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

[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/

[realr0ach]

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

It's called a "poison the well" Jewish media disinfo tactic you idiot.  They pose as the opposition alt-right type groups who are a threat to them then claim "yes, Jews control the media and banks, and the earth is also flat!".  You mix some real and fake information together to try and poison all of it.  This is what Qanon is.  Some of the posts were real at some point, but most of them now are just Jewish media disinfo shills.

[hazukison]

What's with the current 10% blood bath happening?

[julian071]

Guys get the fuck back to discussing price action, some of you are really making a fool out of yourselves. You don't want to be remembered like this.

[realr0ach]

Nazism

http://dailystormer.name/nazi-is-a-slur-for-white-person/

[flynn]

It goes without saying that low Co2 could have been at least one of the factors behind ice ages.

It goes the other way around : if it gets cold, the oceans absorb CO2 and you see it going low with a 900-years delay
If it gets warm, CO2 is expelled by the oceans and the level raises, again with a 900-years delay. That delay implies that if there is a causation, it can't be the other way around.

Ice ages are driven mainly by the  Milankovitch cycles.

[EatonABooger]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I did her a great disfavour prejudging her so. Last Christmas I'd apparently been teasing them all that bitcoin is tied to identity and when a holder dies their coin has to go back in to the 'mining pool', so they shouldn't expect anything from me. But lo she had since done some research 'for me' and this is not the case at all. In fact, it is quite like real money and you can just send it to anyone. Perhaps if I didn't understand it all that well, it might be better to distribute my coin 'around the family' before the 'time' comes, just to 'be safe'. I started in on my long discourse on primogeniture (this creature is married to Indolent Son Number 2), how it is a great mistake to break up estates and spare sons really always made for excellent bishops or conquerors in mediaeval times... I used to tease Son 2 about that stuff, but he knows I'm just being a dick. Next update: at Easter if we get that far, I suppose she'll be tackling me on fairness and partible inheritance.
[/quote]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

now I'm hooked... like a soap opera... got to know how this progresses...
it's got it all - a villain, the innocent participant that is linked to the situation (possibly unwillingly), a wise hero with all the unfair advantage....

I even had to get out the dictionary !!   awesome.  how do I use these merit thingys?  

[vanobe]

Guys get the fuck back to discussing price action, some of you are really making a fool out of yourselves. You don't want to be remembered like this.

Suchmoon says it's a bad idea to discuss bitcoin in this thread.

I think it's bad karma to talk about Bitcoin in this thread.

[Elwar]

What's with the current 10% blood bath happening?

We're trying to get bcash back to .2 BTC by bringing the price to bcash since bcash isn't bringing the price up to bitcoin. Doesn't seem to be working though :/

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Guys get the fuck back to discussing price action, some of you are really making a fool out of yourselves. You don't want to be remembered like this.

Suchmoon says it's a bad idea to discuss bitcoin in this thread.

I think it's bad karma to talk about Bitcoin in this thread.

Bitcoin is also considered off-topic in these regions.

[rafanadal]

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

0%, the alt right does not deny science, leftists on the other hand seem to have a hard time with the concept of per capita lol, racial differences in IQ, genetic clusters etc.  

[Ibian]

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).

You would have to explain how the proposed hypothesis works.

For starters, there isn't enough physical space available to sustain an infinite expansion of trees and whatnot, so eventually there would be surplus of CO2 that could not be turned into further oxygen. And too much CO2 is harmful to humans and animals.
If that was not the case however, and oxygen increased indefinitely, pressure would increase, again due to spatial limitations. That would increase the partial pressure of oxygen, which can lead to oxygen poisoning and by extension to death.

Of course there's still fucktons of space to go around on earth, but there's definitely a limit beyond which things could turn bad very quickly. And that's just the most apparent potential consequences that too much CO2 or O2 could have. Regardless of whether or not these are accurate and what the quantitative thresholds would look like, there are a lot more intricate effects to take into account in a dynamic system that is as closely interlinked as life on earth.

Neither of us have numbers, so let's just stick to what is known.

We know that oil and coal are essentially condensed co2. We also know that animals used to be way the fuck bigger, not just dinosaurs but also mammals and insects. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that not only was there more co2 in the past, but also more oxygen, not just because co2 turns into oxygen but also because higher levels of oxygen are likely to allow for larger animals, as muscles require oxygen to function.

So it seems that the atmosphere was denser in the past. And as co2 is deposited in the underground, it must become less dense over time, which means less able to support life.

So what is better? That we get less oxygen by way of less plants due to less co2, or that we get more?