Climate is the Earth's Operating System(OS) and we definitely need to protect it.

ansi2018 wrote:
Climate is a massive operating system (OS) driven by a gigantic network of AI nodes that trigger the application part of the OS called "environment". When the OS works well with its job scheduling and controlling units, we are blessed with a good and sustainable environment in which we can live and breadth. However, when the OS gets messy due to a wide range of man-made as well as naturally occuring activities, the alarm starts to make its rumbling sound in various ways but unfortunately we all can't hear it. This is the major problem that the alarm keeps buzzing in many places and only a few of us take some actions. More information available in my website.

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Climate is a massive operating system (OS) driven by a gigantic network of AI nodes that trigger the application part of the OS called "environment". When the OS works well with its job scheduling and controlling units, we are blessed with a good and sustainable environment in which we can live and breadth. However, when the OS gets messy due to a wide range of man-made as well as naturally occuring activities, the alarm starts to make its rumbling sound in various ways but unfortunately we all can't hear it. This is the major problem that the alarm keeps buzzing in many places and only a few of us take some actions. More information available in my website.

Sounds like someone has been playing computer games too long...

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Climate is a massive operating system (OS) driven by a gigantic network of AI nodes that trigger the application part of the OS called "environment". When the OS works well with its job scheduling and controlling units, we are blessed with a good and sustainable environment in which we can live and breadth. However, when the OS gets messy due to a wide range of man-made as well as naturally occuring activities, the alarm starts to make its rumbling sound in various ways but unfortunately we all can't hear it. This is the major problem that the alarm keeps buzzing in many places and only a few of us take some actions. More information available in my website.

Sounds like someone has been playing computer games too long...

Unless you're blasting out your phony idea of science we pretty much agree on the larger issues.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

First of all, this thread is posted only here and I have no intention to spread propaganda theory -- if you don't agree with my theory, you are a great man.

Now in terms of AI, I am not talking about any conventional AI here-- one major and unique feature can be explained in simple terms like this -- it has energy models created for all existing entities -- humans, animals, light bulbs, power stations, automobiles and every thing that gets added up to the system... all are
living entities or resources and they feed data to the AI nodes.

Then it creates energy profiles (sort of like dynamic link libraries) through AI just mentioned above -- any possible climate change occurs depending on the darker part/amount of the energy not the brighter ones you are talking about...

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

First of all, this thread is posted only here and I have no intention to spread propaganda theory -- if you don't agree with my theory, you are a great man.

Now in terms of AI, I am not talking about any conventional AI here-- one major and unique feature can be explained in simple terms like this -- it has energy models created for all existing entities -- humans, animals, light bulbs, power stations, automobiles and every thing that gets added up to the system... all are
living entities or resources and they feed data to the AI nodes.

Then it creates energy profiles (sort of like dynamic link libraries) through AI just mentioned above -- any possible climate change occurs depending on the darker part/amount of the energy not the brighter ones you are talking about...

Please excuse me when I get irritable. This really isn't meant to be directed at you but my frustration at seeing things like Dr. Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laurette, being told by some 2nd year college student that he doesn't know what he's talking about the physics of atmospheric chemistry.

As I stated, the Earth's temperature is dependent solely upon the energy input from the Sun. The Earth's atmospheric responses aren't something that I would describe as an AI system. AI assumes a self learning but the atmosphere doesn't do this - it responds period.

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

First of all, this thread is posted only here and I have no intention to spread propaganda theory -- if you don't agree with my theory, you are a great man.

Now in terms of AI, I am not talking about any conventional AI here-- one major and unique feature can be explained in simple terms like this -- it has energy models created for all existing entities -- humans, animals, light bulbs, power stations, automobiles and every thing that gets added up to the system... all are
living entities or resources and they feed data to the AI nodes.

Then it creates energy profiles (sort of like dynamic link libraries) through AI just mentioned above -- any possible climate change occurs depending on the darker part/amount of the energy not the brighter ones you are talking about...

Please excuse me when I get irritable. This really isn't meant to be directed at you but my frustration at seeing things like Dr. Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laurette, being told by some 2nd year college student that he doesn't know what he's talking about the physics of atmospheric chemistry.

