[Osogovo (OP)]

here and there I've asked why fracking methane leakage is not considered as main culprit for global warming, but because lack of proper measurements and correct statistics normally  it would be dismissed by scientists, the problem is that overlooking this kind of correlation can bring irreversible runaway effect as glacier free world thus for sure deluge ...

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124521-fracking-methane-alarm/?do=findComment&comment=1170482

[Kryptid]

because lack of proper measurements and correct statistics normally

How do you know that methane levels haven't been properly measured?

[evan_au]

Methane (natural gas) leaks are a problem, because they are invisible and scent-free.
- They are also very flammable over a wide range of concentrations
- Methane has a much greater impact on the greenhouse effect than the same mass of carbon dioxide.

A large methane leak occurred at Aliso Canyon. It took quite a while to identify the exact source of the leak, let alone contain it.
- It requires infra-red cameras to spot the plume
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak

There are some commercial satellites planned that will allow frequent imaging of methane emissions from fracking, oil wells and storage facilities. Presumably city gas pipelines and agricultural farmland would produce a lot of methane, too.

The only good thing about methane is that it has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

[Osogovo (OP)]

think this is wrong, changing the tread name form Fracking Methane Alarm to this one now but without my consent raises fear that this could be done regularly in any thread'name or even posts, not that I mind but its wrong good forum practice! not sure just is this somehow regulated in the rules as option for moderators on this forum, anyway private forum so anyone can do what they like or!?

@Kryptid as I am aware stiil we dont have constant satellite measurement of fracking leaked and vented methane nowhere, hardly to believe there is none, but having in mind the real risks and culprit nooa is most probably stopped to release true data but relay officially only on estimations, but if this is case I wonder why there is not at least one whistler tho there not too much employees on this kind of matter thus its easy to watch and silence any satellite data interpreter, from this aspect seen if this assumption is true I expect that the two new satelites that will soon should start tackle this frackng risk will malfunction ...

[Kryptid]

think this is wrong, changing the tread name form Fracking Methane Alarm to this one now but without my consent raises fear that this could be done regularly in any thread'name or even posts, not that I mind but its wrong good forum practice! not sure just is this somehow regulated in the rules as option for moderators on this forum, anyway private forum so anyone can do what they like or!?

One of the rules of this forum is that thread titles must take the form of a question. That's probably why one of the moderators changed it.

@Kryptid as I am aware stiil we dont have constant satellite measurement of fracking leaked and vented methane nowhere, hardly to believe there is none, but having in mind the real risks and culprit nooa is most probably stopped to release true data but relay officially only on estimations, but if this is case I wonder why there is not at least one whistler tho there not too much employees on this kind of matter thus its easy to watch and silence any satellite data interpreter, from this aspect seen if this assumption is true I expect that the two new satelites that will soon should start tackle this frackng risk will malfunction ...

It sounds like you are assuming there is a conspiracy. Why?

[Osogovo (OP)]

One of the rules of this forum is that thread titles must take the form of a question. That's probably why one of the moderators changed it.

It sounds like you are assuming there is a conspiracy. Why?

as I know I've landed question mark in the title too as Fracking Methane Alarm? , anyway without my consent changing my content is by all means censure, its not conspiracy but wrong and bad eforum good practice, especially when that is not stated in the rules that moderators can freely edit others content as they see to fit their narrative personal or general ...

[Kryptid]

as I know I've landed question mark in the title too as Fracking Methane Alarm?

Grammatically-speaking, that's not really a proper question. It's more of a sentence fragment with a question mark added. Besides, what about the current title is inaccurate in describing the content of the thread?

its not conspiracy

I wasn't talking about changing a thread title as being a conspiracy. I was referring to your claim that NOAA is keeping data about methane from being released or implying that satellites measuring methane are going to "malfunction".

especially when that is not stated in the rules that moderators can freely edit others content as they see to fit their narrative personal or general ...

That's not what we do here. We don't change the meaning of someone else's posts.

[Osogovo (OP)]

hm, sorry but any change of my content is changing of my thoughts, if some question is not addressed properly You can argue about that in the posts, but without my consent changing my point or style of expression is just wrong imposing authoritarianism in this case on public eforum ...

about nooa my miss got drawn by the title edit impression ... anyway what to say believing that till now they havent proper satellites in orbit measuring the true amount of leaked methane is almost ridiculous, thats why I imply is probable that the new sats will "malfunction", look just how clever agitprop they have on yt, whole world methane stream is presented only that of usA is excluded ... a kind of agitprop that answers more than we can grasp the next "specialized" sat malfunction

[Kryptid]

hm, sorry but any change of my content is changing of my thoughts

Feel free to take it up with the administrator.

thats why I imply is probable that the new sats will "malfunction"

Non-sequitur.

[evan_au]

the real risks and culprit nooa is most probably stopped to release true data

There were certainly problems with this during the Trump and Bolsonaro presidencies:
- Trump insisted that NASA only have satellites that looked outward. NASA was not allowed to look at (and report on) conditions on Earth
- Similarly, NOAA had to have all papers vetted for political content before publication (Climate Change was too political for publication)
- This aligns with Trump's mission to promote fossil fuels, and weaken pollution protection measures
-  President Bolsonaro of Brazil fired his science minister for a peer-reviewed scientific paper that showed satellite evidence of increased burning of Amazon rainforests. The science minister made the mistake of standing up for the evidence, instead of the politician.
- I am sure that similar political interference with science goes on around the world.

However, the Biden administration seems more inclined to follow the evidence, so this sort of political tampering may reduce in the USA.
- And they aim to reinstate environmental protections struck down by Trump

is probable that the new sats will "malfunction"

If there is legislation which requires companies to detect and limit methane leaks, then that is a steady stream of revenue that will sustain private satellite operators offering these environmental-monitoring services.
See: https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/spotting-mystery-methane-leaks-from-space

[Osogovo (OP)]

@evan_au think even BernieS was president instead JoeB altho he was reluctant in speeches when he would seat in the p-chair he would still lean to keep fracking healthy and steady, simply now the energetic stability of usA along all other sectors depend on it, so Joe is even less concerned than Bernie and obviously he will do nothing on the matter, at least nothing that will make difference ...

check the quoted text in the next post ...

https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/stop-fracking-is-biden-aware.127418/post-1647003

[Osogovo (OP)]

how much uK fracks? and what would be Your thoughts on fracking ban worldwide? local induced earthquake risks should be another motivation except glacier free world ...