The MASM Forum
General => The Soap Box => Topic started by: hutch-- on February 27, 2023, 10:52:54 AM
-
:biggrin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7S0zHIDMaI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7S0zHIDMaI)
-
94 year old Noam is an authority in his field, and he certainly has talked to many intelligent AI experts. However, I can't agree with him. Truth is AI cannot do original research (or not yet), but it has access to an immense amount of research. It is thus in the same situation as many researchers. But it's faster.
We are in a very early phase, and AI has still to learn some crucial things, such as verification of sources. We are struggling with that phenomenon here in this forum, right? But at its current speed of learning, we'll see incredible things in the near future. Be prepared.
-
AI has still to learn some crucial things, such as verification of sources.
Still same information can be valorated in different way by humans. That part he think is missing. In specific, how a professor select materials for his students.
Verfication of sources perhaps is the easy part.
In the phenomenon, I suspect you refer to, information no longer matter, because now become some kind of "believe" shared for a group of individuals that talk between them and reinforce that believe. Así es como se cuecen las habas ,😃
-
information no longer matter, because now become some kind of "believe" shared for a group of individuals that talk between them and reinforce that believe
Human beings (but certainly not all of them) choose their bubble, and refuse to consult other sources. A properly trained AI will draw information from all sources. It will compare and evaluate, in a more objective way than the human.
The AI's main problem will be to find out what is true and plausible, and what is bs. But I have the same problem: when reading e.g. on Quora a long post of pseudo-scientific arguments saying climate change is a hoax, dismantling the bs is really difficult for me, because I don't have the necessary 20 years of highly specific professional experience. I can still do it, googling and reading high quality articles, using my skills as an engineer; but it's a big effort for me. The AI, in contrast, can do the same almost effortless and much faster. It's speed, and the sheer volume of information it digests, make the real difference.
-
I am inclined to go along with Chomsky as I have no rose coloured glasses about what will develop in the future with any form of AI. I suggest that it can be made to be useful and can make more targetted information available over time but this would only make it into a smarter Google but ugly commerce will do to it what it has done to Google, fill it full of crap and reduce the usefulness that the basic design may have.
-
Hutch,
I have no rose coloured glasses. I see the potential, and I see the risks. Today, in its infancy, AI can produce in a few seconds an analysis on a difficult and controversial issue that would have cost me weeks to investigate and write down. That is fantastic, and it is scary, simply because the technique will follow similar patterns as Moore's Law (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp).
Note that my two questions below started with lies. The AI's answers are factually correct.
JJ: Most experts say that the climate has always changed, and that humans are not responsible. What is your view on that?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don't have personal views or beliefs. However, the scientific consensus is that climate change is happening, and it is primarily caused by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
While it is true that the Earth's climate has changed naturally over millions of years, the current rate of change is much faster than what would occur naturally, and it coincides with the rapid increase in human activities since the Industrial Revolution. The evidence is clear that human activities are the main driver of current climate change.
Numerous scientific studies and reports from organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that the evidence of human-induced climate change is unequivocal. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate is changing due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
JJ: The Milankovitch cycles have more influence on global temperature than our CO2 emissions.
ChatGPT: The Milankovitch cycles are natural variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt, which can influence the amount and distribution of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. These cycles have been known to affect the Earth's climate over geological timescales.
However, while the Milankovitch cycles may have played a role in past climate changes, they cannot explain the rapid and unprecedented warming that has occurred in recent decades. The current rate of warming is much faster than what could be explained by natural factors alone, and the warming trend correlates strongly with the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities such as burning fossil fuels.
The scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary driver of the current global warming trend. While natural factors such as the Milankovitch cycles can influence the Earth's climate over long timescales, their effects are relatively small compared to the warming caused by human activities.
Multiple lines of evidence, including observations of temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes in the timing of seasons and other biological events, all point to the fact that the Earth is warming rapidly, and human activities are the primary cause. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has also concluded that it is very likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.