As I stated, the Earth's temperature is dependent solely upon the energy input from the Sun. The Earth's atmospheric responses aren't something that I would describe as an AI system. AI assumes a self learning but the atmosphere doesn't do this - it responds period.

I appreciate your comment and not offended at all -- you have every right to express your ideas. When I am talking about AI, it negates "Earth's temperature/or temperature increase" as the only ingredient to cause any possible climate change. I do not believe in such concepts.

I like to explain my ideas with simple examples: lets SUPPOSE you have planted 5 trees of the same exact type within an area of 10 ft by 2 ft and they all get the same amount of sunlight, water and the atmospheric conditions are exactly the same for all 5 trees. After few days you see 3 of them growing nicely, one of them died and another one is weak. The question is why, after providing them all with the same bright energies (that we often talk about), we observe this disparity? My answer to this question goes like this: all 5 trees received different energy profiles supplied by the neighboring AI node. How these energy profiles being created is still a mystery and may not always be based of local weather and temp conditions. The tree that died, gradually received from its energy profile, unsustainable dark energy imbalances, that's why it couldn't sustain. The tree that is weak has energy profile that is not so severe as the other one, yet it has dark energy imbalances that's why it is weak-- these profiles change continuously depending on the energy models' data (I mentioned earlier) the AI control center collects.

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

First of all, this thread is posted only here and I have no intention to spread propaganda theory -- if you don't agree with my theory, you are a great man.

Now in terms of AI, I am not talking about any conventional AI here-- one major and unique feature can be explained in simple terms like this -- it has energy models created for all existing entities -- humans, animals, light bulbs, power stations, automobiles and every thing that gets added up to the system... all are
living entities or resources and they feed data to the AI nodes.

Then it creates energy profiles (sort of like dynamic link libraries) through AI just mentioned above -- any possible climate change occurs depending on the darker part/amount of the energy not the brighter ones you are talking about...

Please excuse me when I get irritable. This really isn't meant to be directed at you but my frustration at seeing things like Dr. Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laurette, being told by some 2nd year college student that he doesn't know what he's talking about the physics of atmospheric chemistry.

As I stated, the Earth's temperature is dependent solely upon the energy input from the Sun. The Earth's atmospheric responses aren't something that I would describe as an AI system. AI assumes a self learning but the atmosphere doesn't do this - it responds period.

I appreciate your comment and not offended at all -- you have every right to express your ideas. When I am talking about AI, it negates "Earth's temperature/or temperature increase" as the only ingredient to cause any possible climate change. I do not believe in such concepts.

I like to explain my ideas with simple examples: lets SUPPOSE you have planted 5 trees of the same exact type within an area of 10 ft by 2 ft and they all get the same amount of sunlight, water and the atmospheric conditions are exactly the same for all 5 trees. After few days you see 3 of them growing nicely, one of them died and another one is weak. The question is why, after providing them all with the same bright energies (that we often talk about), we observe this disparity? My answer to this question goes like this: all 5 trees received different energy profiles supplied by the neighboring AI node. How these energy profiles being created is still a mystery and may not always be based of local weather and temp conditions. The tree that died, gradually received from its energy profile, unsustainable dark energy imbalances, that's why it couldn't sustain. The tree that is weak has energy profile that is not so severe as the other one, yet it has dark energy imbalances that's why it is weak-- these profiles change continuously depending on the energy models' data (I mentioned earlier) the AI control center collects.

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The software analogy sounds interesting, what website? Climate doesn't do anything, it's just a description of how we perceive or surrounding. We haven't inhabited this planet long enough, to define what is 'normal'. We can make a few guesses at what the past must have been like, but nothing we can really use to compare with current conditions. Future predictions are just guesses as well, since we don't have near enough data to work with, not to mention there is no 'normal' to compare with. I grew up on the side of a mountain in Oregon, mostly a cold, wet climate, miserable, except for a few months of summer, seldom broke 80 degrees F. I prefer the warmer Florida climate, though it does go through periods of wet and windy climate. It's 68 F, now, which isn't bad, comfortable to me. See people walking by the house, wearing heavy coats, long pants, guess the think it's more of a cold climate change...

