Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[explorer]

I'd be quite happy with lower temperatures. Winter is more enjoyable with proper powder snow, and summer wouldn't make me stay inside 24/7 if it didn't cause me to sweat all fucking day.

On that note, I've read about an upcoming mini ice age a few times. Is there any recent update on that that confirms or rejects it?

Vast question.

- climate is whether over 30 years. So it's too soon to tell.
- There was a global warming during the last 100 years of about 0.1°C/10years
- No more warming since 1998, once you remove El Nino/LaNina effects (which cancel each other in time)
- Sun is probably having a period of low activity, that doesn't change much the energy it sends to us, but less activity (= less spots) means less magnetic field, means more cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere, meaning more seeded clouds, thus more albedo and then cold coming in... but this is still a theory
- look here for the latest temps : https://moyhu.blogspot.fr/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
- best site ever for these questions : https://wattsupwiththat.com/

- last but not least : cold kills; warm weather makes our life easier.

Keeping in mind of course that things like math is still a theory. Hypothesis may be a better term.

Also also keeping in mind that it's the left that are going on about the weather.

All of science and anything empirical is ultimately a hypothesis. No amount confirmations (that turns things into theories and laws in academia) can guarantee with certainty that we've figured something out, rather than just witnessing an infinitely unlikely event.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if industrialization had an impact on global weather patterns. In chaotic system even the tiniest perturbation can trigger massive macroscopical changes.

However, I'm not quite convinced yet about us having any significant impact either for two reasons. Namely, I haven't studied the papers so I can't possibly know if there are any systematic errors, and I see too much bullshit going on in the media to not be heavily sceptical. I do lean towards human emissions of CO2 causing changes in climate, mostly because I've worked with people who study precisely that, but even if that turned out true I wouldn't be all that worried about it. Capitalism will come to the rescue and figure out a way to keep us nice and cozy regardless of weather conditions. With nuclear fusion pretty much around the corner energy won't be a concern and with that sorted out the overall state of the planet should be irrelevant. Things might change drastically (e.g. underground, on- and/or underwater or shielded off cities with indoor farming), but I don't see humans disappearing unless we nuke ourselves to hell or get wiped out by some rogue asteroid.

We were burning forests way before we burned coal and oil. In fact, any living creature affects the weather. I understand that at least one american state has legislation regarding cow farts.

But more importantly, co2 is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it's plant food. Which is food for everything else. The more co2, the more oxygen, the more life. It might just be a good thing.

I don't deny the possibility of that, since it would make sense. But our ecosystem is way more complex and has more knobs and dials that interact with each other than just CO2 and oxygen.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with population models, but there could very well be a point beyond which everything tips and triggers a reaction in the opposite direction.
E.g. more CO2 = more life, then at some point there's too much CO2 = less life, be it due to primary (an upper limit on how much can be held or used) or due to side effects (effects of increased CO2 on other parts of the ecosystem) of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Humans can easily die from drinking too much water at once, so "more oxygen" might not be an unequivocally good thing either (too much of it would eventually increase the pressure which can be fatal even without any other effects on the ecosystem).

Since we're just coming off a low that was in the danger zone for most plant life,  and we're order of magnitude +  from anywhere even approaching cyclical highs, let alone human danger...  Just more tax grab government propaganda. 

[1618056481]

1618056481

[1618056481]

1618056481

[1618056481]

1618056481

[1618056481]

1618056481

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

Life isn't as simple as checking Google, which you surely understand to be heavily biased for political reasons to begin with. I literally left academia because it wasn't rigorous enough due to the ways that it's funded, and I'm not even talking about the joke that is the social sciences.

[cAPSLOCK]

What kind of asshole doesn’t want to see us above $11,000 per bitcoin?

Someone wanting to retire..

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ANbD1CCdA3iI8/200.gif

Dudes. DUDES. 'Hol up there. I promise you I'm HODLing for at least $12k...

Stop saying that!  Every time you say that it tanks!

Fine. Fuck you man. Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.

Are you happy now ?!

Umm... Well...

[flynn]

Plus more than 95% of c02 comes from natural sources not human influence. "Climate change" is bullshit. It's just cyclical and perfectly normal variance.

I also see the argument regarding CO2 level as too simplistic.
Maybe there is no climate change.
However, one thing is difficult to argue with: human population affects on environment.
This is discussed less, because the remedies are unknowable.

Specifically, humans may be causing the sixths extinction event in planet's history.
For those who would argue that it is "natural"-no it isn't because it is happening too fast-within 100-150 years, not millions of years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-creating-sixth-great-extinction-of-animal-species-say-scientists

Under a “natural” rate of extinction, the study said that two species go extinct per 10,000 species per 100 years, rather than the one species that previous work has assumed.

