wufwugy

Absolutely. And if we don't stop ourselves from creating our replacement, they'll likely be around by 2100. It is absolutely possible because 'real' intelligence is a product of physical laws, and it will happen much sooner than believed due to the dramatic exponential ever increasing technology. A few paradigm shifts and a few decades is all it will take It is possible we will stop ourselves from creating a machine that can make its own decisions, but that's hardly predictable

Thanks for the response. I too guarantee that you understand this stuff more than I do. Also, I read the link, as well as the wiki on Younger Dryas, I just don't comprehend them that well.

Okay, glad to see your response. Now that I have your attention, I think I can further clarify my position. It's not just about rate of change now verses any other time in history. It's about comparable circumstances. IOW, we cannot compare the rate of climate change on the Earth when it was either really hot or really cold or when from some obscure event to now due to the subjects simply just being different. It's like how we can't compare the medical condition of a healthy person to that of a diseased person. In order to study our current rate of warming we will need to compare to similar times in geologic history, as well as isolate causes. Times like the Younger Dryas are not that applicable due to being much different than current times. Also, I think it is thought that the Younger Dryas began long before rapid climate change happened. I'm not willing to research this myself because it will take a TON of diligent study since the answer is predicated on much more elaborate understanding than I currently wield. What I am looking for is somebody who already knows what's up who can point to the results of studying rate of changes in climates and due to reasons comparable to current. I'm not sure how well I'm getting my question across. Basically, it has to do with understanding the causes of climate change in times similar to our current Earth, and being able to compare the causes and rate of change to our current Earth. Understanding that would go a long way in determining exactly how much of an impact anthropogenic activity has on the our climate. Anyways, I've realized that this topic is a very complicated one that would require doctorate levels of understanding in order to even begin clarifying. I'm just struck by the fact that we've only just begun burning fossil fuels, and yet have seen pretty dramatic warming. My ideas of climate change phases throughout history are that they are at least thousands of years in the making before real change begins to kick in. We're only in the introductory stages of changing oceanic and atmospheric GHG ratios, yet we're already seeing rapid change. That's what makes me think that this could be a smoking gun Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Naw, he understands that as shown by his Younger Dryas analogy. I just suspect that its a misunderstood analogy

Well yes, understanding the mechanism and proving warming in the first place is more important, and we do already have those. If warming is dramatically faster now than ever before it is a very big deal though since the likelyhood of warming being anthropogenic shoots through the roof since pretty much the entire history of the planet is a control against current human activity.

Does anybody have a response to this? This is important because if it's true that the current warming is substantially faster than any other 'natural' warmings throughout history, then we have our smoking gun for AGW. Well, there's a lot of smoking guns for AGW, but this would be a big one

Yes, this is one of the best channels I've found. Thanks to donexodus for getting the word out. Sinclair truly is criminally undersubscribed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I really want to see evidence and explanation for this. My impression to date has been that the current warming is several magnitudes more rapid that any natural trends found throughout geologic time