The higher CO2 and warmer climate seems like it would be very good for the planet, plants seem to thrive in those conditions, which means more food, cleaner air. Every living thing on this planet, is carbon based. Most of that carbon ends up back in the ground, and plants are the first step toward bringing carbon back into the food chain, mainly from the atmosphere. Greenhouses augment CO2 3-5 times higher, than the current 400 ppm, to get faster, better growth, healthier plants. Doubt the planet is in peril, unless we pulling carbon out of the ground for the plants, that feed every living thing on the planet.

Climate Change, really is a software problem. People are using computer models, to scare the population into doing irrational, illogical things. This people want power and control, mostly wealth though, which has been the downfall of many civilizations throughout history, the cause of most wars. Climate Change isn't a real thing, we all perceive the environment differently, and it depends on where we live. Atmospheric CO2, is only about 0.04% of all gasses and vapors, no accurate way to measure the whole planet at once, changes all the time, faster than any sensor can take a reading, just an approximation. It's entirely a software thing, made up, and working with 'random numbers', the models are built, to illustrate imagined scenarios, if we don't act quickly enough. Sort of take a leap of faith, before you realize there is no crisis at all. It's more science fiction, than actual science, since the bulk of it is done in conference rooms, and on a computer. They talk about it, search through published science papers, searching for anything that might fit in enough, to add credibility (make it believable), mostly to make it more confusing, more scary. They use fear, to herd us into the slaughterhouse, because the chaos and economic impact they are pushing for, will kill a lot more, than if we did nothing at all.

You are spot on when you recognize the fact that Climate Change is a "Software Problem". Having done some research for more than 10 years, I got to this conclusion that Climate OS is driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI) that uses distributed AI nodes to create localized environments (object models) -- the AI nodes use probabilistic algorithms that are immensely complex to understand (I am not there yet).

When you use your Computer, you hardly ever notice your Windows OS to do anything for you but the fact is it is doing many many things in the background that you are not supposed to see or experience...the same is applicable for Climate.

How many places has this been posted on this group - THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE beyond the return of the Earth to it's "normal" temperature from the freezing of the Little Ice Age.

The Earth's many and varied system bare no resemblance to an AI system. And I have written AI. We have a system that operates on the amount of energy it receives from the Sun and that in turn is controlled by the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Sunspot Cycles. There are long term cycles of these systems that have not been reliably identified until 2015 by a Russian research team. NASA has just said that they have used this paper to reliably go back though known historic climate changes and show that this long term system appears to be accurate.

The problem is that it appears that we are due for another Little Ice Age starting in 2050 +/- 11 years.

First of all, this thread is posted only here and I have no intention to spread propaganda theory -- if you don't agree with my theory, you are a great man.

Now in terms of AI, I am not talking about any conventional AI here-- one major and unique feature can be explained in simple terms like this -- it has energy models created for all existing entities -- humans, animals, light bulbs, power stations, automobiles and every thing that gets added up to the system... all are
living entities or resources and they feed data to the AI nodes.

Then it creates energy profiles (sort of like dynamic link libraries) through AI just mentioned above -- any possible climate change occurs depending on the darker part/amount of the energy not the brighter ones you are talking about...

Please excuse me when I get irritable. This really isn't meant to be directed at you but my frustration at seeing things like Dr. Kary Mullis, a Nobel Laurette, being told by some 2nd year college student that he doesn't know what he's talking about the physics of atmospheric chemistry.

As I stated, the Earth's temperature is dependent solely upon the energy input from the Sun. The Earth's atmospheric responses aren't something that I would describe as an AI system. AI assumes a self learning but the atmosphere doesn't do this - it responds period.

I appreciate your comment and not offended at all -- you have every right to express your ideas. When I am talking about AI, it negates "Earth's temperature/or temperature increase" as the only ingredient to cause any possible climate change. I do not believe in such concepts.