Modern rates of extinction were eight to 100 times higher , the authors found. For example, 477 vertebrates have gone extinct since 1900, rather than the nine that would be expected at natural rates.

Unfortunately, the way it may develop would be either for us to go non-biological and, hence, have little imprint on life OR natural habitats would become so stressed that extremely effective life forms would arise and finish us off one way or another.

(snip)

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

you get no argument from me re CO2 level. It might be irrelevant, and most likely is.
However, the rest of my post shows that we DID change this planet already.
This is not a political statement-it is a fact.

This is pretty much my position on the matter. It sucks that politics literally ruins any objective discourse on such issues. Science shouldn't be a matter of politics or government, but unfortunately increasingly is, and getting anything funded that doesn't further some moneygrabbing agenda is virtually impossible these days. Nonetheless, there is no denying that we're fucking over wildlife.

[flynn]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

you get no argument from me re CO2 level. It might be irrelevant, and most likely is.
However, the rest of my post shows that we DID change this planet already.
This is not a political statement-it is a fact.

And this is another way of seeing it :

It's the purpose of mankind to dig the earth to recover all the carbon that the plants hid down there. Without us, CO2 would go below 150ppm and all life would disappear from the surface of the EArth.
 

[bitcoinPsycho]

Fine. Fuck you man. Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.
Are you happy now ?!

It's just gonna tank faster now.
I think it's bad karma to talk about Bitcoin in this thread.

You're not the boss of me, honey.

Just for that, I placed a limit sell order for $12,500.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, HUH ?! HUH ?! COME AT ME... BRING IT !

go bob   looks like the green eye monster is rattling some people. I'm happy for you mate . respect to you and your foresight. Happy retirement  

[Biodom]

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

1. don't believe anything that call itself "real science", because it ain't.
2. The refutation is the quote from Sarah Kaplan that says that there were more species going extinct in prior events.

Duh! Prior events lasted for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years and
here we have 1% vertebrate extinction in 100 years.

1% in 100 years is a pretty big number IF it continues, but why won't it?

[cAPSLOCK]

go bob    looks like the green eye monster is rattling some people. I'm happy for you mate . respect to you and your foresight. Happy retirement 

Oh good gracious.  Has no one humor anymore!?  I will cheer when it hits 12500 and BBL can add to his diversifications.

I got no reason to be jealous.  I'm doing just fine...

[realr0ach]

you get no argument from me re CO2 level. It might be irrelevant, and most likely is.

It is irrelevant.  Giant insects used to roam the earth and since insects don't have lungs (they have a bunch of tracts called trachea), the size the insects can grow is determined by atmospheric content of o2.  When c02 levels were vastly higher than now, it caused the plants to be more efficient and create more o2, thus making insects much larger than now.  The earth was not an uninhabitable fireball when giant insects roamed the earth.

Report from Iron Mountain was a real leak, which foretold the coming of the Club of Rome.  The Club of Rome might be the biggest failure in world history if their goal was population control and reduction, since the govt roundtable groups allowed themselves to be completely taken over by Zionist Jews whose goal is to unsustainably flood the planet with as many brown people as possible to destroy 1st world white civilizations that aren't reproducing out of control in the first place.  It's the R-selection brown people that reproduce out of control in places like the horn of Africa, not K-selection whites.  

Homogeneous populations always rally together and dispose of parasites trying to practice usury against them, so the Jews decided trying to safeguard their banking monopolies were more important than sustainable populations.  The Club of Rome's other goal was after figuring out the only purpose of govt is warfare and that govt collapses without an external threat, was to fabricate some type of reason for govt to exist like rallying around global warming, alien invasion, anything to justify the existence of central govt and a vertically integrated civilization for parasites to leach off.

There is no need for any of this garbage.  K-selection whites and asians (places like Japan for example) simply stop reproducing the second resources and space become scarce.  The R-selection types like in the horn of Africa on the other hand probably will reproduce out of control, so you cannot subsidize them in any way.

[moneyForjam]

Price bounced off support/resistance 11755, with a reasonably normal looking correction in progress

[explorer]

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

1. don't believe anything that call itself "real science", because it ain't.
2. The refutation is the quote from Sarah Kaplan that says that there were more species going extinct in prior events.

Duh! Prior event lasted for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years and
here we have 1% vertebrate extinction in 100 years.

1% in 100 years is a pretty big number IF it continues, but why won't it?

I think you need to balance that with discoveries.  It's like saying x people die every year, so the population will be zero in xy years.

[vanobe]

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

1. don't believe anything that call itself "real science", because it ain't.
2. The refutation is the quote from Sarah Kaplan that says that there were more species going extinct in prior events.

