Topic: [2018-10-29] Bitcoin trading uses so much power that it could push global temper (Read 430 times)
November 08, 2018, 02:28:07 PM
Bitcoin trades while the volumes are very small with a comparison of the market for Fiat money, and are unlikely to come close in the near future, but I think bankers know what to do if Bitcoin is not their toy.
November 07, 2018, 07:52:00 AM
How much CO2 is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree.
It is too much when average (yearly) temperature of earth is rising.Getting that answer ("average temperature is rising") depends on how you measure it. Not all methodologies of measuring the average temperature indicate a significant rise.
You're talking about an exceptionally complicated topic, but you want to make it seem simple. Weather patterns change for literally thousands of reasons, not just your personal favourite reason.
November 07, 2018, 06:13:58 AM
How much CO2 is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree.
And again, where is source?
It is too much when average (yearly) temperature of earth is rising. Which causes climate anomalies, rising waters and possibly worst of all thawing permafrost which protects huge amounts of C02 . These all are negative effects which can and are measured and recorded.
November 05, 2018, 05:24:07 PM
97% of scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening and will have consequences in the (near) future.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
While I'm not going to argue that temperatures are rising, we can call it global warming or climate change. It's all a matter of perspective. While it may be getting warmer on the poles, the Gulf Stream is weakening and results in Europe becoming colder. While you're talking about global warming it's snowing in South Africa.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/11/giraffes-in-the-snow-south-africa-karoo-desert
Fair point, climate change would be the more complete way to define what's happening right now. I am by no means an expert when it comes to this but I am learning everyday. The main point I am trying to stress here is that those increased levels of carbon dioxide, and whatever their effects may be, are doing more harm than good.
Does Bitcoin mining have something to do with that? I very much doubt it and people who are saying that mining will raise global temperatures by 2* are delusional. Google and Facebook servers combined produce a comparable amount of heat and they've been doing it for much longer than Bitcoin miners.
I second this. Completely delusional.
November 05, 2018, 02:31:29 PM
There are climate scientists and naturalists who claim that their studies demonstrate there's no change in trend for temperature (and that defining what "average temperature" affects the outcome significantly)
Source?
I don't regularly check this topic out, but there certainly are dissenting views from credible scientists. If you're interested, you should search for them. It's actually a benefit to understand the sceptical point of view if you want to argue against it.
If you're not interested in valid antithetical-arguments, but express strong belief in the corresponding thesis, don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you make strong statements on a subject you're not interseted in learning about.
And I'm not sure what makes the World Bank any more credulous a source of science than journalists.
How about NASA? And please don't come up with some silly conspiracy theory.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
What difference does it make if NASA has a position? Aren't you interested in what's factual? Science is supposed to be about using rational methodology and measurements to prove facts, not who says what.
97% of scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening and will have consequences in the (near) future.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
Yeah that's pretty much correct. You can include me: climate change is real, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is no doubt
What percentage of climate scientists think climate change is happening so slowly that there is no real discernible problem? And does it even matter how low or high the percentages are, when scientific facts are what actually matter?
November 05, 2018, 01:48:49 PM
97% of scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening and will have consequences in the (near) future.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
While I'm not going to argue that temperatures are rising, we can call it global warming or climate change. It's all a matter of perspective. While it may be getting warmer on the poles, the Gulf Stream is weakening and results in Europe becoming colder. While you're talking about global warming it's snowing in South Africa.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/11/giraffes-in-the-snow-south-africa-karoo-desert
Does Bitcoin mining have something to do with that? I very much doubt it and people who are saying that mining will raise global temperatures by 2* are delusional. Google and Facebook servers combined produce a comparable amount of heat and they've been doing it for much longer than Bitcoin miners.
November 05, 2018, 01:20:42 PM
There are climate scientists and naturalists who claim that their studies demonstrate there's no change in trend for temperature (and that defining what "average temperature" affects the outcome significantly)
Source?
And I'm not sure what makes the World Bank any more credulous a source of science than journalists.
How about NASA? And please don't come up with some silly conspiracy theory.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
97% of scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening and will have consequences in the (near) future.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.