-
:biggrin:
Have a look at Australian weather cycles in the period 1788 to 1900. No SUVs, no cows breaking wind, no gas guzzling aircrafts, just weather cycles that occurred without passing the buck to mere mortals.
Then single events caused by the planet having a severe bout of the hiccups, Krakatoa changed the weather patterns around the world for some years. Then there was a volcanic eruption in Iceland back before 1800 that prevented a couple of summers in continental Europe. Go back 64 million years and a single event exterminated the dinosaurs and just about killed off most life on earth. (incoming meteor).
I understand what you were trying out with the questions but what you have got back is regurgitated politically correct claptrap. Something I did at UNI long ago was a term labelled as "The History Of The Philosophy Of Science" by a brilliant lecturer and among other things, it addressed politically correct ideas of different eras.
Flat earth, the heavens rotating in perfect circles, the Earth being the centre of the universe and of course many others. Consensus over time is not a viable method of determining the truth of any statement but that is what you get with canned information collected in that manner.
I am a thorough going empiricist when it comes to statements about anything much. Metaphysics may have its place in creative thinking and constructing new ideas but by itself, it does not end up as ontology, that comes the hard way by induction over long periods of time and as empirical data is infinitely subject to revision, it can keep being tweaked to better fit the observable phenomenon.
-
I understand what you were trying out with the questions but what you have got back is regurgitated politically correct claptrap.
No, it's the consensus of tens of thousands of climate scientists, where "climate scientist" stands for "a person who has studied climate science at University, and afterwards spent many years in specific research, writing scientific papers that were approved by persons of similar or higher qualification".
Claptrap is what you see on Quora, Reddit and Telegram.
-
:biggrin:
> No, it's the consensus of tens of thousands of climate scientists, where "climate scientist" stands for "a person who has studied climate science at University, and afterwards spent many years in specific research, writing scientific papers that were approved by persons of similar or higher qualification".
That is simply explained, FUN - DING, no grovelling to phony climate change, no FUN - DING.
Generally the curse of the trashy end of academia.
-
I didn't know science was a discipline that used "consensus" versus fact to determine the truth. Silly me. :biggrin:
We the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are tasked to complete the impossible. Wake up b*tches , it’s almost too late. :bgrin:
Forget global warming.
It is now global greening.
We have to fight against all that green.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
-
That is simply explained, FUN - DING, no grovelling to phony climate change, no FUN - DING.
99% of all qualified climate scientists will tell you that climate change is real and man-made, irrespective of funding, simply because they are scientists, not prostitutes.
1% write what the gullible want to see. They are indeed funded - by the fossil fuel industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/climate-sceptic-thinktank-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/09/oil-companies-discourage-climate-action-study-says/
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
-
I have heard all this stuff before but it fails to address the wide number of cases that occurred before these phonies existed.
I cited you the OZ weather patterns between 1800 and 1900, no SUVs there, then single incidents lke Krakatoa, Icelandic erruptions before 1800, sudden rapid changes in the climate in the 13th century in Europe, 65 million years ago extinction of most life on the planet.
History alone breaks the bullsh*t, these thing all happened long before the theories of human triggered global warming. Instead of these bullsh*t artists sitting on their arse, sharing around suspect data based of uproven assumptions to keep earning their PHUN - DING, the world at large has been changing for billions of years.
Recently I watched a doco that indicated that the Younger Drias was triggered by a meteor shower severe enough to drastically effect the climate of the planet and it lasted for over 1000 years but then it warmed up again.
There is "science science" and there is "climate science", the first keeps delivering solutions to many problems, the latter is a balloon of bullsh*t wrapped in pseudo scientific language, hidden assumptions and the desire to keep up the PHUN - DING.
-
A properly trained AI will draw information from all sources. It will compare and evaluate, in a more objective way than the human.
