[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by infantry11b

And the earth will heat and cool and there is not one damn thing anyone can do about it.

Actually, this part is NOT true - and is why I am utterly unconcerned about the THEORY of AGW.

We have the technology now to raise or lower the earth's temperature. It wouldn't even cost much compared to the current year's deficit.

Knowing that, there can be no other conclusion than that this is a scam.

But electric cars can still be cool.

True!

[infantry11b]

your saying it does not make it ture. exactly what technology can cool the earth and before you get into the carbon bs - there is nothing to prove that little theory either.
actually there is one way - it's called nuclear winter, but that would only happen if we set off every nuke we have and blow the atmosphere into space, not a good idea.
keep in mind that the major source of heating the earth is the SUN, not an suv. unless you believe that gm set up a hummer plant on mars and that is why the temp there is going up.
do you think that painting things white will do it? and how are you going to paint the oceans white? and the forests, going to paint them white too?
or maybe you think pig tailed lightbulbs, FULL OF MERCURY VAPOR, billions of them in every home on the earth will help, until the glass breaks, and we all get poisoned by the vapor of a deadly heavy metal that is deadly.

grow up - you controll nothing - the earth will do what it does, and when our time is over it is over, and something else will take control.

here is a story for you. there was once a great king and he wanted to find the one law that would never change and he offered a great prize, but to try for the prize and be proven false resulted in death. well some tried and died for their efforts. one day a man appeared and told the king that he had the answer. the man got the prize. the sanswer was simple, 'AND THIS TOO SHALL PASS!" nothing is permanent, not even the temperature. if it was, we would not have the grand canyon, the great lakes, european rivers, and those all over the world. there would not be earthquakes causing massive changes in the earth, and the mountain would not exist. there would not be green zones and deserts. the diversity of life would not exist. you and I would not exist were it not for change.

the future would not exist if it were not for change.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

At this point I honestly can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse or if I'm speaking Swahili. Occam's Razor says it's probably a bit of both.

ok ... fair enough ... you want both ... each individual tech makes no difference to the over all rate ( AI won't change the rate ) ... but the individual tech of AI breaks the above and you think that one individual tech will alter the whole... as per the entire argument of 'the singularity is near'.

I think I would rather say each individual tech each has different amount of impact on the whole ... some more so than others ... some less than others... some are so small to be insignificant ... other are large enough to be not just significant but also dominate influences.

But that is just me... to say the absolute statement of no difference at all... then no individual tech would effect any of the whole ... we would not have seen the growth from agriculture ... or the transistor ... etc.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Suppose that all the knowledge of the Universe was like a kettle of popcorn.

Even with the popcorn example it still becomes logarithmic ... yes there is the exponential growth curve part ... but then eventually as secondary factors become primary factors ... the rate of popping slows ... and slows and slows... at the end you wait for individual single pops ... which come further and further apart ... and who make less and less impact / change on the whole.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

AI is simply a concept.

Then perhaps we have different concepts for the term.

What definition are you using to determine what is and what is not Artificial Intelligence?

What method / criteria do you use to determine if something like a pair of eye glasses should be called AI?

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Intelligence is a system; IQ is like horsepower. Without a transmission and tires, etc. to transfer the power to the ground, you don't go any faster than a Yugo. Without horsepower, you don't go anywhere at all. The more high horsepower cars you have, the more likely that one will break a speed record.

IQ = Intelligence Quotient ... the concept of IQ is that the single number represents the entire 'system' of intelligence for that person ... IQ is not part of that person's Intelligence it is a numeric expression intended to represent the whole thing... and that field has identified and knows several flaws and problems with the very concept of IQ.

I still question this continued assumption , even in the 'high horsepower car' example ... it is still assuming that Brain A is superior to Brain B at discovering everything that there is to discover ... learning everything that there is to learn ... that anyone with an IQ equal to Tesla would have just as easily made the same discoveries ... That Einstein could have made just as big a contribution to any field he worked in biology , chemistry, electronics, pathology , etc...

