Claim: Mixing AI with Green Slime will Fix Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The AI community are having another shot at getting their hands on a share of the climate emergency budget.

Algae might be a secret weapon to combatting climate change
By Ben Lamm October 1, 2019
Founder, Hypergiant

As fires rage in the Amazon, people have latched onto the phrase that the Amazon is the “lungs of the earth.” President Emmanuel Macron of France warned that “our house is burning.” Celebrities from Leonardo DiCaprio to Vanessa Hudgens raised funds to support the Amazon, and the hashtag #PrayforAmazonia went viral.

Trees alone will therefore not save us from the current crisis. We must look to our oceans for solutions that are more effective and scalable. Say hello to algae sequestration.

Algae as carbon sequestration

Algae, when used in conjunction with AI-powered bioreactors, is up to 400 times more efficient than a tree at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. That means that while we are learning to reduce carbon emissions and augment our consumption patterns, we can start to make big reductions in atmospheric carbon. When wielded correctly, it could make a city carbon negative without changing current production or consumption patterns of the city.

The challenges with algae
Scaling algae for biofuel production is not without its challenges. For one, algae growth is rapid and has been historically hard to manage and optimize. This can be addressed with new technology, like machine learning and AI, that helps to manage the growth process in order to ensure that growth happens through a managed and predictable cadence. Another limiting factor is the cost of implementation and the difficult road to profitability for many of these technologies. It’s been historically hard to convince people to pay more for something they can pay less for, and companies like Exxon and Shell have experienced this head-on with their stunt-filled algae-fuel concepts.

However, the time to be cheap is over. We need to consider alternative options that are planet-effective, not just cost-effective. We need more investible capital in long term solutions that help to solve big problems. The current five-year investment cycle for most VC-backed companies is too short for addressing major moonshot problems like climate change. To make these solutions work, we need investment options that allow for more gradual profit return and longer-term planning, thinking, and execution.

Read more: https://qz.com/1718988/algae-might-be-a-secret-weapon-to-combatting-climate-change/

The author, Ben Lamm, is co-founder and CEO of Hypergiant, an AI / machine learning company.

This isn’t the first time the AI community have tried to muscle in on the climate game. AI entrepreneurs seem to be promoting the idea that AI is a kind of expensive magic sauce which will transform currently marginal climate ideas into winners.

Advertisements

94 thoughts on “Claim: Mixing AI with Green Slime will Fix Climate Change

  1. AI doesn’t really exist yet, at least not to the point that would be required to manage this PI IN THE SKY technology.
    AI…Hmmm…can anyone say SKYNET…I knew you could

    • Any process or policy of any kind aimed at reducing CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 is patently wrong and thus a political agenda.

      Putting all other aspects aside (junk science is fun because it can be proven junk in many ways), CO2 has only three infrared (IR) absorption bands. They are equivalent to 800, 400, and -80°C of black body radiation. The first two are only possibly energized by incoming solar radiation and thus would serve to divert a bit of insolation, causing a tiny cooling effect. The third band is why CO2 is a coolant. It can only warm something colder that -80°C, which is the entire planet, because nothing on Earth is that cold or colder. This means that this IR radiation sent downward by CO2 is reflected, as these energy levels in the surface are already full.

      Bottomline, CO2 cannot warm anything on this planet. The idea it can is junk science/propaganda created to stampede the public into accepting Draconian policies they would ordinarily reject.

      • Charles H

        You are not understanding how radiative energy transfer works. Your “rules” are applicable to conduction, not radiation.

        Basics first, please.

    • Why not apply AI to generating climate models? They won’t be any worse than the models developed by actual insanity. If there was truly objective AI, it could even produce a model that would predict the climate to within 10-20% of what’s actually achieved, rather than predict consequences that could never occur under any circumstances.

      • because “AI” is nothing more than clever programming .. i.e. only as clever as its programmer … no AI has ever altered one line of its code … ( I don’t count parameters that get different data) … an AI is no smarter than than a tape recorder … it gathers data … some of which it runs thru an algo to “act” like its thinking …

        • I suspect AI would be better at teasing out natural climate factors. Of course, the climate industry does not want to improve this kind of understanding so I doubt it would ever be tried.

        • Software based neural networks are clever programming that emulates self modifying code with self modifying data. Hardware neural networks are not even code based unless you consider the code that designed the hardware.

          Some of the things thought of as AI are more brute force than clever arising from many parallel map reductions operating on massive sets of data spread across many thousands of disk drives and computer cores. It’s really nothing more than very sophisticated keyed lookups scaled to massive proportions.

          • AI (artificial intelligence) is an impossibility simply because current computer architecture is dependent upon ….. “data storage and recall (retrieval) via a physical memory addressing scheme” …….. which poses severe restrictions and massive redundancy problems.

            A new architecture must be designed where the “data” itself specifies where it is stored and/or how it is recalled.

          • Samuel,

            Many new architectures already exist in labs as hardware neural networks which are not modeled on the usual Von Newmann architecture, moreover; ordinary computers are getting so powerful, that you can emulate any computer architecture you can conceive of with a reasonable level of performance. Storage has gotten very powerfulas well where a modern SSD drive can have as many bits of storage as a typical human brain and can access that storage orders of magnitude faster.

            Self aware AI. i.e. the singularity, is not as far away as you may think. More than enough computer horsepower to do this already exists and there are many human brains and many millions of dollars dedicated to see this happen.

          • Storage has gotten very powerful as well where a modern SSD drive can have as many bits of storage as a typical human brain and can access that storage orders of magnitude faster.

            co2isnotevil, now iffen you persist in assuming you are responding to a learning disabled teenager I will leave you to wallow in your perceived intellectual glory.

            Otherwise, let’s talk actual feces about human brain storage potential, OK.

            Now when human egg and sperm combine the zygote contains a vast amount of information encoded in its 46 chromosomes. Enough info to direct and control “your” development from a single cell to the adult (and beyond) human that you are today. Plus, according to the geneticists, there is a “ton” of “junk DNA” in each chromosome.

            So, co2isnotevil, …. wouldn’t you agree that that is one ell of a lot of “data” that is stored in the 46 chromosomes of your “DNA”? Maybe the equivalent quantity of “data” than can be stored in a low-density SSD chip?

            Anyway, ….. co2isnotevil, ….. brain neurons are somatic cells and thus each one (1) contains 46 chromosomes. And it is estimated that there is 86 to 100 billion neurons in the human brain.

            So tell me, ….. co2isnotevil, ….. who manufacturers that SSD drive that has as many bits of storage as a typical human brain?

            And co2isnotevil, ….. you are simply mimicking the claim that a SSD chip “can access stored data orders of magnitude faster than the human brain”. The literal fact is, we can measure “response time” of the “combined” subconscious and conscious brain activity …… but there is no way to measure the “data” access time of the subconscious mind.

            “DUH”, ….. when a REM sleep “dream” is being composed of “pseudo live-action video” by the subconscious mind, …… it is doing so at “warp” speed. Like in Star Trek “warp speed”.

            And I will explain that to you sometime.

          • Samuel,

            Let me explain why you’re wildly over-estimating the capacity of the human brain.