Duh! Prior event lasted for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years and
here we have 1% vertebrate extinction in 100 years.

1% in 100 years is a pretty big number IF it continues, but why won't it?

Because in a few years we will be eating meat grown in a laboratory. We won't need huge numbers of cows, and the farm land they needed can return to the wild.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/a-lab-grown-burger-gets-a-taste-test.html

A hamburger made from cow muscle grown in a laboratory was fried, served and eaten in London on Monday in an odd demonstration of one view of the future of food.

Recent studies have shown that producing cultured meat in factories could greatly reduce water, land and energy use, and emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases, compared with conventional meat production using livestock.

[moneyForjam]

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

1. don't believe anything that call itself "real science", because it ain't.
2. The refutation is the quote from Sarah Kaplan that says that there were more species going extinct in prior events.

Duh! Prior event lasted for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years and
here we have 1% vertebrate extinction in 100 years.

1% in 100 years is a pretty big number IF it continues, but why won't it?

Because in a few years we will be eating meat grown in a laboratory. We won't need huge numbers of cows, and the farm land they needed can return to the wild.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/science/a-lab-grown-burger-gets-a-taste-test.html

A hamburger made from cow muscle grown in a laboratory was fried, served and eaten in London on Monday in an odd demonstration of one view of the future of food.

Recent studies have shown that producing cultured meat in factories could greatly reduce water, land and energy use, and emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases, compared with conventional meat production using livestock.

ill let you eat meat grown in a laboratory, and drink water make in a factory. Personally Ill be eating crushed bull/bear soul

[Biodom]

And this is another way of seeing it :

It's the purpose of mankind to dig the earth to recover all the carbon that the plants hid down there. Without us, CO2 would go below 150ppm and all life would disappear from the surface of the EArth.
 

It's funny that I had similar thoughts when I was in my early twenties and was a bit more 'philosophical'.
My thinking was about the initial "purpose" of humans as a part of the biosphere.

I also thought about that, perhaps, at least initially we were there to warm it up, so to speak, because if we didn't and ice covered the whole earth, there would be almost no large scale vertebrates left (at least on the surface).
It goes without saying that low Co2 could have been at least one of the factors behind ice ages.

For those who thinks that earth land could not be fully covered by ice-apparently, it was before, in pre-Cambrian (snowball hypothesis).

[HairyMaclairy]

I wonder what proportion of the alt-right thinks the earth is flat.  10%?  30%? 75%?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Fine. Fuck you man. Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.
Are you happy now ?!

It's just gonna tank faster now.
I think it's bad karma to talk about Bitcoin in this thread.

You're not the boss of me, honey.

Just for that, I placed a limit sell order for $12,500.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, HUH ?! HUH ?! COME AT ME... BRING IT !

Just tell us the truth, B'awb. You a long con? You know things you ain't tellin' us?

[mymenace]

I wonder what proportion of the alt-right thinks the earth is flat.  10%?  30%? 75%?

alt-right

a media induced fantasy linking conservative thinkers to white supremacy, Nazism, conspiracy theories and russians

I think I will take the flat earthers, I would even believe the earth is flat just to oppose the media

[Elwar]

I wonder what proportion of the alt-right thinks the earth is flat.  10%?  30%? 75%?

I wonder what proportion of the flat earthers are actually trolls, getting Youtube hits from people going there to view their insanity or prove them wrong. Or just for the lolz.



As for me, I've circled the globe and every time I look down from the airplane window, what do I see? A flat earth.

</QED>

[explorer]

And this is another way of seeing it :

It's the purpose of mankind to dig the earth to recover all the carbon that the plants hid down there. Without us, CO2 would go below 150ppm and all life would disappear from the surface of the EArth.
 

It's funny that I had similar thoughts when I was in my early twenties and was a bit more 'philosophical'.
My thinking was about the initial "purpose" of humans as a part of the biosphere.

I also thought about that, perhaps, at least initially we were there to warm it up, so to speak, because if we didn't and ice covered the whole earth, there would be almost no large scale vertebrates left (at least on the surface).
It goes without saying that low Co2 could have been at least one of the factors behind ice ages.

For those who thinks that earth land could not be fully covered by ice-apparently, it was before, in pre-Cambrian (snowball hypothesis).

Well I wouldn't say it.

The Global Warming crowd ignores the fact that CO2 levels used to be measured in thousands of ppm instead of hundreds historically. In fact, the temperature does not even correlate very well with CO2 levels. During ice ages in the Ordovician period, some 450 million years ago, when the CO2 levels were several thousand of ppm, this did not result in temperatures 10 times greater than today.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/climate-change-conspiracy-against-us-all/