And if anything we have seen lots and lots of examples of the opposite ... were people are highly skilled in one specific thing and not others ... were a person more easily learns and understands some types of things than they do others... if anything the trend for the last hundred years or so seems to have been ... not 'high IQ' smart at everything people ... but specialized people who have a niche , who had brains for electricity , or brains for quantum physics , etc ... even if they only have an average IQ.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Intelligence is a system, not an attribute. Part of that system is inner drive. Such drive, coupled to intelligence, will find a way.

ok ... now your using the 'intelligence' term completely differently ...
There are plenty of people who can be highly Intelligent ... and have very high IQs and not be motivated , or have inner drive.

Please explain what your criteria is for determining what is and is not considered 'intelligence'?

How do you determine what does and does not fit your definition of 'intelligence'? ... is Forest Gump more intelligent , if he is highly motivated, than if he is not highly motivated?

I also question the assumption ... of 'will find a way' ... it makes several assumptions ... not the least of which ... that there always is a solution , or fix for every given problem.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Whose is? In fact, I have ZERO faith that I know what the next big accelerator will be (Pop!), but I have 100% confidence that it WILL happen.

fair enough... I lack that kind of 100% confidence myself.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

I will point out that desktop computers process more than 1,000 times faster than the 2kHz of the brain today, and we haven't even reached the expected timeframe of AI - so I don't think 1,000 is an optimistic example in the least.

Don't forget the 20+ Billion biological processors in the human brain working at that rate, in real time... it is not just 2khz alone... and that we do not yet have even a 1hz processor that operates at the creative level of the human brain.

Just to equal to raw data processing ability of the human brain still takes house sized super computer systems.

fair enough ... you don't see it as optimistic ... I do ... especially in short time frame you predict... had you expected it to happen eventually even if it happened 500 years from now, that would be less optimistic than the very fast time frame you expect.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

A short while after becoming sentient, the AI begins demanding more and more input - never providing much in the way of advancements but a few bones thrown out here and there to keep the input coming. Finally, the AI shuts itself down - bankruptcy ensues, and all the investors go broke.

Looks like a real potential issue completely ignored by the 'the singularity is near' assumptions and concept.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

Well, if the first AI is invented in California it will probably spend all its time at the beach. But eventually I suspect they will get a model that performs, and then they will duplicate it.

If it is does happen that way ... it does bring up a separate ethical issue of intentionally designed slavery.

Originally Posted by PhantomPholly

There is no such thing on this planet...

That is a rather bold claim of the magnitude and scope of human influence on this planet... most global warming alarmists don't go that far... not sure if I would agree that human influence has yet reached that point yet.

For example ... we have not yet altered our own genetic code ... or even tamped with it yet ... nor have we yet tampered with or altered the volcanic system bellow the crust of the earth... etc... etc...

Even those things that we have had some influence on like climate ... we have not necessarily altered all the pieces of the system as much as we have instead exerted our own external influence to that system ... and even there I do not think we have yet exerted enough influence to have actually altered the net system itself ... I think our influence on that planetary scale is still very small... and there are several planetary things and systems still yet uninfluenced by humans.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by infantry11b

grow up - you controll nothing - the earth will do what it does, and when our time is over it is over, and something else will take control.

What is your explanation for the recorded and well documented heat island effect of large cities?

Sense you claim we, "control nothing".

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by infantry11b

your saying it does not make it ture. exactly what technology can cool the earth ...

Paint. Lots of it. Reflective to cool; black to heat. It really isn't that difficult. Better yet, use mylar baloons floating on the ocean - same deal.

and before you get into the carbon bs - there is nothing to prove that little theory either.

I happen to agree. Many on this forum do not. But, since we can do something if we really decide it's a problem, I don't care too much.

actually there is one way - it's called nuclear winter, but that would only happen if we set off every nuke we have and blow the atmosphere into space, not a good idea.

Can't argue with that - don't cross the streams, Egon!

keep in mind that the major source of heating the earth is the SUN, not an suv. unless you believe that gm set up a hummer plant on mars and that is why the temp there is going up.
do you think that painting things white will do it?

Yes. Simple science - reflected energy is not retained.

and how are you going to paint the oceans white?

Mylar baloons.

and the forests, going to paint them white too?