            To start with, there’s estimated to be about 1.5 GB of storage in the DNA of a cell, but it’s the same 1.5 GB of data in every neuron, moreover; memories themselves are not stored in DNA. The data in the genome directs the initial structure of the brain. While this can store a limited amount of ‘genetic memory’, these are not actual memories, but encoded autonomic responses to stimulus. The primary purpose of the brains structure, as established by DNA, is to provide a framework upon which learning can occur. Now, consider that the instructions required to construct the framework of a learning machine brain has an absolute upper bound of only 1.5 GB and likely far, far less, while a modern CPU chip requires 100’s of GB’s of instructions to guide its construction. Hardware complexity is not an issue for reaching the singularity!

            The human brain contains about 100 billion neurons with on the order of 10 trillion synapse connections. If we consider each connection to be equivalent to 1 bit, it’s about 1 TB of ‘storage’. The brain is highly redundant with the same information stored across many synapses, so the actual storage capacity will be well below 1 equivalent bit per connection. To put this much storage in perspective, the entire library of Congress is about 15 TB which the next generation of SSD’s will store within a single device while hard drives with this much capacity already exist.

            There are many manufacturers of SSD’s with storage in excess of 1 TerraByte, each of which stores nearly 10 trillion bits of data (Terra -> 2^40 (>1 trillion), byte -> 8 bits). If we over-estimate that each synapse encodes 16 states of storage (4 bits per synapse). Now we are at 4 TB and there are many SSD’s available in this capacity as well. If you really want to over-estimate the human brain, consider that each synapses represents 256 storage states (8 bits), now it will take a pair of 4 TB SSD’s and will consume only 2 of the 6 SATA ports on a modern computer to match the maximum storage capacity of the human brain.

            As far as speed is concerned, if we consider a ‘memory’ to be 5K bytes, an SSD can access 100,000 memories per second (and potentially far faster as a striped PCIe drive). REM sleep pulling together 100 memories at once is a 1000 times slower even as 5Kb is a lot of data to store a single memory. You’re seriously underestimating how fast computer hardware has become, perhaps because a lot of performance is gobbled up by inefficient software hiding the vast improvements that have occurred over the last few decades.

            Your position was valid 20 years ago, but not any more. If you don’t recognize that the singularity is eminent, you’re not paying close enough attention. Sure, the brain is not a Von Newmann based machine, but the power of this architecture is that it can emulate any kind of data processing engine, including the human brain. The hardware required with the storage and horsepower to do this is already widely available, only the software needs to catch up and this is much closer then you think.

          • co2isnotevil,

            , moreover; memories themselves are not stored in DNA.

            co2isnotevil, I’ve been studying this subject for more than 40 years ….. so don’t be trying to bedazzle me.

            to start with, there’s estimated to be about 1.5 GB of storage in the DNA of a cell, but it’s the same 1.5 GB of data in every neuron

            co2isnotevil, ….. not just evert neuron, but every cell in your body ……. and said “guesstimate” of 1.5 GB is your complement of “inherited DNA” … the part that guides you to becoming you.

            But how in ell can anyone honestly claim its 1.5 GB equivalent when they don’t have a clue what the ACTUAL genetic code is. They only know what some “SEGMENTS” of the code is responsible for or functions it performs. Its like knowing what an “APP” on your I-phone does.

            To wit, for your learning experience:

            New Research Suggests at Least 75% of The Human Genome Is Junk DNA After All

            At least three quarters of the human genome consists of non-functional, ‘junk DNA’, according to a new study, and the actual proportion is likely to be even greater than that.
            https://www.sciencealert.com/new-evidence-suggests-at-least-75-of-the-human-genome-is-actually-junk-dna

            And please explain this, to wit:

            moreover; memories themselves are not stored in DNA.

            co2isnotevil, ….. you claim that “memory data” is not store in the neuron’s DNA ….. but you neglected to tell me where you think they are stored.

            And iffen “memory data” is not stored in the DNA of the neurons …… then why does Alzheimer’s disease, which destroys brain neurons, which results in thinking disabilities and memory deterioration? HUH HUH?

            You got this one WRONG also, to wit:

            The human brain contains about 100 billion neurons with on the order of 10 trillion synapse connections.

            Wrong by a factor of 10 to 50, ……. to wit:

            “The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10 -11th (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10¹⁵ synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 10¹⁴ to 5 x 10¹⁴ synapses (100 to 500 trillion).” ” Source: https://aiimpacts.org/scale-of-the-human-brain/

            The brain is highly redundant with the same information stored across many synapses, so the actual storage capacity will be well below 1 equivalent bit per connection.

            OH GOOD GRIEF, ……. evolution is not noted for redundancy in/of much anything. And your stated “1 equivalent bit per connection ” is funnier than a raunchy “fert” in a space suit.

            REM sleep pulling together 100 memories at once is a 1000 times slower even as 5Kb is a lot of data to store a single memory.

            “DUH”, …… REM sleep (dreaming) consists of “recalling” (retrieving) ten-of-thousands of non-associated stored “environmentally” sensed info/data segments to create the equivalent of “a live-action video w/sounds” ….. that is indistinguishable from a “real life” experience except for the fact that the “dreamer” might realize it is a “pseudo” thingy. The only difference between dreams and hallucinations is that the person knows it was a “dream” because they just woke up from being asleep.

            the power of this architecture is that it can emulate any kind of data processing engine, including the human brain.

            co2isnotevil, … when the architecture you speak of, ……. can randomly create realistic “live action videos w/sounds” that are equivalent to REM dreaming episodes …….. be sure to tell me.

            And to further your knowledge base, ……. to wit:

            Biology of a cell: Genetic memory verses Environmental memory

            NOTE: I wrote the following commentary in April 2013, in response to the following “italicized” statement that was posted on a “news forum”, ….. and decided to post a portion of it hereon to see what sort of responses it would “trigger”, …… to wit, enjoy:

            I have yet come across an understandable explanation how the brain stores memory. Most likely because there has yet to be any real understanding.

            Thus, given the above, I would like to offer my learned opinion on said in hopes that it might provide a better understanding of how and/or where the brain stores information. Or at the very least, “spark” a discussion that will lead to or result in a better understanding about said

            First, I will post some quoted commentary that should provide a generalized understanding of post-birth brain development and the role that one’s environment plays in the nurturing (learning or data sensing/storing) and the wiring of their brain, to wit:

            Brain structure is not genetically determined.
            How the brain develops hinges on a complex interplay between the genes you’re born with and the experiences you have. Clear evidence has emerged that suggests that activity, experience, attachment, and stimulation determine the structure of the brain.

            Early experiences directly affect how the brain is “wired.”
            At birth, baby’s brain is remarkably unfinished. Most of its 100 billion neurons are not yet connected in networks. Some neurons are programmed for specific functions-breathing and heartbeat, but most are not yet designated for tasks and are waiting for the experiences in the environment to determine their function. Connections are created by the sensory experiences-seeing, smelling, touching, and especially tasting, stimulate the growth of neural connections. Forming and reinforcing these connections are the key tasks of early brain development

            I would now like to specifically address the above comment in hopes that I might be able to provide some better understanding as to how and/or where the brain stores “memory”. And the first thing one has to acquire is a better understanding of the fact that the word “memory” is a descriptor word that is used for describing both the data/information that is being stored and/or recalled ….. as well as the device said data/information is recorded in/on.

            Thus said, there is a big difference between “stored memory” data and data ”memory storage” because the former is the “data” and the latter is the “device” ….. and one should always denote the difference when engaging in a technical discussion on the brain/mind.

            And secondly, every cell in the body of a living organism, animal or plant, contains stored data/information, but the word “memory” is only applicable to the animal species that have a brain that is capable of consciously recalling (remembering) of environmentally sensed data/information. DNA or inherited info …… and muscular or muscle control info …. are also stored in cells but neither one can be consciously recalled.

            And speaking of “consciously recalling”, one needs to acquire the understanding that there is both a conscious mind and a subconscious mind with the conscious mind being that which the “person” perceives he/she to be, ….. to be thinking, dreaming, seeing, saying, feeling, etc. And the understanding that their conscious mind is subservient to their subconscious mind …. which does all the processing of the sensed environmental data, …. the storing and recalling of “memory storage” data ….. and controls all communications with the conscious mind, voluntary muscles, body organs, etc. And that the “mind”, both conscious and subconscious, it not a physical entity ….. but a, per say, process or “operating program”. Also that the word ‘unconscious’ should only be used in reference to the conscious mind because the subconscious mind is never unconscious nor does it ever asleep.

            Most every species of animal is capable of sensing and storing environmentally sensed data/information and their subconscious mind is capable of reacting to it if it is again sensed on future occasions, …… regardless of whether or not said information is presented to their conscious mind, the majority of which is not if the conscious mind is asleep. Likewise, some plant species are also capable of “sensing” environmentally transmitted data/information and reacting to it in a defensive manner to discourage predators. To wit:

            Ref: Leaves signal presence of predators – https://asknature.org/strategy/leaves-signal-presence-of-predators/#.WpBPReRy5PY

            Ref: Antelope activate the acacia’s alarm system – https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361-200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system/

            Genetic memory verses Environmental memory

            We know there is sufficiently enough “genetic memory” data in each egg and sperm, ….. after they combine into a single cell fertilized egg, …… to control and/or direct mitosis (cell division) of said egg as it grows (divides) into an adult human of billions of cells …. and to give direction and purpose to each of those billions of cells depending upon where they are located within the human body.

            But now, even though both brain neuron cells and body cells contain the same “genetic memory” data (same DNA)……. the “environmental memory” data stored in body cells is not the same as the “environmental memory” data that is stored in “neuron” brain cells. In other words, the “environmental memory” data that in stored in body cells is dependent upon the cell’s location within the human body.

            And thus I am supposing that every cell has the storage potential of both “genetic memory” data and “environmental memory” data ….. and that both are stored within the Chromosomes or DNA in each cell ….. and the latter is only relevant depending on the cell’s location in the human body.

            And I am supposing said because it makes no logical sense that evolution would evolve or create redundant or different entities for performing the same function of data/information storage.

            One could say that some muscle cells have “environmental memory” because they can be nurtured to react (a per say reflex action) to different environmental stimuli as well as to “conscious thought” requests. Is not the “learning to ride a bicycle” the same as nurturing the mental memories of the appendage muscles? And is not the “learning to speak the vocal sounds of a language” the same as nurturing the mental memories of the vocal cord muscles?

            And given the fact that “new” neurons are constantly being created and “linked” to existing neurons, …. the capacity of a human’s physical “mental memory” is only limited by their skull size. Excluding the “ageing process”, ….. that is,

            ———–

            Some additional thoughts for those who found my above commentary interesting, to wit:

            You were born with the potential to be nurtured with abilities, but you were not born with any nurtured abilities.

            The human mind consists of two (2) entities, the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. The conscious mind and subconscious mind are simply programs that are running on the neural hardware of the brain. The subconscious mind never sleeps, but it can put the conscious mind to sleep. Whenever the conscious mind is asleep then it is oblivious to the sights, sounds and smells in the environment surrounding it.

            And once the conscious mind is asleep, it will remain asleep until the subconscious mind decides to awaken it. And it will be awakened when the subconscious mind has completed its “housekeeping” chores, …. or if it senses an environmental stimuli that “triggers” an inherited survival instinct or one that it had been nurtured with to be a “wake-up call” (alarm clock, telephone, etc.), ….. and/or it senses an environmental stimulus (smoke, loud noise) or an internal body generated stimuli (pain, discomfort) that is either life-threatening or requires the assistance of the conscious mind for resolving a solution for.

            The primary function of the conscious mind is to make choices, if and/or when the subconscious mind presents it with two (2) or more entities to choose from. The primary function of the subconscious mind is information management, which includes: 1. the uploading of all sensed environmental data; 2. the per say, indexed cross-referencing of said environmental data to the data in memory storage; 3. the recalling of data from memory that is synaptically “linked” to the newly uploaded environmental data; 4. initiating a mental or physical action if the recalled data warrants said; 5. present the uploaded environmental data and the recalled data from memory storage to the conscious mind.

            The conscious mind is subservient to the subconscious mind. The conscious mind can make “choices”, ….. not “decisions”. It can make “requests”, not “demands”. Thus, the only “free will” that the conscious mind has is to make “choices” and “requests”, but it is the decision of the subconscious mind if said are acted upon. The conscious mind can not “choose” to speak a foreign language prior to or before the subconscious mind has, per say, been nurtured to understand and speak said language.

            The actions/activities performed by “sleepwalkers” and “hypnotized” persons are proof positive that the subconscious mind is the “controlling” entity …. and that it really doesn’t require the assistance of the conscious mind for the person to perform physical activities.

            Samuel C. Cogar, AB – Physical & Biological Science
            …. and an old computer designing dinosaur

          • [I’ll try to post it a 2nd time]

            co2isnotevil,

            , moreover; memories themselves are not stored in DNA.

            co2isnotevil, I’ve been studying this subject for more than 40 years ….. so don’t be trying to bedazzle me.

            to start with, there’s estimated to be about 1.5 GB of storage in the DNA of a cell, but it’s the same 1.5 GB of data in every neuron

            co2isnotevil, ….. not just every neuron, but every cell in your body ……. and said “guesstimate” of 1.5 GB is your complement of “inherited DNA” … the part that guides you to becoming you.

            But how can anyone claim its 1.5 GB equivalent when they don’t have a clue what the ACTUAL genetic code is. They only know what some “SEGMENTS” of the code is responsible for or functions it performs. Its like knowing what an “APP” on your I-phone does.

            To wit, for your learning experience:

            New Research Suggests at Least 75% of The Human Genome Is Junk DNA After All

            At least three quarters of the human genome consists of non-functional, ‘junk DNA’, according to a new study, and the actual proportion is likely to be even greater than that.
            https://www.sciencealert.com/new-evidence-suggests-at-least-75-of-the-human-genome-is-actually-junk-dna

            And please explain this, to wit:

            moreover; memories themselves are not stored in DNA.

            co2isnotevil, ….. you claim that “memory data” is not store in the neuron’s DNA ….. but you neglected to tell me where you think they are stored.

            And iffen “memory data” is not stored in the DNA of the neurons …… then why does Alzheimer’s disease, ………. which destroys brain neurons, ……. also causes thinking disabilities and memory deterioration? HUH HUH?

            You got this one WRONG also, to wit:

            The human brain contains about 100 billion neurons with on the order of 10 trillion synapse connections.

            Wrong by a factor of 10 to 50, ……. to wit:

            “The human brain has a huge number of synapses. Each of the 10 -11th (one hundred billion) neurons has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 10¹⁵ synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 10¹⁴ to 5 x 10¹⁴ synapses (100 to 500 trillion).” ” Source: https://aiimpacts.org/scale-of-the-human-brain/

            And this is not logical, to wit:

            The brain is highly redundant with the same information stored across many synapses, so the actual storage capacity will be well below 1 equivalent bit per connection.

            co2isnotevil, ….. evolution is not noted for redundancy in/of much anything. And your stated “1 equivalent bit per connection ” …… doesn’t pass the “intelligent deduction” test.

            REM sleep pulling together 100 memories at once is a 1000 times slower even as 5Kb is a lot of data to store a single memory.

            “DUH”, …… REM sleep (dreaming) consists of “recalling” (retrieving) ten-of-thousands of non-associated stored “environmentally” sensed info/data segments to create the equivalent of “a live-action video w/sounds” ….. that is indistinguishable from a “real life” experience except for the fact that the “dreamer” might realize it is a “pseudo” thingy. The only difference between dreams and hallucinations is that the person knows it was a “dream” because they just woke up from being asleep.

            the power of this architecture is that it can emulate any kind of data processing engine, including the human brain.

            co2isnotevil, … when the architecture you speak of, ……. can randomly create realistic “live action videos w/sounds” that are equivalent to REM dreaming episodes …….. be sure to tell me.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/02/claim-mixing-ai-with-green-slime-will-stop-climate-change/#comment-2815704

          • And co2isnotevil, ……. this should be a “fun” read for you.

            Biology of a cell: Genetic memory verses Environmental memory

            NOTE: I wrote the following commentary in April 2013, in response to the following “italicized” statement that was posted on a “news forum”, ….. and decided to post a portion of it hereon to see what sort of responses it would “trigger”, …… to wit, enjoy:

            I have yet come across an understandable explanation how the brain stores memory. Most likely because there has yet to be any real understanding.

            Thus, given the above, I would like to offer my learned opinion on said in hopes that it might provide a better understanding of how and/or where the brain stores information. Or at the very least, “spark” a discussion that will lead to or result in a better understanding about said

            First, I will post some quoted commentary that should provide a generalized understanding of post-birth brain development and the role that one’s environment plays in the nurturing (learning or data sensing/storing) and the wiring of their brain, to wit:

            Brain structure is not genetically determined.
            How the brain develops hinges on a complex interplay between the genes you’re born with and the experiences you have. Clear evidence has emerged that suggests that activity, experience, attachment, and stimulation determine the structure of the brain.

            Early experiences directly affect how the brain is “wired.”
            At birth, baby’s brain is remarkably unfinished. Most of its 100 billion neurons are not yet connected in networks. Some neurons are programmed for specific functions-breathing and heartbeat, but most are not yet designated for tasks and are waiting for the experiences in the environment to determine their function. Connections are created by the sensory experiences-seeing, smelling, touching, and especially tasting, stimulate the growth of neural connections. Forming and reinforcing these connections are the key tasks of early brain development

            I would now like to specifically address the above comment in hopes that I might be able to provide some better understanding as to how and/or where the brain stores “memory”. And the first thing one has to acquire is a better understanding of the fact that the word “memory” is a descriptor word that is used for describing both the data/information that is being stored and/or recalled ….. as well as the device said data/information is recorded in/on.

            Thus said, there is a big difference between “stored memory” data and data ”memory storage” because the former is the “data” and the latter is the “device” ….. and one should always denote the difference when engaging in a technical discussion on the brain/mind.

            And secondly, every cell in the body of a living organism, animal or plant, contains stored data/information, but the word “memory” is only applicable to the animal species that have a brain that is capable of consciously recalling (remembering) of environmentally sensed data/information. DNA or inherited info …… and muscular or muscle control info …. are also stored in cells but neither one can be consciously recalled.

            And speaking of “consciously recalling”, one needs to acquire the understanding that there is both a conscious mind and a subconscious mind with the conscious mind being that which the “person” perceives he/she to be, ….. to be thinking, dreaming, seeing, saying, feeling, etc. And the understanding that their conscious mind is subservient to their subconscious mind …. which does all the processing of the sensed environmental data, …. the storing and recalling of “memory storage” data ….. and controls all communications with the conscious mind, voluntary muscles, body organs, etc. And that the “mind”, both conscious and subconscious, it not a physical entity ….. but a, per say, process or “operating program”. Also that the word ‘unconscious’ should only be used in reference to the conscious mind because the subconscious mind is never unconscious nor does it ever asleep.

            Most every species of animal is capable of sensing and storing environmentally sensed data/information and their subconscious mind is capable of reacting to it if it is again sensed on future occasions, …… regardless of whether or not said information is presented to their conscious mind, the majority of which is not if the conscious mind is asleep. Likewise, some plant species are also capable of “sensing” environmentally transmitted data/information and reacting to it in a defensive manner to discourage predators. To wit:

            Ref: Leaves signal presence of predators – https://asknature.org/strategy/leaves-signal-presence-of-predators/#.WpBPReRy5PY

            Ref: Antelope activate the acacia’s alarm system – https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717361-200-antelope-activate-the-acacias-alarm-system/

            Genetic memory verses Environmental memory

            We know there is sufficiently enough “genetic memory” data in each egg and sperm, ….. after they combine into a single cell fertilized egg, …… to control and/or direct mitosis (cell division) of said egg as it grows (divides) into an adult human of billions of cells …. and to give direction and purpose to each of those billions of cells depending upon where they are located within the human body.

            But now, even though both brain neuron cells and body cells contain the same “genetic memory” data (same DNA)……. the “environmental memory” data stored in body cells is not the same as the “environmental memory” data that is stored in “neuron” brain cells. In other words, the “environmental memory” data that in stored in body cells is dependent upon the cell’s location within the human body.

            And thus I am supposing that every cell has the storage potential of both “genetic memory” data and “environmental memory” data ….. and that both are stored within the Chromosomes or DNA in each cell ….. and the latter is only relevant depending on the cell’s location in the human body.

            And I am supposing said because it makes no logical sense that evolution would evolve or create redundant or different entities for performing the same function of data/information storage.

            One could say that some muscle cells have “environmental memory” because they can be nurtured to react (a per say reflex action) to different environmental stimuli as well as to “conscious thought” requests. Is not the “learning to ride a bicycle” the same as nurturing the mental memories of the appendage muscles? And is not the “learning to speak the vocal sounds of a language” the same as nurturing the mental memories of the vocal cord muscles?

            And given the fact that “new” neurons are constantly being created and “linked” to existing neurons, …. the capacity of a human’s physical “mental memory” is only limited by their skull size. Excluding the “ageing process”, ….. that is,

            ———–

            Some additional thoughts for those who found my above commentary interesting, to wit:

            You were born with the potential to be nurtured with abilities, but you were not born with any nurtured abilities.

            The human mind consists of two (2) entities, the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. The conscious mind and subconscious mind are simply programs that are running on the neural hardware of the brain. The subconscious mind never sleeps, but it can put the conscious mind to sleep. Whenever the conscious mind is asleep then it is oblivious to the sights, sounds and smells in the environment surrounding it.

            And once the conscious mind is asleep, it will remain asleep until the subconscious mind decides to awaken it. And it will be awakened when the subconscious mind has completed its “housekeeping” chores, …. or if it senses an environmental stimuli that “triggers” an inherited survival instinct or one that it had been nurtured with to be a “wake-up call” (alarm clock, telephone, etc.), ….. and/or it senses an environmental stimulus (smoke, loud noise) or an internal body generated stimuli (pain, discomfort) that is either life-threatening or requires the assistance of the conscious mind for resolving a solution for.

            The primary function of the conscious mind is to make choices, if and/or when the subconscious mind presents it with two (2) or more entities to choose from. The primary function of the subconscious mind is information management, which includes: 1. the uploading of all sensed environmental data; 2. the per say, indexed cross-referencing of said environmental data to the data in memory storage; 3. the recalling of data from memory that is synaptically “linked” to the newly uploaded environmental data; 4. initiating a mental or physical action if the recalled data warrants said; 5. present the uploaded environmental data and the recalled data from memory storage to the conscious mind.

            The conscious mind is subservient to the subconscious mind. The conscious mind can make “choices”, ….. not “decisions”. It can make “requests”, not “demands”. Thus, the only “free will” that the conscious mind has is to make “choices” and “requests”, but it is the decision of the subconscious mind if said are acted upon. The conscious mind can not “choose” to speak a foreign language prior to or before the subconscious mind has, per say, been nurtured to understand and speak said language.

            The actions/activities performed by “sleepwalkers” and “hypnotized” persons are proof positive that the subconscious mind is the “controlling” entity …. and that it really doesn’t require the assistance of the conscious mind for the person to perform physical activities.

            Samuel C. Cogar, AB – Physical & Biological Science
            …. and an old computer designing dinosaur

          • Samuel,

            The way that the brain stores information is in it’s connections. The ‘genetic’ memory, while finite, is insignificant by comparison, is also stored as organized connectivity and can even be overwritten.

            As you pointed out, a lot of the DNA is considered junk, which means that if only 25% is used, then only about 400 MB of data constructs and operates a human and likely less than 40 Mb of generic information drives both the construction and operation of the brain including any ‘genetic’ memory. Sure, we don’t know exactly how this is all encoded, ir even if what we think is junk is really junk, but why does this matter if we already know what the result is? BTW, in addition to the brain, another existence proof of storing information as connections is the relational database.

            How do neuron connections learn and remember? It’s not much different then how an artificial neural network learns, in fact, the later is modeled on the former. Each time a path through the network is exercised towards some discernible goal, weights are adjusted si that the path becomes a little easier to exercise again. Like the brain, the algorithmic construction of artificial neural networks based on fractal geometries requires a small amount of information to construct, relative to the amount of information that can be stored. Also like the brain, as the amount of information stored in an artificial neural network approaches the theoretical upper limit of 1 bit per connection, the error rate dramatically increases. Note that the highest estimates of brain capacity are 100TB and based on the full utilization of 1000T connections. Of course, if your brain was really that full, recall would be subject to serious error rates. I doubt that any brain on Earth can exactly recall anything close to even just 1 TB of stored information.

            And BTW, the initial structure of the brain is determined exclusively by genetics and it’s small differences in this structure that determines how easy or hard it will be to learn new information. The only ‘generic’ memory most babies come with is how to cry for attention, how to nurse and how to learn. Just about everything else needs to be learned, including how to learn at higher levels of abstraction and how to distinguish fantasy from reality. Pruning less useful connections while reinforcing useful ones is how the brain learns. None the less, the basic structure of the brain from person to person is largely the same independent of what they have learned and which has been confirmed by functional MRI.

            There’s a lot more nature than nurture involved relative to intelligence, but political correctness prevents us from acknowledging this obvious fact. Unfortunately, it’s also far easier to nurture an intrinsically smart brain into mush (the political left being the example), then it is to nurture an intrinsically less smart brain into becoming a Noble prize winning scientist (political prizes don’t count).

            The number of synapses is variously estimated to be between 10T and 1000T, although the 1000T value assumes that all neurons connect to the maximum number of other neurons ever observed to be connected together and is more of a theoretical maximum then a practical maximum. Since only a small fraction of the brains neurons seem to have 10K or more connections to other unique neurons and many of those connections aren’t even active, I lean to the low side. In addition, many axons connect to multiple dendrites of the same destination neuron which is technically only 1 connection, albeit a stronger one. None the less, even at 100T connections and a nominal storage capacity of about 1 bit per connection, all of the stored information can still fit within a 16 TB drive, as can the Library of Congress, and I doubt that few, any brains on Earth can recall enough information equivalent to a fraction of 1% of the amount of information stored in the Library of Congress. Furthermore; it’s thought that only a tiny fraction of the brain is used, which also means that you don’t need the capacity of an entire human brain to emulate human intelligence.

            My point is just that the hardware required to inexpensively match the performance, capacity and self awareness of the human brain already exists and the singularity where machines become more humanly intelligent then people is eminent. It’s only a matter of developing the necessary software and there’s a lot more going on here than most are aware of.

            Yes, Alzheimer’s destroys neurons which also destroys the connections to and from the destroyed neurons which is why it also destroys memories. Are you really trying to say that each neuron has unique DNA that’s storing memories? If the DNA in neurons was plastic enough to store as many TB of unique information as required, the generic changes could never be controlled well enough to avoid brain cancer before you’re 2 years old. Besides, how can you recall memories stored as DNA if that DNA wasn’t involved in establishing the structure of the brains connectivity in the first place? If memories involved protein synthesis from DNA, the brain would be operating far too slowly to be of any use.

          • co2isnotevil,

            Thank you for responding to my commentary. It was an interesting read, but, ……. I have to question like 90% of it because, like they say, ….. “it doesn’t compute”.

            Anyway, I will respond to your last paragraph “first”, simply because I can only type using my index finger and thumb because of polio afflicted left arm and RA afflicted right hand and arm. Thus said, don’t give up on my responding because I will address other parts of you latest commentary as quick as I can,

            You asked, to wit:

            Are you really trying to say that each neuron has unique DNA that’s storing memories?

            “YES”, that is exactly what I am saying. And I firmly believe that if single neurons are extracted from different areas of the brain (and/or from the voluntary muscles of the vocal cords, arms, hands, etc.) and submit each one to/for PCR …… and then do a complete DNA profile, including the “junk” DNA, ….. and then compare said profiles, …… then I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the “inherited DNA” would be identical in all profiles …… whereas the “junk” DNA would be different in all profiles.

            If the DNA in neurons was plastic enough to store as many TB of unique information as required, the generic changes could never be controlled well enough to avoid brain cancer before you’re 2 years old.

            co2isnotevil, I don’t know where you came up with that “plastic enough” thingy ……. or the assumption that ……. “several TB of unique information is being stored in each neuron“ …… because I shur nuff never suggested or implied either one. NO ONE, neither human or animal, can upload 1/10th of 1TB of “sensed” environmental data/info ….. and store it in the DNA of a neuron ….. or even in your per se “neuron connections”. Tell me, co2isnotevil, have you ever fathered/birthed and reared a child? If so, then tell me, once you began teaching it, …… how long did it take your child to learn to speak the words “da da”? Was it 1 second, ….. 3 minutes, ….. 2 hours, …. 4 days, ….. 1 week, … or longer? How long did it take? And once it learned to speak “da da”, ….. was it also fluently speaking “ma ma” or did the nurturing have to begin again?

            co2isnotevil, I don’t think that you actually realize the “fact” that everything that you learn today, …… is highly dependent upon what you learned yesterday, …… and every yesterday in succession back until the day that you were birthed.

            Were you born with the ability of riding a bicycle …… and the very 1st one you seen you jumped astraddle of it and went pedaling down the street with your arms waving in the air? Or did your parent buy you one with “training wheels” so that you could spend the next 6 weeks learning how to ride it?

            The brain/mind will only “store” new information, ….. never old or redundant data. When the sense organs upload environmental data ….. the subconscious mind checks for redundancy and if not, it will store that data ….. including a synaptic link to the already stored data that it is associated with. If the data is redundant (already stored in memory) the subconscious mind will create a synaptic link between the two associated neurons. Fer instance, if your spouse call you on the phone and says “Hello”, you don’t have to ask who is calling cause your subconscious mind told your conscious mind who it was.

            Besides, how can you recall memories stored as DNA if that DNA wasn’t involved in establishing the structure of the brains connectivity in the first place?

            “DUH”, … I would say bout the same way that the Intel CP chip in your PC can recall (upload) stored memory data from the disk storage on your PC or upload stored memory data from the Internet when it wasn’t involved in establishing the structure of the aforenoted connectivity in the first place.

            co2isnotevil, there is nothing that says that the inherited DNA in each and every brain (neuron) cell “is not capable of” determining the synaptic “connectivity” between associated neurons.

            co2isnotevil, it is of my learned opinion that the only reason that the conscious mind is put to sleep ….. is so the subconscious mind can do its “housekeeping” without being interrupted.

            Nuff for now, …….. Sam C

          • Excerpted comments which I have a serious problem with, to wit:

            The only ‘generic’ memory most babies come with is how to cry for attention, how to nurse and how to learn.

            co2isnotevil, …… I believe that you are sadly misinformed concerning the above.

            Pruning less useful connections while reinforcing useful ones is how the brain learns.

            That is utter garbage …… “thunked up” by some wishful conniving person wanting to “sound intelligent”. The brain learns by uploading newly sensed environmental data, storing it in a neuron and “synaptically” linking it to a neuron containing similar/associated data. Every “chunk” of newly sensed and uploaded environmental data is, de facto, linked to previously uploaded and stored environmental data. After which said “new data” neuron will be “linked” to other neurons, which defines “learning”. An obvious FACT that is typified by the Public School System that promotes students from 1st Grade to 12th Grade graduation.

            There’s a lot more nature than nurture involved relative to intelligence, but political correctness prevents us from acknowledging this obvious fact.

            WHOAH, …. WAIT A MINUTE, co2isnotevil, …… you just got thru stating the FACT that …. “the basic structure of the brain from person to person is largely the same independent of what they have learned” ….. but in the above you claim “nature determines intelligence”.

            And “political correctness” has only had a dastardly debilitating effect on the nurturing of adolescence intelligence since the 1970’s when the “liberals” gained control of the curriculum.

            co2isnotevil, …… there are literally thousands of cases of “newborn” adoptions, ….. whose mothers and family members are untrainable, un-educatable and thus “dumb as a box of rocks”, ….. and whose affluent, caring foster parents nurtured said adopted child to become intelligent and successful in its “new environment”.

            GETTA CLUE, ….. co2isnotevil, …… the most important “nurturing years” in a young child’s life is, …. from the day of its birth until it is 4 years old ….. because that is the time when one’s “foundation for learning” is being created in their brain ….. and which dictates all future learning abilities.

            Since only a small fraction of the brains neurons seem to have 10K or more connections to other unique neurons and many of those connections aren’t even active

            Now that was brilliant, ….. claiming an entity “seems to have”. And what is more hilarious is claiming “synaptic connections aren’t even active”.

            co2isnotevil, ……maybe that per se “inactive link” is to the name of your grade school girlfriend/boyfriend that you haven’t thought about in years.

            In addition, many axons connect to multiple dendrites of the same destination neuron which is technically only 1 connection, albeit a stronger one.

            There ya go again, ….. claiming things as fact which is impossible of proving.

            None the less, even at 100T connections and a nominal storage capacity of about 1 bit per connection,

            “DUH”, don’ja think that “1 bit per connection” is a horrendous waste of resources?

            and I doubt that few, any brains on Earth can recall enough information equivalent to a fraction of 1% of the amount of information stored in the Library of Congress.

            co2isnotevil, …… GETTA ANOTHER CLUE, …. the architecture of the brain/mind does not permit the per se, “un-triggered” recall of any stored memory data. The brain/mind is not like having a big stack of CDs that can spew out T-bytes of data simply by “requesting” said.

            co2isnotevil, everything that you have ever learned (stored in a neuron) is still stored in your brain neurons. And the only way possible that any of that info can be retrieved is if the subconscious mind “senses” a recall “trigger”.

            co2isnotevil, there are numerous things you done during your High School years that you have completely forgotten about, right? But iffen an old HS buddy shows up and says, ….. “Co2is, do you remember the time we had those two girls out behind the bleaches” …. and BINGO, all those old memories came flooding out like an erupting volcano. Tell me it ain’t so, co2is.

            So, do you wanna tell me some more about …… “pruning less useful connections”?

      • co2isnotevil – October 2, 2019 at 4:30 pm

        Why not apply AI to generating climate models? They won’t be any worse than the models developed by actual insanity

        But, but, but, ……. co2isnotevil, …… those Climate Modeling Programs are already the best example of AI that you are ever going to see.

    • That phrase “the Amazon is the lungs of the Earth’ is way off base. These people have never ever seen the forests of the Caucusus, so dense that there is no room to walk through them. They’ve never been anywhere near the dense woodlands of New England, or any of those places in Europe, Siberia, Asia, India, etc., that are so heavily forested that full-grown elephants can find cover in them.

      I am so tired of this dimwitted focus on ONE area, as if that’s the ONLY place on the planet that has boreal cover. That is pure, unadulterated baloney.

      • Well, the Amazon rainforests cover something like 30 times the area of the Caucasus forests, and they are mixed forests, largely deciduous and completely seasonal, while the Amazon is evergreen broadleaf forest.
        The largest forests are the northern Taiga biomes, perhaps better described as boreal forests.
        They stretch across 17 million square kilometers, and are pretty darn dense over much of this expanse. Except during glacial periods.
        Trees love it warm and love lots of CO2.
        Miles thick ice where these forests now exist, and CO2 under 200ppm?
        Not so much.

        Antarctica used to be vegetated too.
        It aint gonna melt anytime soon (geologically speaking), but iffen it did, it might be bad for some present day coastal biomes, but for the Earth, it would be no disaster, but the end of one.

    • Wrong Hollywood movie. Time for a remake of Colossus: The Forbin Project just this time it isn’t the Soviet Union but the Climate Crisis.

  2. What is it about a greener world, with shrinking deserts, which CACA worshipers don’t like?

      • So it would seem. But they’ll take a lot of defenseless plants, animals, fungi and microbes with us, which have so benefitted from more photosynthetic feed stock in the air.

    • Where I live, inland Australia, the deserts are not getting greener, they are expanding. Where there is less rainfall, more CO2 doesn’t do much greening. Here algae are not a positive, that’s the stuff that poisons the remaining water puddles in the beds of rivers.

      • CO2 does indeed green where there is less rainfall.

        With a higher concetration of vital nutrient in the air, stomata don’t have to stay open as long to get all that they need with which to make their food, sugar. Hence, less loss of water.

        In the Sahel, expansion of vegetation is dramatic.

      • There’s more reasons behind desertification than just lack of rain in a particular area. Some are natural and some are man made. Quick example here in the western US is spreading of sagebrush. Sagebrush is thirsty (for a desert plant) with a deep tap root, that means it will pull shallower moisture out and kill plants around it that don’t have a deep tap root like grasses. Grass dies due to lack of water which means ground cover is gone. Without ground cover the soil gets drier requiring even deeper tap roots to survive. Once established you mostly see sagebrush with areas of bare dirt between plants. It can be reversed but will take a) irrigation, sagebrush doesn’t actually like lots of water. or b) removal of sagebrush to give other plants a chance at getting moisture. Using removal method works better if a ground cover is put down to help retain moisture until a natural (grass) ground cover is established. And yes, over grazing can speed up the spread of sagebrush but it is not required to spread sagebrush. This is both a natural and man made issue.

    • It’s better CO2. CO2 that doesn’t come directly from burning fossil fuels must be “better” CO2.

        • I guess they can tell the good CO2 from the bad CO2 in the same way that they can tell the next W/m^2 of forcing from the average W/m^2 of forcing so that on a Joule by Joule basis, the next one can be so much more powerful at warming the surface than the average ones that came before and then came again concurrent with the next one.

          • It’s the same way they can tell when you get “green” electricity from the grid. The wall sockets glow a lovely pastel shade of green

    • It sure does. And it gets better…
      bio-diesel is about 86% as energy dense as petroleum diesel (86 % BTU/gal) so you need to burn 1.16 gal of bio-diesel to extract the equivalent energy while also exhausting 1.16 (16% more) as much CO2.
      A few years back some green-weenie came around (to a bunch of engineers) and began his lecture on the benefits of bio-diesel. (These fools think engineers don’t do math?) I asked him how he was equating increasing CO2 production by 16% was an improvement in CO2 reduction.
      His response was predictable, “But its green CO2!” …as if physics cares the source.

  3. There exists no actual AI

    AI is still just a machine executing a bunch code, written or designed by humans.

    Pretending that because a computer is used to generate a plot, that it is more true is just a part of the scam. A model is nothing more than a hypothesis (flawed or true) turned into code.

    • Don’t let Greta hear you say that she will lose what little mind she has left – don’t you know

    • There exists no actual AI

      Not quite true, the most powerful AI can do a reasonable job of replicating insect level intelligence.

      But treating current AI technology as a kind of deux ex machina is absurd.

      • Then you need to ask if insects have intelligence, or are just functioning on a neurological script? If you read Allen Newell’s Harvard Lecture series you might be tempted to say that insects have no intelligence. On the other hand when you see 80 dragonflies cleaning the midges and mosquitoes out of my backyard you might think they are pretty smart

        • Ants and their relatives are pretty smart. Ants pass the self-recognition test.

          Small ants have a brain to body weight ratio of 1:7; small birds 1:12 and humans 1:40 (for a 120# person), same as mice.

          • And the greens would like us to become ants. Working away while all the environmental elites vacation in warmer places.

    • “when used in conjunction with AI-powered bioreactors”

      If AI can power these bioreactors why don’t we just power our cars directly with AI?

      • menace: “If AI can power these bioreactors why don’t we just power our cars directly with AI?”

        Doh! AI didn’t think of that!
        ;o)

    • “AI is still just a machine executing a bunch code, written or designed by humans.”

      somebody doesnt know how machine learning works.

      • Until a machine can make it’s own value judgements—not simply capturing sequences and assessing the results against the software engineer’s value—it’s not actual learning. But without a sense of experiencing consequences (good or bad) there is no organic feedback—the machine simply executes instructions, no matter how many layers of code went into those instructions.

        When I see a computer capable of experiencing its own depression or sadness or happiness (not just parroting what was coded in, then I’ll begin to suspect we are seeing real AI develop.

    • The current systems that people call AI are really just what used to be called “expert systems”, except they actually fulfill the promises made by the original expert system promoters (mainly because the computing power has caught up with them). These systems are pretty “smart” in very narrow problem domains, but still require a lot of heavily guided training in order to reach acceptable levels of proficiency. And if training mistakes are made part way through, they generally can’t be fixed or patched over without making them even worse. In that case, you have to start all over again with a fresh matrix. This is a big problem which will continue to limit the usefulness of this technology. In the meantime, we are still waiting for true AI breakthroughs.

  4. Okay – I misread the headline – I thought it said mixing ‘AL’ with green slime.

    I was thinking ‘what’s the difference?’

    • No difference at all. Neither will work (as claimed).

      400 times more efficient than trees? That’s so ridiculous it just made chuckle. Some claims are just too stupid to make me angry.

  5. How could this go wrong? What would you do if the growth of this algae totally got out of control and covered much of the oceans? What excuse could you offer than, especially if it was totally unnecessary? This is a very scary idea.

    • Big T,
      You’ve been there?
      Rather than answer, I offer this advice from Yoda:
      “If stupid you are,
      Speak you should not!”

  6. If it exists, someone will try to apply AI to it, eventually. Nose and ear hair trimmers come to mind, immediately, as prime uses for AI.

    AI paired with green energy schemes just doesn’t seem practical when compared to AI for ear and nose hair trimmers.

    The AGW cultists should stick with what works. Bone rattles and zombie dust, for example. Those are staples of witch doctors the world over and far, far less expensive than using unicorn poop for sustainable, green energy.

    Cheers

    Max

  7. Credit where credit is due:
    Commenter Hubert put out a link to a similar story, with the same cast of characters. It was on the “Nuke a Day” thread.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/02/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#comment-2811524

    Here is what Hubert linked to:
    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hypergiant-industries-launches-eos-bioreactor-a-prototype-bioreactor-for-commercial-and-personal-carbon-sequestration-300919790.html

    I read it and could not decide if it was satire or bad science fiction.
    Hilarious, actually.
    H/T to Hubert.

    • Their proposed “bio-reactor” is still just a photosynthetic system limited by (at least) the energy flux of incident sunlight. An algae-infested garden pond with a circulation pump and contaminated with agricultural fertilizer will have about the same utility. No amount of computing power can change that.

      They have invented nothing and should be given the bum’s rush.

      • And then there is this gem:

        The Eos Bioreactor, which is a 3’x3’x7′ cube

        Umm…… A container 3 x 3 x 3 would be a cube. A container 3 x 3 x 7 most assuredly is not.
        AI at it’s finest?

  8. I am persuaded that mixing Al Gore with Green Slime would be both highly amusing as well as probably offering a start to the final fix for the movement for ‘Climate Change’.

    • That’s how I read it too.

      I learned to read on a manual Elite typewriter, by reading things I had just typed.

  9. With all of the CO2 being sequestered in the oceans making them as acidic as Satan’s nether regions, wouldn’t the algae already be growing, hence not requiring AI at all

  10. MS , October 2 say it all. If we had a shortage of fuel, then using Algae to absorb CO2 from a coal fired power station , to then grow and finally to be harvested makes sense. .

    So we process the Algae and get fuel which we burn, thus returning that good gas CO2 back to the atmosphere for it to work its Magic at turning the Earth Green.

    But that is not what the Greenies want, they want such removal of CO2 to be permanent . As for the AI firm, they just want some of the taxpayers money, like all of the others in this giant climate scam.

    MJE VK5ELL

  11. And then what?

    When a tree sequesters carbon in its wood and roots, the carbon stays there as long as the tree lives. When it dies, bacteria decompose the organics and release CO2 back into the atmosphere.

    Algae don’t live long. What do you do with the dead algae? If you convert them into fuel, the CO2 is released. If you landfill them, they degrade anaerobically and you release methane and CO2. If they degrade aerobically you just release the CO2.

    It is smoke and mirrors. The sequestration is temporary. You would do just as well to fertilize the ocean and skip the AI controlled bioreactor. Then at least you would support a fishery.

    • Kira: “The sequestration is temporary”

      It’s almost as if there is a ‘Cycle’.

      A ‘Carbon Cycle’ where CO2 feeds life.

  12. The best scams spread the loot far and wide. The more people getting a piece of the pie, the more support the program has.
    Welfare wasn’t popular back when only poor people were getting payments.

    • Exactly.
      And one of the reasons that we’re not likely to see “health care” or “higher education” reform in the US.
      They’ve both become jobs programs for bureaucrats.
      The growth in bureaucrat employment has vastly outpaced growth in the number of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other real health care professionals.
      Same problem in academia, though in academia even in the hard sciences it’s harder to avoid pandering to the bureaucrats.
      Difficult to change things when you appear to be threatening bureaucrats with losing their jobs.
      Gotta keep spreading that loot far and wide.

  13. “Hal, please shut down the bioreactor, there is no CO2 left in the atmosphere for crops!”
    “I’m sorry, Dave, I can’t do that.”

  14. Sounds to me like they just threw in the term AI to sound more impressive. Seems like a scam to get rich off the foolishness of government.

  15. Monumental mistake! According to the alarmists, water vapor increase depends only on temperature increase of the liquid surface water and has increased an average of 0.88% per decade. Actual measurements show the global average to be 1.54% per decade. This proves WV, not CO2, has contributed to temperature increase. WV increase is self-limited.

  16. So ocean acidification is not the problem but the solution? Or maybe a case of “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.

    In other words, fake problems have a way of incubation fake solutions that suit the needs of the solution maker.

    Sincerely
    Chaamjamal
    Tambonthongchai.com

  17. The stuff gets more ridiculous by the day. The scheme is less plausible than nuclear-powered flying cars.

    This does, however, share the attributes of a lot of similar ideas (including AGW itself) – it sounds “science-ish” enough to get somebody to write articles about it – and a soft-minded enough audience to read it and not find it ineffable rubbish

  18. Greens inventing problems for their crazy non-solutions to fix.

    The recent green scare is “too little oxygen“. For example:
    * The amazon makes 20% of world oxygen and we’re burning it down
    * More CO2 leads to oxygen deprived oceans
    (in reality much of this is BS. For example – no way the amazon makes more than 5% of world oxygen)

    Algae are living things. All life breaths in oxygen at night and expires carbon dioxide.
    — More algae = less oxygen at night.

    I think much green eco-doom is designed to bully greens to stay in the eco-doom camp. They need a constant stream of propaganda. Green NGOs, themselves, need new scares to save us from. All these green NGOs spend anything from 10% to 50% of their budget just trying to make more money. Which means getting money from people they’ve convinced, by lies. Conning us into believing only they can save the planet. Green NOGs are basically pyramid selling schemes. Except they’re not promising anything positive. No solutions, just fear and paranoia. They promise to save you from the rest of humanity who are messing it up for you. They are hate people machines; a bit like fundamental religions.

  19. AI is a misnomer, and oversold. There is no artificial intelligence. There’s a little bit of “machine learning”. But all these computer programs are special purpose; designed to solve problems in niche areas. Taken out of their niche, AI algorithms must be tuned to solve new problems. The “tuning” bit is what they really mean by “learning”! AI algorithms don’t learn by themselves but are given “training” data. Once “trained” the program can repetitively identify issues. Just like other programs. The only way we will ever get real AI is when computers can write their own programs; find new problems, all on their own, to solve. Not on the cards; so no real AI.

  20. But the Amazon has never been the lungs of the planet, the oxygen originated from green slime and it is algae that maintain it.

  21. Hi,
    I must confess that I misread your headline. I thought it said “Mixing Al with Green Slime will Fix Climate Change” and I naturally assumed you referred to Al Gore.

    • Impressive graphics but wrong and misleading. The sun is a forcing so its contribution to temperature is by its time-integral wrt the mean. Water vapor has been increasing about 1.74 times as fast as calculated from feedback (average global temperature increase) so WV forces temperature, not the reverse. Ocean surface temperature cycles, net for all oceans, has had a period of about 64 years and peak to peak amplitude of about 0.3 K. Put them together the best way and you match 5-year smoothed HadCRUT4 96+ % 1895-2018. Figure 10.6 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  22. Slapping AI lipstick on the green slime pig. Yeah, that’s the ticket. They like to pretend that growing the stuff is where the biggest problem is. Nope. Harvesting and processing it into biofuel is hugely expensive. No end of greedy greenscammers who can’t wait to get their grimy paws on “carbon” dough.

  23. Can you just sense the hyperventilation in their argument? They are just assuming there is a problem-no analysis, no debate, no presentation of hard evidence- just blind belief. Because the entire notion is based on unfounded grounds, it has absolutely no justification whatsoever-none. Resources that could be used for things like water (and thus food) for all of humanity and AI being used to build automated farming, house construction and clothing is thrown down the drain.

Comments are closed.