[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

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.

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.

+1

Slowly , as our total sum of human knowledge grows , we will better understand , more accurately the system and the significance of each influence... including our own.

However I expect it will be a while yet , before we reach majority , much less nearly full understanding / knowledge of the climate system.

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 would also add ... that even if the worst cases of human influenced climate change dooms day predictions were true ... they still do not mean the end of the human species ... and would probably not even keep us under 6+ billion global population.

- - - - - -

All that said ... I also will further add ... with or without a immanent dooms day ... there is still value in efforts to move toward a long term sustainable society ... better recycling , reduced harmful pollutants , renewable energy , improved efficiency , etc ...

[david85]

Can't argue with what you are saying, Ian. As it is, there is progress moving in that direction even if not all of it is totally agreeable (but what ever really is in politics?).

CARB was recently caught fudging the numbers of diesel emissions to justify more regulation. I wish there was a way to balance the scientific argument with open accountability while shutting down the hysteria but since those are inherent of human nature all I can do is whine and complain I can still be thankful that I'm allowed to keep my diesel while tinkering with my own EV.

Hey Karlos, now that we're both back here I wanted to ask you someting. What's your take on the ETS that NZ recently passed?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

Can't argue with what you are saying, Ian. As it is, there is progress moving in that direction even if not all of it is totally agreeable (but what ever really is in politics?).

agreed.

I personally most like the individual level driven changes / trends I have been seeing , far more than any of the political / governmental efforts and programs.

much slower, of course ... less guaranteed , of course... flawed in a long list of ways, absolutely... smaller scale, yup.

still ... despite it all ... that side is what I like the most ... if I had to choose between them , I would rather have the smaller scale , slower , flawed , etc... individual trend level than the governmental , commercial, industrial trend.

But, that could be a whole discussion all by itself.

[david85]

Originally Posted by IamIan

still ... despite it all ... that side is what I like the most ... if I had to choose between them , I would rather have the smaller scale , slower , flawed , etc... individual trend level than the governmental , commercial, industrial trend.

You surprise me, Ian.

Looks like we stand on a larger piece of common ground than I thought.

Its the individual choice that I would fight for. Thats why I oppose climate regulation so vehemently even though my actions in modifying or building more efficeint vehicles could be seen as being in line with that of an enviromnental activist.

Hell, even Anthony Watts drives an electric car! Although admittedly it is an NEV, its a start.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by david85

You surprise me, Ian.

Looks like we stand on a larger piece of common ground than I thought.

Its the individual choice that I would fight for. Thats why I oppose climate regulation so vehemently even though my actions in modifying or building more efficeint vehicles could be seen as being in line with that of an enviromnental activist.

surprise

Although ... that is probably my bad ... I've tried to express / communicate the same thoughts many times ... my half of the communication process apparently just didn't do it.

Some regulation will be needed ... as we discussed long ago ... there are the people like my grand father used to do , and others ... who will do things that harm those around them and just don't care if what they are dumping into the water supply is toxic , or what they are burning is toxic , or a company want to use some product that is harmful to others, to cut costs, increase profits , etc ...

There is a legitimate role in society for government to play ... at least until we as a species become far more socially evolved than we are now.

That doesn't mean the government or laws can make people be good ... nor does it mean the government should be trying to do everything ... and of course any time a society enacts laws to restrict the individuals that make up that society , it has to be done very carefully... I think it should be done far more carefully than it is currently done.

But there are lots of areas for improvement in the way the current laws , government, society , etc... function , and do things.

[karlos]

Originally Posted by david85

Hey Karlos, now that we're both back here I wanted to ask you someting. What's your take on the ETS that NZ recently passed?

Good question. Some of the answers here
Actually on the news today they were talking about it and how it has started the rejuvenation of the forest industry here which was really needed as too much farming is done on steep hillsides which generally erode rapidly, silting the rivers and coasts.
The Gov is phasing it in so so far, nobody seems to be talking about any negative effects, just the prospect of jobs and millions of Ha being planted. Of course there are farmers that complain, but in NZ they are pretty well off and culturally are never slow to come forward about anything that threatens the bottom line, which is understandable too.
NZ is a big exporter of dairy products and the general feeling is, if we don't take the initiative, our markets will start demanding it so there is a lot of research going into creating less impact on the environment.
As an aside, lately, I have been researching the making of a methane plant to maybe power the house and or the car. I would mainly be using grass which I believe I have enough of. Maybe the ideal solution would be to create power which would charge the EV
I finally bought a holden ute that we talked about I might make into an EV some time ago and am now thinking about what type of conversion to do. It could certainly take quite an impressive conversion but I'm waiting to hear about what will/could be my next source of income. Opps, quite a thread digression!

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by IamIan

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'.

Actually, since "AI" is not a "single tech" it doesn't break the paradigm. It just happens at a point on the curve where, in order to keep the rate of accelleration exponential, such a paradigm shift is required.

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.

Just as some kernels of popcorn fluff up bigger than others. Yes. But, of course, analogies are always dangerous!

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.

I didn't say there was NO impact - only that the impact was such that it logically CONTRIBUTED TO, rather than refuted, an exponential curve.

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.

Hehe - I did say analogies are dangerous!

At some point you may be right - but I suspect we have well over a century to go before the slowing starts - if then. It may be that we discover something that opens up parallel universes for study - that discovery simply being the next logical step along the exponential curve.