I like to explain my ideas with simple examples: lets SUPPOSE you have planted 5 trees of the same exact type within an area of 10 ft by 2 ft and they all get the same amount of sunlight, water and the atmospheric conditions are exactly the same for all 5 trees. After few days you see 3 of them growing nicely, one of them died and another one is weak. The question is why, after providing them all with the same bright energies (that we often talk about), we observe this disparity? My answer to this question goes like this: all 5 trees received different energy profiles supplied by the neighboring AI node. How these energy profiles being created is still a mystery and may not always be based of local weather and temp conditions. The tree that died, gradually received from its energy profile, unsustainable dark energy imbalances, that's why it couldn't sustain. The tree that is weak has energy profile that is not so severe as the other one, yet it has dark energy imbalances that's why it is weak-- these profiles change continuously depending on the energy models' data (I mentioned earlier) the AI control center collects.

In your case the causes are probably of the five the ground in which they were planted was not exactly the same. Or the more rapid growth of some of the trees due to normal DNA variation causes them to shadow the other so that they do not receive the same amount of energy. Or that you would find insect infestation particularly in the one that died.

Artificial Intelligence infers a self-learning ability. What is learning? The atmosphere or dirt isn't learning. You might say that the TREE is learning but given the same input they do not learn differently. Perhaps wood eating termites might "learn" the location of your tree. There's nothing artificial about any of this.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever plant a hedge, or a row of any kind plant? Some of them just don't make it, no real reason for it. For a hedge, you just go back to the nursery, and buy replacements of a similar size, to what you have in the ground, or as close as you can, it'll catch up, eventually.

Artificial intelligence, is machine learning, not natural. Living things aren't always able to learn, it's just a survival thing. Those that can survive harsh conditions, get to reproduce, and pass those traits on, nothing to do with learning anything, or even thinking.

Now, I can see a relationship, between Scientology, and Climatology, both share a similar distorted view of reality...

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever plant a hedge, or a row of any kind plant? Some of them just don't make it, no real reason for it. For a hedge, you just go back to the nursery, and buy replacements of a similar size, to what you have in the ground, or as close as you can, it'll catch up, eventually.

Artificial intelligence, is machine learning, not natural. Living things aren't always able to learn, it's just a survival thing. Those that can survive harsh conditions, get to reproduce, and pass those traits on, nothing to do with learning anything, or even thinking.

Now, I can see a relationship, between Scientology, and Climatology, both share a similar distorted view of reality...

Living things do not learn but you can't disagree that they have vast amount of data associated with them -- which might help to create object model for a particular type of object + class + group. When there exists an enormous/unimaginable amount of data (consider all existing objects and classes), there is always (or more often) an association of machine learning, rule based and model based systems and AI -- this is a recognized scientific concept in computing science. For example, this enormous amount of data can be used in a quick propagation neural network to train AI -- to create energy profiles.

HarveyH55 wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever plant a hedge, or a row of any kind plant? Some of them just don't make it, no real reason for it. For a hedge, you just go back to the nursery, and buy replacements of a similar size, to what you have in the ground, or as close as you can, it'll catch up, eventually.

Artificial intelligence, is machine learning, not natural. Living things aren't always able to learn, it's just a survival thing. Those that can survive harsh conditions, get to reproduce, and pass those traits on, nothing to do with learning anything, or even thinking.

Now, I can see a relationship, between Scientology, and Climatology, both share a similar distorted view of reality...

Living things do not learn but you can't disagree that they have vast amount of data associated with them -- which might help to create object model for a particular type of object + class + group. When there exists an enormous/unimaginable amount of data (consider all existing objects and classes), there is always (or more often) an association of machine learning, rule based and model based systems and AI -- this is a recognized scientific concept in computing science. For example, this enormous amount of data can be used in a quick propagation neural network to train AI -- to create energy profiles.

You can create all the modes you want to simulate certain aspects of natural processes, but you can't really include everything that's involved. We're still learning new things. What Climatology is mostly learning by simulation, isn't really the same as what happens in nature, as their models exclude many things, which certain scientists politically decide aren't helpful to their 'study' on CO2 warming.