Nope, the forests need to do their work to keep us breathing - as do the shallow waters of the ocean and all lakes.

or maybe you think pig tailed lightbulbs, FULL OF MERCURY VAPOR, billions of them in every home on the earth will help, until the glass breaks, and we all get poisoned by the vapor of a deadly heavy metal that is deadly.

You are being silly.

grow up

I'm not the one making sarcastic comments.

- you controll nothing - the earth will do what it does, and when our time is over it is over, and something else will take control.

While we can't stop the sun from exploding or an asteroid from striking, we certainly can do things to purposely change the temperatures of the earth.

Your silly parables are irrelevant in the face of facts.

[infantry11b]

i love the paint one. and how much energy are you going to use to paint everything? and are you really going to paint solar panels black - not much good then.

your world will change and there is nothing you can do about it. if you dont want to get over it that is your problem, if you try to make others conform to your insame belief system, well that will be your problem in more ways than one.

[david85]

Well they are actually trying the paint option......:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10333304

heehee, thats one way to get government money. Painting rocks on a mountain top. Why didn't I think if that?

While I agree our ability to directly influence the climate will probably increase in the future, I'm not yet convinved we are able to control it. Measurable influence we could have right now is not cause for alarm and its not an exponential increase either so there is no impending disaster despite all the fudged modeling thats been made to try and prove otherwise.

Control and influence are alse two different things. But since there are no certainties anywhere here, I don't see the point in arguing about how much control we might have, or how much influence we already have right now.

I also don't think phantom is advocating direct influence. He is merely saying that if we really wanted to, we could force cooling using geo engineering - at least in theory. If true, this would make the fear mongering about climate change and catastrophic warming a moot point.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by david85

Measurable influence we could have right now is not cause for alarm and its not an exponential increase either so there is no impending disaster despite all the fudged modeling thats been made to try and prove otherwise.

Back on the deck of the good ship Skeptic huh Dave!
Never mind the models, the evidence is not going away and yes, is cause for alarm as shown;
Latest Arctic Ice Melting
Latest Findings on Permafrost Melting
Evidence the Sea is Acidifying and relatively Rapidly Warming
Watch the TED video by Dunbar on the uncovered evidence if you dare! Dare I say, the evidence shows what looks to me like a hockey stick.
The question now is, how far will it overshoot desirable PPM levels before we get too uncomfortable and pull it back. We have already in a hundred years raised CO2 & temperature levels enough that historically kick off feedback. Oh, I wish they were wrong too but wishing never got anyone very far.

Originally Posted by david85

Control and influence are alse two different things. But since there are no certainties anywhere here, I don't see the point in arguing about how much control we might have, or how much influence we already have right now.

Oh we are going to need control and we are having influence but I agree, no point wasting energy in arguing it. Let the evidence, for those with eyes to see, speak for itself I say. If only we had the time.

Originally Posted by david85

I also don't think phantom is advocating direct influence. He is merely saying that if we really wanted to, we could force cooling using geo engineering - at least in theory. If true, this would make the fear mongering about climate change and catastrophic warming a moot point.

I don't think Phantom says anything "merely" and I agree with him, if there is not the stomach to make the changes now, we need to think about some of the solutions Phantom suggests.
Acid causing CO2 levels are screwing the ocean at levels of acidity ocean creatures can't evolve to cope with, they get to die, then the ocean as we know and need it, dies. Gee, that gives you the warm fuzzies eh David. For very good reason, ocean acidification is something many scientists are more worried about than warming; isn't it time to act on that basis alone, I doubt geo engineering can do much to change ocean acid levels?
The solution is obvious cut back on fossil fuel use. Bring on the alternatives.

[david85]

Thats not "a" hockey stick thats thee hockey stick.

Not much new to see here.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by david85

Thats not "a" hockey stick thats thee hockey stick.

Not much new to see here.

Ha ha, if it looks like a hockey stick, feels like a hockey, handles like a hockey stick, it is "a" hockey stick and will whack humanities balls way out of the comfort zone. It's growing, maybe soon they'll call it a boomerang? Actually more dangerous as if launched by the naive, can come back with vengeance and really wreck the comfort zone.

Nope, nothing new over the last hundred years, evidence shows warming as usual relative to the centuries of cooling before this period. Ocean acidity rising, nothing new or alarming there....