The thing about the unknown is, we don't know what it is...

Then perhaps we have different concepts for the term.

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

I'll turn that one back around on you - can you define Intelligence? It may not (and probably isn't) any one individual thing, but rather the sum of many factors combined into a system. "AI" may be nothing more than a gradual progression of understanding of those factors, first enhancing "natural" intelligence (which has already happened through better communications - allowing our brains to become more useful through more efficient accumulation of knowledge); next emulating some of those traits on a different substrate and interfacing them with living minds; then finally off-loading all of the traits to different interfaced substrates.

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

I don't think it's a single thing - but the classic example would be when you have a complete system that did not evolve from man (whether biological or mechanical) that passes the Turing test.

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...

Since a mind is a system, and part of that system is individual perception and experience - clearly you are correct to some degree. The ability to learn, deduce, and intuit does not mean that it will happen in practice with any one individual mind. Statistically, however, we can pretty much guarantee that given a sufficient number of intelligences and the right knowledge already available, certain discoveries WILL happen. History is already full of parallel / simultaneous development.

Your theory is similar to the theory of Brownian Motion - that you cannot predict where a given molecule of gas will move next, and therefore it is possible that all of the air in the room could suddenly happen to move into one corner and you could suffocate. While theoretically possible, the odds against it are so astronomical that it is unlikely to happen once in 10 times the expected lifetime of the Universe.

As for the remainder of your questions about Intelligence, it goes well above my intelligence to answer... Please remember that the AI shutting itself down example was from a science fiction book.

I do believe that we should immediately address the concept of AI in our Constitution rather immediately - I would like the term "man" replaced with "sentient being," and that whatever that standard is set for as sentient being, anything failing that test disallowed a vote. And, yes, there is ZERO doubt that many of those funding AI programs are in fact seeking super-slaves, just as there is zero doubt that Liberals seek to make slaves of all citizens to an Uber-State. That battle is as old as mankind, and will not likely be eliminated simply because we get smarter - if anything it may get worse.

(referencing my statement that there is no such thing as "natural" on our 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 ...

I disagree. Part of our code includes instructions to seek mates that are "attractive," and science has determined that our optic system (eyes + brain) have built-in parameters to evaluate prospective mates. Intentional or not, we have tampered with our genetic code through selection.

nor have we yet tampered with or altered the volcanic system bellow the crust of the earth... etc... etc...

You really are quite literal-minded, aren't you?

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.

Ever been to Iceland? It used to be forested. The Middle East is a testament to the first man-made ecological disaster - where man, protecting goats and camels from predators, allowed them to populate to such numbers that they destroyed the most fertile region on earth. Did you know that of all grazing animals goats and camels are the most ecologically damaging? That is because they eat plants down to the roots, killing them.

While sitting in my Hummvee in Iraq one day, one of the irregular rains came. Within a few hours the desert came alive with the tint of a brilliant green, as trillions of tiny grass shoots attempted to come forth. Within an hour, camel drivers came and their camels denuded the desert once again. These sorts of changes have actually changed the weather patterns, perpetuating the desert in a once fertile region.

The list goes on and on, and it defies belief that there is any spot on the world that has not been at least marginally impacted by the effects of mankind. Million year old rainforests stripped bare and turned to desert. Whales hunted nearly to extinction. Whether you personally believe the resulting impact to be good, bad, or simply "compensating errors" there can be no doubt that we have shaped this world, and that increasing population is accelerating that impact.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by 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.

I did not say that it was a GOOD solution, only workable and cheap. There are doubtless better ways to do it - the point is that if we have even ONE WAY to do it then the AGW crowd is shown to be a bunch of fanatical doom-sayers, lying profiteers, or both.

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.

That's rather immature of you to be going around calling others insane for simply pointing out facts. You only get one life - and it's a waste to live it in a fantasy instead of living it based on reality. Get over your fear, and embrace life.

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by 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?

OMG. What a waste. Can I get some of that money!!!!

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.

+1, we have a winner!

[PhantomPholly]

Originally Posted by karlos

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.

Actually, my point was that given that such methods already exist we can have confidence that we NEED NOT USE THEM. I was specifically addressing TEMPERATURE CHANGE - on this next point I agree with you 100% that we need to stop dumping toxins into the ocean, etc.

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?

Well, a better reason to be more alarmed about acidification than temperature changes is that it is REAL...

The solution is obvious cut back on fossil fuel use. Bring on the alternatives.

Much of the acidification is not due to petroleum burning, but rather "dirty burning coal" (China is a particularly large offender here) and dumping of fertilizers into rivers. We have solutions to THESE problems, too - however, it may require nuclear war to get China and other developing nations to comply.

The best and most humane solution, and the one which makes people's blood boil because it touches our genetic programming, is to release some kind of bug that causes mass sterility. That is because the ROOT PROBLEM is overpopulation, most of it in third world countries. Developed countries have already figured out not to breed like lemmings; but countries already massively overpopulated with uneducated people are highly resistant to change. This is self-destructive, but sadly part of the human condition.

While I have no knowledge of how to do such a thing, I have harbored a suspicion for a few decades now that we should expect something like this - that is, if one of our enemies doesn't release a super bug that flat out kills people first. History tells us that once the technology to create a weapon exists, some idiot will use it.