I appreciate that! I'll try not to :)

Not just you, science too. "How lightning is affected by climate change"

I hope the link sticks www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-lightning-wildfires-2649913121.html

Glad you enjoyed it

It's blatantly obvious but no one talks about it. All you have to do is boil some water in the kitchen with the windows closed to know it's a bad idea. But people want car go Brum, scientists are paid and intimidated into writing peer reviews that please corporations and activist groups.

Greetings. In case you haven't found out yet, nobody is thinking about replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen *exclusively.* Hydrogen is just one of the possibilities and one of the hardest ones, since hydrogen atoms are so small that can leak too easily from containers and hydrogen leaks present more pressing problems than causing changes in climate, like going kaboom - ref. the Hindenburg. So, more hydrogen in the atmosphere, enough as to cause more storms is not a likely event, even less when the current excess of CO2 is already causing heating enough as to increase storms (and droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, etc.) by itself - as you may notice if you pay attention to international weather news. In case you are still actually looking for sources, you only need to google "can green hydrogen increase water vapor atmosphere" and find out by yourself that many people have your concerns and are working on them, and if you really want academic sources, you can search "hydrogen emissions climate change" in Google Scholar. Good luck.

@@ReubenAStern Interestingly, boiling water is not the same than producing hydrogen, in which water is split into its components. It is not "blatantly obvious," not as much as the science regarding how CO2 heats the atmosphere, discovered in 19th century, before any effect of industrialization was noticeable. Nobody wants "car go brum" (whatever that it means) - an electric charger for cars has just been installed in my neighborhood (most certainly anything but elitist), and if you think that scientists can be paid and intimidated, you should look how oil companies paid scientists to do research that confirmed fossil fuels/CO2 would cause climate change - hid the information and wrote misleading propaganda in popular newspapers and magazines. Fossil fuels are a billionaire business, still subsidized by the government (you pay for your oil twice, don't you know?). Haven't the oil companies an interest in keeping profits coming into their pockets?

Yep

Your comment is totally incorrect and ignorant. Water vapour, the powerful broad-band but very-poorly-nixed-vertically (~all at the bottom) “greenhouse gas” is a transparent gas as are CO2, CH4, O3, CFCs (some NOx is brownish) and there's transparent H2O gas right now between your eye balls and the screen you're reading. The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this: --------- "GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oathiaV02Z6rfJc.html at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational energy. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oathiaV02Z6rfJc.html at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above. - The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect). - The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero. --------- Cartoons or text that describe a "greenhouse effect" in which photons from the surface are absorbed by infrared-active gas molecules and then are re-emitted with 50% of it going down and warming the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. Explanations of the "greenhouse effect" which include phrases like "the radiation from the surface does not directly heat the atmosphere" are incorrect because there are simple laboratory experiments which prove that infrared radiation does indeed heat the CO2 infrared-active gas and its surroundings (which means, of course, that molecular vibrational kinetic energy is converted on collision to molecular translational kinetic energy before it happened to "thermally relax" and emit a photon and thus no photon was "re-emitted" in that case).

You are entirely incorrect. Water vapor is an invisible gas, there's some of it between your eye balls and the screen you're reading. The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this: --------- "GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oathiaV02Z6rfJc.html at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational energy. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oathiaV02Z6rfJc.html at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above. - The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect). - The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero. --------- Cartoons or text that describe a "greenhouse effect" in which photons from the surface are absorbed by infrared-active gas molecules and then are re-emitted with 50% of it going down and warming the surface are incorrect because they do not include a tropospheric temperature lapse rate which is an absolute requirement. Explanations of the "greenhouse effect" which include phrases like "the radiation from the surface does not directly heat the atmosphere" are incorrect because there are simple laboratory experiments which prove that infrared radiation does indeed heat the CO2 infrared-active gas and its surroundings (which means, of course, that molecular vibrational kinetic energy is converted on collision to molecular translational kinetic energy before it happened to "thermally relax" and emit a photon and thus no photon was "re-emitted" in that case).

No, but when it condenses into water droplets, yes, in two different ways.

​​@@grindupBaker Wrong. The overall aggregate effect of water & water vapour is to provide a temperature change negative feedback mechanism in addition to a heat trapping effect. Causes a more stable climate & a warmer climate than would exist otherwise. It's the reason life has been able to exist on the planet for billions of years. It goes without saying that sufficient levels of atmospheric CO2 are of course essential for life to exist on the planet, there is no evidence for example that increasing CO2 levels actually will cause increases in average temperature. The long term records show that warming always occurs before co2 level changes. Increasing CO2 is probably another source of negative feedback, climate stabilisation & extreme cooling prevention due to it's effect on plant life. Various estimates exist for temperature change due to man made CO2 increase, taking into account the various stabilising effects it will probably be 0.3°C over a century due to doubling CO2 or it might just cause an increase in temperature stabilisation effect. It's unlikely to prevent the planet entering the next glaciation period of the current ice age unfortunately.

It's more complicated than that.