There is some potential comparison of genetics and computer science. The gene codes, define the organism, and can be altered. It's sort of learning, since in nature, successful traits are passed on to future generations, where less useful traits tend to get deleted. Mankind being the exception, since we tend to go the extra mile, to preserve negative traits, at the expense of more desirable ones. Survival is tough, hard work, you fight for it, or die. Humans will just throw a lot of cash and resources to those not up to the challenge. Why go out and get a job, when you can get an EBT card, free phone, and so many other things, sitting at home, a doing fun things? We keep convicted killers alive for decades, until the find a loophole to squeeze through the cracks, and get paid millions, for the time spent in prison. Innocent? Might not have pulled the trigger, but equally involved in the crime. I could understand keeping them alive, to study what causes them to kill, or do horrific acts, but none cooperate, or their unreliable, since they want to manipulate their way out. Cooperation, would mean admitting their guilt, and end their appeals for release...

I've often gotten the feeling that the universe is like a huge clockwork, everything is connected to different gear movements, and the way the line up. So many things happen in predictable cycles. Some happen so rarely, once in a lifetime, very hard to observe, let alone study. Wonder if there are other things that happen over thousands of years, for which as a species we haven't experienced even once.

We really don't know as much, as our egos would direct us to believe. We know a little about the things we observe, and have the tools to take a closer look, but we see new things all the time, and still need to make the tools, so we can look closer into them.

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Do you think that all DNA is the same? That five trees that appear to be the same - even if they are cloned from the same tree - react exactly the same to what you suppose to be "identical" conditions?

These are nothing more than suppositions on your part and have no relation to the real world.

One patch of ground that you suppose to be identical can be entirely different in microscopic examination. The bacteria within inches of another place can be entirely different.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do withy "artificial intelligence". I have programmed AI before. This is a means for a MACHINE to self-learn and it is extremely limited. I went through this with Tesla and they hung up on me. But a year later they changed their system the way I said they must.

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Do you think that all DNA is the same? That five trees that appear to be the same - even if they are cloned from the same tree - react exactly the same to what you suppose to be "identical" conditions?

These are nothing more than suppositions on your part and have no relation to the real world.

One patch of ground that you suppose to be identical can be entirely different in microscopic examination. The bacteria within inches of another place can be entirely different.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do withy "artificial intelligence". I have programmed AI before. This is a means for a MACHINE to self-learn and it is extremely limited. I went through this with Tesla and they hung up on me. But a year later they changed their system the way I said they must.

If you read carefully, I didn't say DNA is the same. I actually said it could be one of the reason for anomalies -- DNA, presence of bacteria, etc (which you say "possible" can't be "confirmed") these are also in the energy profile but in the "dark" classification. Sun light, water, fertilizer etc these are in the "bright" category because we can measure them.

ansi2018 wrote:
Well, In terms of AI, I am also talking about a self learning AI -- example: read the above statements that have been posted on this thread from the beginning -- you will be surprised to see that there is a sign of self learning.

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Do you think that all DNA is the same? That five trees that appear to be the same - even if they are cloned from the same tree - react exactly the same to what you suppose to be "identical" conditions?

These are nothing more than suppositions on your part and have no relation to the real world.

One patch of ground that you suppose to be identical can be entirely different in microscopic examination. The bacteria within inches of another place can be entirely different.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do withy "artificial intelligence". I have programmed AI before. This is a means for a MACHINE to self-learn and it is extremely limited. I went through this with Tesla and they hung up on me. But a year later they changed their system the way I said they must.

If you read carefully, I didn't say DNA is the same. I actually said it could be one of the reason for anomalies -- DNA, presence of bacteria, etc (which you say "possible" can't be "confirmed") these are also in the energy profile but in the "dark" classification. Sun light, water, fertilizer etc these are in the "bright" category because we can measure them.

You conveniently assumed DNA was the same, then moved the goalposts to make the above argument. NONE of it is intelligent.

ansi2018 wrote:
Well, In terms of AI, I am also talking about a self learning AI -- example: read the above statements that have been posted on this thread from the beginning -- you will be surprised to see that there is a sign of self learning.

None.

ansi2018 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Do you think that all DNA is the same? That five trees that appear to be the same - even if they are cloned from the same tree - react exactly the same to what you suppose to be "identical" conditions?

These are nothing more than suppositions on your part and have no relation to the real world.