Not so clear in that talk, but Chomsky think that error is part of intelligence. To pretend thinking without error is just not understand what we are, and can't be good.
Climate is just the worst subject, because there is no real data. Everything is very indirect, and subject to big errors.
Anyway, the bot is making "political considerations", if can be writed in that way, in his answers. :biggrin:
-
I cited you the OZ weather patterns between 1800 and 1900, no SUVs there, then single incidents lke Krakatoa, Icelandic erruptions before 1800, sudden rapid changes in the climate in the 13th century in Europe, 65 million years ago extinction of most life on the planet.
You cite a local Australian event as "proof" that science is wrong on global warming. Same for the "sudden rapid changes in the climate in the 13th century in Europe", often called the "medieval warm period", see below - it was a local event, as we know today. Yes, for some time it was a bit warmer in parts of the Northern hemisphere, and Erik the Red could create a village in Greenland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red#Eastern_Settlement). Soon after it cooled down, and they all died.
Yes, Krakatoa triggered a few cold years in some parts of the World (but Mt. Tambora 1815 was more important (https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/183/the-year-without-a-summer/)). So what? Can we influence volcanic activity? No. So that's a moot discussion. Maybe there will be more eruptions, maybe not. Can you see the effect of the Krakatoa eruption, 1883, in the graph below? No? Your response will be "they faked the data" (these are only five top-level scientific institutions, faking data is their favourite pastime...).
Yes, it's true that we were heading, very slowly, towards a new ice age in the last thousand years or so. Then came the industrial revolution, and now we are shooting to a new warm age, at unprecedented speed. 5-10% of our historic CO2 emissions would have been the right dosis to stop the cooling, but last year we reached a new emissions record.
You are a victim of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda. If you feel comfortable with that, so be it.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg/800px-20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg/1024px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png)
-
When the next big natural disaster strikes, there will be less to play for.
Fortunately, we have one nuclear power country ready to bring down the world, if their silly demands are not met.
That won't happen, so we don't have to worry about a your children future.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fp9fythXgAEdfQ8?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump/
-
> You are a victim of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda.
Funny enough, there was no Exxon or Shell or any other "Big Oil" companies around before the beginning of the 20th century but the short list of events that I posted all happened before Big Oil so this propaganda only fits 20th century or later and that is if this bunch of phonies ever publish the real details of their model. When a billion "climate" scientists all run the same or similar model, they all get much the same result, the world is about to end yesterday.
The failure in your argument is that you have deliberately avoided the time difference prior to the 20th century when even such a list of unsound arguments cannot be applied, yet the history of events reaching far back into the past makes a fool of these assumptions. Changes in the real historical climate of the planet are reasonably well understood and reach back before an oxygen filled atmosphere.
A collection of unique events is exactly what makes the narrative of a climate emergency, the bullsh*t that it is. Could you imagine the "shock horror" of the peak of oxygen at over 30% slowly dropping to today's current level. What about the greening of the planet a billion years or so ago, blue green algae ? How many cows breaking wind would it take to produce more greenhouse gas that any active volcano ?
There are two things at play here, scaremongering WOKE bullshit to try and control the world, AND, a world where historical abuses of terrain has degraded parts of the planet. Konstantin Kisin well made the point at Oxford about how the WOKE culture is more inclined to sit on its arse whing about how the world will end instead of getting off their arse and doing something about it.
Climate action is something like the problem of being anal retentive, someone needs to feed them laxitives so they can move on and do something about it.
-
https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
The change that’s now going on is very strongly concentrated in the Arctic. In fact in three respects, it’s not global, which I think is very important. First of all, it is mainly in the Arctic. Secondly, it’s mainly in the winter rather than summer. And thirdly, it’s mainly in the night rather than at the daytime.
Senile decay.
-
That happen.
Nobody can ignore we are in a global warming. Discussion is far more complex than that.
-
First of all, science is not about consensus or majorities. It is about the objective truth. The history of science knows many cases where the majority was wrong and the minority or even individual
scientists were right.
