4 ms·

"Yes but based on what you write, you don't know much about geophysics." Never claimed I did. But you apparently claim you know more and that this article and

"Yes but based on what you write, you don't know much about geophysics." Never claimed I did. But you apparently claim you know more and that this article and the scientists are BS, but I just read a generic rant from you and nothing concrete. "it's like writing an article about how scientists plan to go to Mars in two years" I am not aware of any scientists who did that. If you are talking about Mars One and co., there were no scientists involved. And this is what I read in the article about what they are planning - and yes to me it sounds like solid basic research. No promise about clean and easy energy in 5 years for everyone, but reason to do basic research that has not been done before: "“I and some other scientists who deal with volcanoes were just amazed that somebody had actually drilled in the magma, and got samples of magma,” says Eichelberger. It later transpired that similar accidental encounters had happened twice before, once in the Menengai caldera in Kenya and also at a volcano called Kīlauea in Hawaii. This was proof that it was both possible and safe to drill into magma without causing an eruption." "The first goal of KMT is to drill into the magma and make scientific discoveries. Starting in 2026, the project will break ground close to the original borehole and drill towards the chamber. It will take around two months to get there, progressing laboriously through the volcanic rocks until the drill hits pay dirt. First and foremost, the researchers want to build their fundamental understanding of magma and the chambers that hold it. “We don’t have any direct knowledge of what magma chambers look like, which is crucial in understanding volcanoes of course,” says Paolo Papale at Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa. The little we do know largely comes from studying lava. But lava and magma aren’t the same. A lot of gas is released as molten rock comes to the surface and is then exposed to the atmosphere as lava, both of which change its chemical composition. “Being able to go into the crust and sample magma would give us huge knowledge,” says Ingólfsson." They say they don't know much, but that they want to find out. "and thus never realize how many lies and exaggerations they're being fed." So where are the "lies and exaggerations"?

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist", please show the geophysics research they've published. I can't find any, instead they seem extremely dedicated to writing questionable articles on any topic imaginable, from vaccines to Amazonian ecology. A lot of the titles of his articles are phrased as questions: "Do back-to-back disasters show first climate tipping point is upon us?" "Did monkeys really sail the oceans on floating rafts of vegetation?" "Can any idiot publish articles with NewScientist?" The main problem is you'd have to wait until the end of 2026 to find out it never happened as predicted, but by that time you'll already have forgotten about it. The average attention span isn't that long and like I mentioned most people do not save these articles and blacklist publications with a bad track record. There are thousands of nonsense articles from mainstream news orgs like the BBC as well as pop-science magazines that promised all sorts of nonsense to happen by year x, which unsurprisingly didn't end up happening. At what point would it be fair to say they're publishing misinformation?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist"" Are you intentionally missreading me? I never claimed that the author of the article is a scientist. I said the article is quite ok compared to the average pop science article, which is indeed often clickbait. But here there were no promises, just the very correct claim, that there is great potential. And the scientist the article is talking about, John Eichelberger, for sure has publications: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ So, I am asking again, can you point out one single lie or exaggeration in this concrete article? Because I cannot find one, but like I said, I am not an expert. So if you know more, please share that knowledge.
  - trompetenaccoun 3y ago
    Someone accidentally drilling into a dyke does not mean they'll be able to bore into a magma chamber within the next 2 years. Those are completely different ballparks, there's a reason the latter has never happened, because the high temperatures make it very difficult on a technical level. I mentioned Mars because it's a similar claim we've heard in the media and from various projects for years now. Of course it's possible, anything's possible. Now show me how concretely it will be done, it's on those making the claim to provide the evidence and I'm not sure if you noticed but the article contains no technical details. After reading it, can you explain how they will drill into the chamber? We can't be sure if Eichelberger has actually said everything implied in the article or if he's quoted out of context, but the “no geophysical technique has been shown to satisfactorily locate magma reservoirs” quote for example is misleading. Of course nothing gives us 100% certainty, they're educated guesses based on seismic data and such. But if they couldn't find giant liquid chambers in relatively shallow depths, the entire field of geophysics would be rather useless. Obviously that isn't true. If there's one thing they can locate, it's magma chambers, conventional oil reservoirs, and such. Otherwise they'd just randomly drill all over the place. Which the accidental dyke drilling shows they do when it comes to higher resolution details. Btw Eichelberger is both the founder as well as a board member of the project looking to drill and currently seeking millions of dollars of funding for it. Such an unbiased source and what a coincidence that just as they need money, Mr. Lawton comes out with an article hyping up the idea. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-cluster-seeks-79m-funding-round-to-drill-magma-energy-boreholes-08-01-2024/ https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-c...

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist", please show the geophysics research they've published. I can't find any, instead they seem extremely dedicated to writing questionable articles on any topic imaginable, from vaccines to Amazonian ecology. A lot of the titles of his articles are phrased as questions: "Do back-to-back disasters show first climate tipping point is upon us?" "Did monkeys really sail the oceans on floating rafts of vegetation?" "Can any idiot publish articles with NewScientist?" The main problem is you'd have to wait until the end of 2026 to find out it never happened as predicted, but by that time you'll already have forgotten about it. The average attention span isn't that long and like I mentioned most people do not save these articles and blacklist publications with a bad track record. There are thousands of nonsense articles from mainstream news orgs like the BBC as well as pop-science magazines that promised all sorts of nonsense to happen by year x, which unsurprisingly didn't end up happening. At what point would it be fair to say they're publishing misinformation?

hutzlibu 3y ago
"The author has no expertise in the field. If your claim is that they're a "scientist"" Are you intentionally missreading me? I never claimed that the author of the article is a scientist. I said the article is quite ok compared to the average pop science article, which is indeed often clickbait. But here there were no promises, just the very correct claim, that there is great potential. And the scientist the article is talking about, John Eichelberger, for sure has publications: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=XtohsgUAAAAJ So, I am asking again, can you point out one single lie or exaggeration in this concrete article? Because I cannot find one, but like I said, I am not an expert. So if you know more, please share that knowledge.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  Someone accidentally drilling into a dyke does not mean they'll be able to bore into a magma chamber within the next 2 years. Those are completely different ballparks, there's a reason the latter has never happened, because the high temperatures make it very difficult on a technical level. I mentioned Mars because it's a similar claim we've heard in the media and from various projects for years now. Of course it's possible, anything's possible. Now show me how concretely it will be done, it's on those making the claim to provide the evidence and I'm not sure if you noticed but the article contains no technical details. After reading it, can you explain how they will drill into the chamber? We can't be sure if Eichelberger has actually said everything implied in the article or if he's quoted out of context, but the “no geophysical technique has been shown to satisfactorily locate magma reservoirs” quote for example is misleading. Of course nothing gives us 100% certainty, they're educated guesses based on seismic data and such. But if they couldn't find giant liquid chambers in relatively shallow depths, the entire field of geophysics would be rather useless. Obviously that isn't true. If there's one thing they can locate, it's magma chambers, conventional oil reservoirs, and such. Otherwise they'd just randomly drill all over the place. Which the accidental dyke drilling shows they do when it comes to higher resolution details. Btw Eichelberger is both the founder as well as a board member of the project looking to drill and currently seeking millions of dollars of funding for it. Such an unbiased source and what a coincidence that just as they need money, Mr. Lawton comes out with an article hyping up the idea. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-cluster-seeks-79m-funding-round-to-drill-magma-energy-boreholes-08-01-2024/ https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/icelandic-research-c...