One patch of ground that you suppose to be identical can be entirely different in microscopic examination. The bacteria within inches of another place can be entirely different.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do withy "artificial intelligence". I have programmed AI before. This is a means for a MACHINE to self-learn and it is extremely limited. I went through this with Tesla and they hung up on me. But a year later they changed their system the way I said they must.

If you read carefully, I didn't say DNA is the same. I actually said it could be one of the reason for anomalies -- DNA, presence of bacteria, etc (which you say "possible" can't be "confirmed") these are also in the energy profile but in the "dark" classification. Sun light, water, fertilizer etc these are in the "bright" category because we can measure them.

You conveniently assumed DNA was the same, then moved the goalposts to make the above argument. NONE of it is intelligent.

ansi2018 wrote:
Well, In terms of AI, I am also talking about a self learning AI -- example: read the above statements that have been posted on this thread from the beginning -- you will be surprised to see that there is a sign of self learning.

None.

The Parrot Killer -- your intelligence is overwhelming because you often quote one word "None (0)"... Reality is more often perceived as an unintelligent thing. Therefore no further comment for you.

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Do you think that all DNA is the same? That five trees that appear to be the same - even if they are cloned from the same tree - react exactly the same to what you suppose to be "identical" conditions?

These are nothing more than suppositions on your part and have no relation to the real world.

One patch of ground that you suppose to be identical can be entirely different in microscopic examination. The bacteria within inches of another place can be entirely different.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do withy "artificial intelligence". I have programmed AI before. This is a means for a MACHINE to self-learn and it is extremely limited. I went through this with Tesla and they hung up on me. But a year later they changed their system the way I said they must.

If you read carefully, I didn't say DNA is the same. I actually said it could be one of the reason for anomalies -- DNA, presence of bacteria, etc (which you say "possible" can't be "confirmed") these are also in the energy profile but in the "dark" classification. Sun light, water, fertilizer etc these are in the "bright" category because we can measure them.

You conveniently assumed DNA was the same, then moved the goalposts to make the above argument. NONE of it is intelligent.

ansi2018 wrote:
Well, In terms of AI, I am also talking about a self learning AI -- example: read the above statements that have been posted on this thread from the beginning -- you will be surprised to see that there is a sign of self learning.

None.

The Parrot Killer -- your intelligence is overwhelming because you often quote one word "None (0)"... Reality is more often perceived as an unintelligent thing. Therefore no further comment for you.

Non-sequitur. Define 'reality'. I know what it is. Do you?

ansi2018 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:

Wake wrote:

ansi2018 wrote:
Actually, I said in my previous post "suppose" all these factors you are referring to are the same for all 5 tress and yet one may die -- then what? You said DNA variation -- this is exactly sort of what I am saying, such variations we can't measure of predict (yet) and such anomaly is triggered by the energy profile created by its corresponding AI node...

Do you think that all DNA is the same? That five trees that appear to be the same - even if they are cloned from the same tree - react exactly the same to what you suppose to be "identical" conditions?

These are nothing more than suppositions on your part and have no relation to the real world.

One patch of ground that you suppose to be identical can be entirely different in microscopic examination. The bacteria within inches of another place can be entirely different.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do withy "artificial intelligence". I have programmed AI before. This is a means for a MACHINE to self-learn and it is extremely limited. I went through this with Tesla and they hung up on me. But a year later they changed their system the way I said they must.

If you read carefully, I didn't say DNA is the same. I actually said it could be one of the reason for anomalies -- DNA, presence of bacteria, etc (which you say "possible" can't be "confirmed") these are also in the energy profile but in the "dark" classification. Sun light, water, fertilizer etc these are in the "bright" category because we can measure them.

You conveniently assumed DNA was the same, then moved the goalposts to make the above argument. NONE of it is intelligent.

ansi2018 wrote:
Well, In terms of AI, I am also talking about a self learning AI -- example: read the above statements that have been posted on this thread from the beginning -- you will be surprised to see that there is a sign of self learning.

None.

The Parrot Killer -- your intelligence is overwhelming because you often quote one word "None (0)"... Reality is more often perceived as an unintelligent thing. Therefore no further comment for you.

Non-sequitur. Define 'reality'. I know what it is. Do you?

After reading a book you are asking which book you just read.