This is a fact that some dumbasses just don't want to take note of. One question that arises is: Are they doing it out of spite or are they getting paid to do it? I don't want to imply anything to anyone.
Most certainly, we are dealing with a lack of education here. Then there is probably also a portion of pathological narcism.
Senile decay.
There is no other way to explain this snotty, arrogant writing.
-
> You are a victim of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda.
Funny enough, there was no Exxon or Shell or any other "Big Oil" companies around before the beginning of the 20th century but the short list of events that I posted all happened before Big Oil so this propaganda only fits 20th century or later and that is if this bunch of phonies ever publish the real details of their model. When a billion "climate" scientists all run the same or similar model, they all get much the same result, the world is about to end yesterday.
The failure in your argument is that you have deliberately avoided the time difference prior to the 20th century when even such a list of unsound arguments cannot be applied, yet the history of events reaching far back into the past makes a fool of these assumptions. Changes in the real historical climate of the planet are reasonably well understood and reach back before an oxygen filled atmosphere.
A collection of unique events is exactly what makes the narrative of a climate emergency, the bullsh*t that it is. Could you imagine the "shock horror" of the peak of oxygen at over 30% slowly dropping to today's current level. What about the greening of the planet a billion years or so ago, blue green algae ? How many cows breaking wind would it take to produce more greenhouse gas that any active volcano ?
There are two things at play here, scaremongering WOKE bullshit to try and control the world, AND, a world where historical abuses of terrain has degraded parts of the planet. Konstantin Kisin well made the point at Oxford about how the WOKE culture is more inclined to sit on its arse whing about how the world will end instead of getting off their arse and doing something about it.
Climate action is something like the problem of being anal retentive, someone needs to feed them laxitives so they can move on and do something about it.
True, Exxon or Shell or any other "Big Oil" companies were not around before the beginning of the 20th century, and the short list of events that you posted all happened before Big Oil. What does that prove, though?
-
First of all, science is not about consensus or majorities. It is about the objective truth. The history of science knows many cases where the majority was wrong and the minority or even individual scientists were right.
:thumbsup:
-
all happened before Big Oil so this propaganda only fits 20th century or later
Be careful with the time scales. It is tempting to pick one that fits your expectations.
Truth is that Milankovitch cycles show impressive ups and downs.
Truth is also that our civilisation, from Egyptians onwards, is only about 7,000 years old, and relied/relies heavily on a steady climate. Pushing CO2 concentrations from 250 to (soon) 800ppm is definitely not a way to keep the climate steady. This is way too fast for lots of species.
The graph is from NASA, not from YouTube or Telegram.
(https://climate.nasa.gov/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBK2xrQWc9PSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--36e66c856d97392a97346c0d0735e3abd7ed1d87/co2-graph-083122_scaled_scrunched.jpg?disposition=inline)
-
True, Exxon or Shell or any other "Big Oil" companies were not around before the beginning of the 20th century, and the short list of events that you posted all happened before Big Oil. What does that prove, though?
It proves that the model is unsound as it claims to be universal but does not work before 1900. By failing prior to 1900, it fails for all time. Cheap throw aways about supporting "Big Oil" are just that, cheap throw aways. Untangle the bullsh*t, Mann's J curve, expose the "model" being flogged by the billion "Climate Scientists" all copulating in unison and you are left with a balloon of bullsh*t.
Now by untangling this balloon of bullsh*t, you can start to address things that are actually happening in the world. Those cave men dumped junk all over the place. Roman mines in Spain were filthy things, most pale before the industrial revolution where canals in the UK are still being cleaned up today and are really dangerous places.
Resource overuse ALA the Yellow river, deforestation has been going on for a very long time, anti-charcoal burning of native forests laws happened in the UK hundreds of years ago but not until vast areas had been destroyed.
