swansont

Topological monopoles are not the monopoles excluded by Maxwell's equations.

Such correlation is not a scientific argument. Science requires these be quantified. The rise in methane has to have an actual causal connection to the amount released in fracking, and you have not provided that. Your position is not assumed to be true in the absence of evidence, and appealing to conspiracy does not support your case in any way. No, the best science available tells us that CO2 is more important than methane, even as methane is more potent on a kg-for-kg basis. CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is far longer and, as your graph shows, the concentration is under 2 ppm, while CO2 is over 400 ppm. So there's 200x more CO2, and even with methane being more potent, CO2 has the larger effect.

That's not a scientific argument. Also, you have asked two distinct questions: 1. Is fracking a major contributor to methane emissions? Not by anything you've posted. Seems to be no. 2. Is fracking a major contributor to methane's contributions to global warming? Contribute? Yes. Major? Again, not by anything you've posted. Methane contributes about 10% to greenhouse warming, and in the US, methane emissions are going down. Any US contribution from fracking appears to be compensated by other reductions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane No, it's not. If you click on that link, it does not mention fracking at all.

Plenty of papers on arXiv are published in journals, so plenty of good science has "come from there" Reading the articles there is like reading journal articles. The average person is not going to understand them, and even physicists can have trouble with material outside their area of expertise. I will quickly get overwhelmed by condensed matter, nuclear and cosmology discussions. Even in atomic physics, which is my corner of physics, I will not be familiar with some parts of the discussions. The world of physics is pretty big.

! Moderator Note Conspiracy is not consistent with how we do discussions here, and I told you to stop linking to other discussion boards. Closed. Do not bring any of these topics up again.

! Moderator Note That was one of my points; this is not on-topic, but also, you need to follow rule 2.7 ! Moderator Note You didn’t point to studies, you pointed to a discussion board. Not good enough. This is not a negotiation.

! Moderator Note That’s a link to a discussion board. STOP DOING THAT. It’s not a link to anything that counts as evidence. The burden of proof is on you. You can’t, in effect, say “go look for it”

I don’t see fracking listed, or 65 mln tonnes. But 65 << 363

! Moderator Note You are inventing the connection to the current topic, and unsubstantiated phrasing such as “vaccine hype” is unacceptable. As is a claim of CBD immune-boosting, without scientific evidence connecting it to COVID-19.

Can you quantify the leakage? You’ve given production. As Sensei notes, they would want to minimize this. What’s the conversion of cubic feet, given in one post, to tonnes, given in another?

! Moderator Note This is off-topic (the topic is vaccine risk). ! Moderator Note You admit you have no expertise, and posting to other discussion boards is not evidence. You can ask question, but not also answer them (that’s soapboxing, and possibly represents an agenda). “full of toxins” also suggests pseudoscience.

I can’t parse this. “the same is underreported extra”? It sounded like you couldn’t find information. Now you’re arguing against the information? Youtube isn’t really scientific literature, and just posting a video link is insufficient. Can you just post the info here?

Col not Colin/Toby Jug (same user) has been banned at their request. VenusPrincess suspended for violations of multiple rules (civility being a primary charge)

! Moderator Note Hypotheses based on observation mean there are specific events (or sequences of events) that have been observed. You have not shared any such observations. Any model needs to be able to be applied in a similar fashion. To specific situations. The first rule of speculations is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. You are not in compliance with this rule

! Moderator Note If you’re discussing fluxons and the topic introduced by the OP, it goes here. If it’s about the “electricity physics” terminology, introduced by someone who is not the OP, don’t post it

500k tonnes is about 1/1000 of total methane, which is estimated at >500 million tonnes https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020 That would mean it’s not a major contributor.

No, that’s not what he said, and let’s be clear here that you opened this door. YOU are the one who was complaining about too many concepts There is nothing inherently unreasonable about correlating electricity with Maxwell. It’s a field we call electricity and magnetism. joigus defined the scope of their comments. “electricity physics” is something you are choosing to define, after-the-fact, in order to score some points, to include quantum effects and effects that have nothing to do with electricity.

Can you post it here?

! Moderator Note You were asked not to bring this up again.

Did anybody say we are only investigating " at the highest levels of performance"? How is that not specific? As was pointed out in the MMA link posted early on, you can substitute skin color in for gender here, and find that these arguments have already been made when people worried about the "future of sports" that were being integrated.

Maxwell didn’t invent quantum anything. No.

There are physical difference between any arbitrary group of men, and any arbitrary group of women. Can just anybody succeed at basketball? At horse racing? Is there a lot of crossover participation between pro jockeys and the NBA? We have weight classes in wrestling and boxing. Yes, sexual dimorphism is real. But you’re presenting it as a specific, rather than a general trend. There are different issues when one is speaking of professional sports and amateur sports, where everyone is supposed to be able to participate

You could go with believing people when they tell you the gender with which they identify. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

Why not use an actual example instead of making something up?

The phrase “become transgender” is problematic. I’m not sure it’s something you “become” Is that how trans people describe it? Are you presenting a scenario where someone who is not trans pretends to be? i.e. they are trying to cheat? No, that’s not a true statement. Men, on average, are stronger. But that statement is assuming there are just the two gender categories. Anyway https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/