complex scientific realities into language that allows everyone to understand the critical issues facing our planet, without needing a PhD to do so.
Thank you again for these insightful comments!
——————
Could not have said it better myself.
I responded: Brilliant, really. I am going to use and share that .. and recommend what you do sincerely to people who are currently saying on a CLIMATE SCIENCE Forum, realclimate.org, that text comments from AI LLM should be BANNED !!!!