November 05, 2018, 11:56:27 AM
Lol, Another "paid" study. I mean they have got the guts to use a title like that. I would love to read an article from "bullshitinsider" that how much electricity is wasted per year by the USA alone. I debunked their claim in an earlier thread. if you guys want to read it I will attach it below. Basically, the gist of it is 6 times more energy is wasted by the USA than the whole bitcoin network uses each year.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.44566177
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.44566177
November 05, 2018, 09:00:29 AM
I think we all know they don't investigate important issues very well.
I partially agree with you here but you're still generalizing here. Especially when it comes to global warming because the raw data is at our disposal (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc). There are countless scientific reports indicating that global warming is a direct consequence of the increasing CO2 emissions. You don't even need to read newspapers to realize that.
If they did, they would present both sides of the story, not just that which they prefer.
And what do you think is the other side of the story? What kind of agenda do you think they're trying to push, if any?
There are climate scientists and naturalists who claim that their studies demonstrate there's no change in trend for temperature (and that defining what "average temperature" affects the outcome significantly)
And I'm not sure what makes the World Bank any more credulous a source of science than journalists.
November 05, 2018, 07:21:05 AM
I think we all know they don't investigate important issues very well.
I partially agree with you here but you're still generalizing here. Especially when it comes to global warming because the raw data is at our disposal (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc). There are countless scientific reports indicating that global warming is a direct consequence of the increasing CO2 emissions. You don't even need to read newspapers to realize that.
If they did, they would present both sides of the story, not just that which they prefer.
And what do you think is the other side of the story? What kind of agenda do you think they're trying to push, if any?
November 05, 2018, 05:33:05 AM
I think it's evident that at the current moment there are way too many tonnes of CO2 emitted on a daily basis. And if we continue in this manner an increase of 2 degrees isn't that far fetched.
No, that's what newspapers and politicians keep endlessly repeating. If the newspapers repeat "Vietnam is threatening USA" or "Saddam Hussein has WMD", does that make it true?
I think we all know they don't investigate important issues very well. If they did, they would present both sides of the story, not just that which they prefer.
November 04, 2018, 06:05:38 PM
Yep, that's all good science.
How much CO2 is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree.
How much CO2 is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree.
I think it's evident that at the current moment there are way too many tonnes of CO2 emitted on a daily basis. And if we continue in this manner an increase of 2 degrees isn't that far fetched. But bitcoin being a decisive factor in this matter is the most laughable thing I've heard in a while.
But that doesn't take away the fact that we should urgently double down on CO2 emissions. At the end of the day we are just endangering our own species. The earth on the other hand will be fine, with or without us.
November 04, 2018, 05:45:36 PM
If they replaced fiat with bitcoins then there would be a lot more energy saved around the world. A single global currency where they wouldn't have to have minting machines and perhaps even banks as it will all be on the blockchain
And then what? Have governments ruin Bitcoin? No thank you.
Another thing is that most fiat isn't printed, but brought to live by simply changing a few data metrics in the central bank's system. People use money printing just as a term referring to money creation, not to actually printing physical money. Either way, let them consume as much energy as they feel is necessary, who cares?
People use fiat because it's useful, and the same applies to Bitcoin. There are more pressing matters in the world to focus on.
November 04, 2018, 05:22:48 PM
If they replaced fiat with bitcoins then there would be a lot more energy saved around the world. A single global currency where they wouldn't have to have minting machines and perhaps even banks as it will all be on the blockchain
November 04, 2018, 03:36:00 PM
The story of C02 impact is rather simple:
The sun has rather wide radiance spectrum but the atmosphere of our planet mostly does not absorb visible light and it is transmitted thru atmosphere , some of the light is scattered and some reaches earth and warms it up, warm bodies (also earth) emits heath radiation which then is absorbed by CO2 molecules in atmosphere .
