Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Mining Alone Could Raise Global Temperatures Above Critical Limit By 2033 (vice.com)
dmoberhaus writes: Researchers have found that if Bitcoin is adopted at rates similar to technologies like credit cards, its energy consumption could increase global temperatures by 2C in just 16 years. This is well beyond the limit of catastrophic climate change proposed by the UN. Motherboard spoke to an expert on Bitcoin and energy about the study's implications.
Dummy, there have been tens of thousands of studies, and 99.9% of them all agree. It's not a conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists.
I don't respond to AC's.
coloration
Say what now?
In the interest of answering this as if it were serious, it is true that the gold standard of scientific endeavor is full-scale experiments with controls and variables. However there are plenty of scientific efforts that have to make due with at best reduced scale experiments (geology, astronomy, psychology, probably most scientific efforts). We do know at small scale the products of combustion constitute a gas that insulates heat but allows for light. We also know that the increase of this reaction correlates quite nicely with the retention of thermal energy. While the scale is such that we can't *prove* it, the simplest explanation is that there is a causative relationship.
Now let's weigh the theories by consequence of acting *incorrectly* given the two scenarios:
-Global warming is not man made, but we curtail emissions anyway: We reduce our consumption of a non-renewable resource that we needed to reduce anyway.
-Global warming turns out to be man made, but we fail to curtail emissions and make it exponentially worse: Massive famine and violent storms destroy so much of our society and even potentially kill us off completely.
So not only is man-made global warming the simplest explanation that fits the data, it's also the one that is by *far* the safest bet.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
No, it's science. If you could convincingly show it's not the case you'd probably get a Nobel Prize.
So you deny global warming, and can't see any flaws in the current financial system that bitcoin can solve.
You're a closed-minded idiot. Got it.
And if you don't know that a single Bitcoin transaction needs 250kWh of power then you haven't been paying attention.
PS: At only five or six transactions per second it's not going to solve any of the major flaws in the financial system, either.
No sig today...
You're 100% wrong (or simply lying). They're pretty damned accurate, actually. If you have any real interest, you should look into the IPCC. Here's a high level overview: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf...
I don't respond to AC's.
Yes. Tens of thousands. The most recent one, alone, looked at 9200 different studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report).
I don't respond to AC's.
Science doesn't depend on anything in particular to be true. That's how science works. We try to figure out what is true. Nobody is paying scientists to prove something or another.
That's not how scientific models work. If models can fit the facts, then the models are effective. Climate models absolutely do fit the facts.
Did you not learn what "science" is in grade school? How can somebody be so clueless about something as fundamental as what science is?
I don't respond to AC's.
You assume wind and solar power people are not also similarly motivated.
We already see wind power companies take a bunch of government money, prop up a bunch of windmills, declare bankruptcy (claiming they didn't foresee natural gas prices killing their business model), and then leave a bunch of broken and rusting windmills for the government to deal with.
We see electric car companies do the same, take a bunch of money, produce nothing, declare bankruptcy, and walk away from the factories filled with toxic metals and chemicals.
Nuclear power has proven itself to be low CO2, low environmental impact, reliable, and safe.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html
If you cannot accept nuclear power as part of the global warming solution then don't be surprised if people cannot accept global warming as a real threat. Whatever threat nuclear power holds, be it another Chernobyl or Fukushima, or radioactive waste that won't decay for millions of years, does not compare in the least to what global warming threatens. If you fear nuclear power more than global warming then you have "scientifically" proven global warming to be no real threat at all, because nuclear power is not a real threat to anyone.