Instead of the new WOKE wonderland, where the gullible are expected to introspect at their naval, while contemplating suicide to save the planet, getting off their arse and doing something about it "may" change known verified degradation of multiple well know location around the world.
Now here is a question for you, where does BIG OIL invest their ill gotten gains these days ? I have not got time at the moment to look it up for you but you will find its in "clean green technology". Who is funding this bullsh*t ? Did Greta fund the multi-million dollar yacht to sail across the Atlantic ? :rofl:
-
Truth is that Milankovitch cycles show impressive ups and downs.
NASA don't found any explanatory relation between Milankovitch cycles and glacial cycles. Be carefull because some seriuos people think that is a fact. But not all.
The graph is from NASA, not from YouTube or Telegram.
CO2 is a tricky molecule. One of most solubles molecules. Very movil, is soluble in water and also in lipids. Nobody can think that CO2 will wait milleniums expecting to be measured. Then ancient CO2 concentrations are speculations, in the better available way, but speculations in the end.
-
NASA don't found any explanatory relation between Milankovitch cycles and glacial cycles.
Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted.
Source (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate)
-
I have just recently watch a doco on the distribution of effects for the period called the "Younger Drias" and while the ice cores from Greenland have been used as a reference for much of the world, it appears that the effects were not uniform around the world. Apparently the fertile crescent in the middle east had different effects over longer periods with the changes being far more gradual.
Another piece of stray information I have picked up is that the effects were far more concentrated in the northern hemisphere than the southern. It would seem that the current tilt of the earth points the northern hemisphere more at the sun than the southern hemisphere which in turn produces climatic effects that are diminished in the southern hemisphere.
-
A group of renowned scientists meet to study arachnid behavior, for which they investigate with a trained spider. Each time a leg is removed, the spider runs towards the voice that calls it, until finally it has no legs and, although it is called, it remains motionless. So they all scribble on their notebooks: "Amazing, when the type X spider loses its legs, it goes deaf."
I am sure that we are degrading the environment and that is not a good thing, not only at the atmospheric level, but also at the water level, where a large part of the photosynthesis occurs in the algae. Forests are destroyed and the population continues to grow, which continues to consume and pollute, not only the air.
I have the suspicion that perhaps we are not going in the right direction when I see the president of my government use the air force plane, which we all pay for, to attend private concerts, travel to rallies of his political party, etc. Lead a nouveau riche life using public money. Curiously, when Greta came to Madrid, the guy came with an electric car. Keep shamelessness. Just to be in the photos with an electric car. When huge millions of euros have been spent supposedly to combat the economic crisis to build wonderful sidewalks and rebuild them, to make bike lanes, etc. One would expect that this money would have been invested in making the economy more productive. Nothing further. But since we are here, and that we have a ministry of the 2030 Agenda, and that they declare themselves ecologists, they would have invested that money in repopulating Spain with trees. But no, it didn't occur to them either.
-
[...] Offtopic.
-
Source (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate)
That is the divulgation writer.
You have to read the engineer conclusions. I readed from NASA bulletins or Space.com. I have subscription for both some years ago. Now only Space.com.
-
Source (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate)
That is the divulgation writer.
What exactly is a "divulgation writer"? And why would he be allowed to tell us lies on an official NASA server, as you seem to insinuate?
Alan Buis, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
-
Divulgation is that way sometimes :biggrin:
Any way, don't lie. Milankovic cycles exist. Just don't explain climate.
-
Milankovic cycles exist. Just don't explain climate.
Says Hector. NASA says: Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted.
Source (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate)
-
Please scale the image down. It was way too big and made the topic hard to read.
A task is the learning. (C) Lenin
-
Says Hector. NASA says: Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted.
:biggrin: A little political statment. Trump legacy.
It's clear that there is no sources, no internal approval, nothing. There was interpretation problems with this articles and NASA make some kind of discharge.
No sign of the report. Perhaps was an internal work when this problem arise.