CO2 is a molecule which has a high absorption in range of Infra red wavelength region [1] or in other words it absorbs heat. Without CO2
in atmosphere much of this IR radiation would escape our atmosphere therefore not warming up our climate. This is solid and undeniable proof of negative effect of CO2 on our climate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
The sun has rather wide radiance spectrum but the atmosphere of our planet mostly does not absorb visible light and it is transmitted thru atmosphere , some of the light is scattered and some reaches earth and warms it up, warm bodies (also earth) emits heath radiation which then is absorbed by CO2 molecules in atmosphere .
CO2 is a molecule which has a high absorption in range of Infra red wavelength region [1] or in other words it absorbs heat. Without CO2
in atmosphere much of this IR radiation would escape our atmosphere therefore not warming up our climate. This is solid and undeniable proof of negative effect of CO2 on our climate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Yep, that's all good science.
How much CO2 is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree.
November 04, 2018, 02:19:48 PM
It's worth pointing out that climate scientists don't even agree that CO2 emissions are a problem.
There is not much room for discussion regarding CO2 impact on global warming. If you are going to throw around such statements better give a reference to scientist and their work.
The story of C02 impact is rather simple:
The sun has rather wide radiance spectrum but the atmosphere of our planet mostly does not absorb visible light and it is transmitted thru atmosphere , some of the light is scattered and some reaches earth and warms it up, warm bodies (also earth) emits heath radiation which then is absorbed by CO2 molecules in atmosphere .
CO2 is a molecule which has a high absorption in range of Infra red wavelength region [1] or in other words it absorbs heat. Without CO2
in atmosphere much of this IR radiation would escape our atmosphere therefore not warming up our climate. This is solid and undeniable proof of negative effect of CO2 on our climate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
November 04, 2018, 09:44:12 AM
I'm not surprised with such stupid study, especially if we see where it comes from - University of Hawaii - probably the researchers spent too much time in the sun or have some serious problems with the brain. Even title is idiotic, they use term "trading" and probably think on mining power, so for them this is same process...
The fact is that total consumption of electricity consumed for crypto mining is less then 1% of the total annual consumption of electricity. With so little electricity consumption on a global scale claim that BTC trading (not mining) will cause a temperature rise of two degrees it's really stupid.
The fact is that total consumption of electricity consumed for crypto mining is less then 1% of the total annual consumption of electricity. With so little electricity consumption on a global scale claim that BTC trading (not mining) will cause a temperature rise of two degrees it's really stupid.
November 04, 2018, 08:21:03 AM
Besides, this power is going towards a purpose, it's not just wasted.
Even if it was "wasted" energy, it only affects the miners since they are the ones that end up paying the bill, not some funny journalists who are only out to talk down on Bitcoin to generate ad revenue.If miners weren't demanding so much energy, the energy suppliers would generate less revenue, and the state would generate less tax income. There are no losers if it doesn't affect local people, which it doesn't in most cases.
We'll keep seeing these articles continue to pop up throughout the coming years with how the network keeps growing. It's an endless source of content for news outlets, just like the price is.
November 04, 2018, 04:32:53 AM
Bitcoin mining does use a lot of power. There's no doubt about it.
However, there isn't really an issue with it using that much power as long as the energy that is being used is renewable and environmental friendly, such as hydroelectricity, and wind power plants. In that case, it does not cause any damage, at least not any more than say, banks or the mastercard/visa networks.
In many cases in fact, IIRC, bitcoin mining is using up excess renewable energy that would have been wasted anyways.
So thus, it's really non-issue in my opinion. Besides, this power is going towards a purpose, it's not just wasted.
However, there isn't really an issue with it using that much power as long as the energy that is being used is renewable and environmental friendly, such as hydroelectricity, and wind power plants. In that case, it does not cause any damage, at least not any more than say, banks or the mastercard/visa networks.
In many cases in fact, IIRC, bitcoin mining is using up excess renewable energy that would have been wasted anyways.
So thus, it's really non-issue in my opinion. Besides, this power is going towards a purpose, it's not just wasted.
November 02, 2018, 05:31:47 PM
there are many things that destroy the environment, the cars, the coal industries, burning fossil fuels, are many things that push global temper, so why are they talking about bitcoin? 11 years ago had no bitcoin and even then we have heard of global warming, this article seems to me one of those articles where there are hidden agendas
Jump to: