Larrabee

Larrabee is a super multi-core Pentium processor design upgraded to 64 bits x86-64 with a new SIMD set of registers maxed out on steroids with ~250 new instructions! Sorta like SSE on steroids!

“LRBni adds two sorts of registers to the x86 architectural state. There are 32 new 512-bit vector registers, v0-v31, and 8 new 16-bit vector mask registers, k0-k7. While some core resources such as caches are shared by the core threads, that is not the case for registers; each thread has a full complement of vector and vector mask registers.”

WOW!

“LRBni vector instructions are either 16-wide or 8-wide, so a vector register can be operated on by a single LRBni instruction as 16 float32s, 16 int32s, 8 float64s, or 8 int64s, with all elements operated on in parallel. LRBni vector instructions are also ternary; that is, they involve three vector registers, of which typically two are inputs and the third the output. This eliminates the need for most move instructions; such instructions are not a significant burden on out-of-order cores, which can schedule them in parallel with other work, but they would slow Larrabee’s in-order pipeline considerably.”

Some excellent must read papers.

A First Look at the Larrabee
New Instructions (LRBni), pdf paper, by Michael Abrash

Rasterization on Larrabee Adaptive rasterization helps boost efficiency, pdf paper, by Michael Abrash

Intel® Architecture Code-Named Larrabee, pdf slides, by Dr. Thomas Willhalm

GDC Session Overview: SIMD Programming on Larrabee

This video is a brief overview of Tom Forsyth’s session from GDC about Larrabee. Larrabee is Intel’s revolutionary approach to take the current evolving programmability of the GPGPU to its logical end. The Larrabee architecture features many cores and threads, as well as a new vector instruction-set extension, the Larrabee new instructions (LRBni). This talk follows Michael Abrash’s first glimpse into LRBni and examines the programming methods and hardware instructions that help programmers get the most out of LRBni’s extremely wide vector units. Starting with simple math examples that are fairly simple to vectorize, it moves through loops, conditionals, and more complex flow control, showing how to implement these algorithms in LRBni. Next, the numerous choices of data format are examined – when to use SOA or AOS (and what those terms mean!), and how to use gather/scatter most efficiently from the same data structures used in an existing engine. Finally, there is a quick look at efficient code scheduling and how to use the multiple hardware threads to help absorb instruction latencies.

Thoughts On How Larrabee Will Change Game Development

As an Intel Application Engineer, Doug McNabb enables game developers to develop for Larabee. Doug describes his background as a game developer and his thoughts on how Larrabee will change game development.

When otherwise good math goes wrong especially in parallel or massively parallel programs

“Sometimes we forget that not all numbers are the same. This becomes very apparent in dealing with floating point numbers in parallel computing. … Floating numbers are not associative or distributive. … The more cores programmers run their parallelized code on, the more ways operations can be interleaved and the more challenges programmers face.” – Tim Mattson and Ken Strandberg, Intel

As if it’s climate science is not bad enough with intentionally corrupt or incompetently done statistics it turns out that climate models may be based upon computer programs with serious math flaws: the limits of the floating point and double precision floating point data types can produce incorrect results since “Floating Point Numbers Aren’t Real Numbers!” they are data types with limited precision. It gets even worse than that, when supposedly good programs are transformed into massively parallel programs with N threads of execution the results can vary with the number of threads chosen to run the program! Of course in climate science N can be 2 or 4 threads on a single multi-core machine but it can also be 1,000+ using GPGPUs or server compute farms.

Have the climate model programs been vetted to ensure mathematical accuracy? Is there a set of test cases that validate it after new changes have been made to the climate models? Do the test cases cover all the calculations in the climate model software? How do we know the answers are even accurate mathematically? (Of course that’s not even asking how do we know the model is relevant but this inquiry is not into relevancy it’s into accuracy of the calculations, whatever they happen to be, in climate models).

“The more cores programmers run their parallelized code on, the more ways operations can be interleaved and the more challenges programmers face. Parallel programmers must deal with a host of issues peculiar to parallel programs such as synchronization, protecting shared variables, and finding thread safe versions of common math routines (such as random number generation). One of the most subtle problems faced by the parallel programmer, however, arises from the properties of floating point numbers. Floating point numbers are the same in serial and parallel computations, of course, but when a program executes in parallel, special features of these numbers are more likely to impact your results.” – Tim Mattson and Ken Strandberg, Intel, in “Parallelization and Floating Point Numbers“

One aspect of models in science and engineering that involve calculations using the “floating point number format” is that Floating Point numbers are NOT REAL NUMBERS they are limited precision approximations of Real Numbers and as such they have their limits often caused by rounding which results in Floating Point numbers not being associative, in other words the order matters!!! What happens in science and engineering calculations on computers using Float 32 or Double floats (64 bits) especially when scaling massive numbers of computations to multiple threads on your multiple cores or on thousands of processor nodes in super computers or on GPGPU (general purpose graphics processing units) is that you get the wrong answers due to the miss use of these floating point data types.

You can easily generate numbers that don’t fit into the floating point format, and thus you produce answers from the basic arithmetic operations that don’t fit into a floating point format. In other words, the floating point numbers when operated on by the basic arithmetic operations do not constitute a closed set.

The impact of this is significant. Floating numbers are not associative or distributive. So,

A * (C * B) ≠ (A * C) * B and

A * (B + C) ≠ A * B + A * C

[Obviously the sentence is missing something here, most likely the two equations do not produce the same answers! -pwl]

This means that as you change the order of a long sequence of arithmetic operations, you can generate different answers. Mathematically with real numbers, the answers can’t depend on the order of the operations (for commutative operations) or the way they are grouped together (associatively). But with floating point numbers, if you interleave the operations in different ways, you get different results.

Here’s a good test to demonstrate the implications of this behavior by floating point numbers:

1. Fill 2 arrays each with 10000 random values between 0.0 and 1.0.

2. Shift one up by 100 and shift the other down by 0.001.

3. Mix the arrays together, sum them, and subtract a large number (500000).

Here are the results run on 1, 2, and 4 threads.

1 thread computes 170.968750

2 threads computes 171.968750

4 threads computes 172.750000

Which one of these numbers is correct, the 1-thread, 2-thread, or 4-thread value? Are any of these the true value? Would you consider that with 4 threads, the answer is correct and the others wrong? Or with 1 thread?

This is not a trick question, nor is its goal to make programmers look silly. Developers are smart people. But, many programmers steeped in sequential programming for so many years make the assumption that there is only one right answer for their algorithm. After all, their code has always delivered the same answer every time it was run. When you consider the above example, however, all the answers are equally correct. To pick one arbitrarily and call it right and the others wrong is completely unjustified.

Wait there is more! This is quite shocking isn’t it? What you were taught in math class isn’t the way that computers do math! Yikes. Most computer scientists are not aware of this problem as most never encounter it in their careers, or don’t know that it’s a problem that is happening right under their noses. Scary.

By mixing the numbers as this example does, it creates a pathological situation designed to maximize problems due to round off error. The test mixes very large and very small numbers together. The arithmetic unit aligns the numbers before adding them, which, given the large difference in their absolute magnitudes, all but guarantees that we’ll loose bits of precision in the process.

As the number of threads changes, the combinations of numbers being added also changes. With all the roundoff errors, as the way these numbers are combined changes, the way roundoff error is accumulated also keeps changing. Thus, the answers change.

So which answer is correct? The algorithm for adding them together is unstable. If you carefully add the numbers together so large numbers add with large numbers and small numbers add with small numbers, and then add the “large_set_sum” to the “small_set_sum”, you get a numerically stable result. The answer in this case is 177.750. Note that the test answers in every case considerably vary from the stable method of obtaining the answer.

Note also that, with a serial algorithm, you’d never know there was a problem. Only as the thread count grows and the answers change, does the instability of the algorithm become obvious. It’s apparent the problem is not in the compiler or even the program. The problem is with the numerical instability of the algorithm. And it’s only revealed by going to multiple threads.

The video with Tim Mattson explains it well.

Are you getting different numbers for calculations as you vary the number of threads? Your algorithm may be incorrect. Real numbers are nice; floating numbers are not nice. Floating numbers are not a closed set, the overflow bits need to be rounded and that can change the results of a calculation. Tim discusses how to work with floating point numbers and resources available to help in the Intel Math Kernel Libraries.

In the engineering applications that I’ve worked on for civil engineering of bridges we found that Double Precision Floating Point Numbers at 64 bits was simply not enough accuracy. We were able to use 80bit Extended Double Precision Floating Point numbers supported by the 8087 math coprocessor in the Intel line of chips. Even though the extended precision covered most of the cases that Double Precision didn’t there were a few cases where we had to adjust the order of our computations to ensure that we didn’t overflow the precision limits of the computation of the extended 80bit math! As you can imagine errors in bridge calculations are rather critical to life and limb.

The same is true in the Climate Models, lives and treasure both depend on correct math. The science fails when the math is wrong. Have they been vetted for numeric accuracy? How do we know that? Have test cases been written that test these limits in the climate model programs?

---

The same applies to random numbers in computers, they are not real random numbers either. As Tim Mattson says “We now know that god does play dice but that computers can’t!” (paraphrased). Random numbers are important in climate models since the climate is in inherently a system with randomness being generated from within. See Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science.

Computers cannot make truly random numbers. For statistical algorithms requiring random numbers, developers need to be careful in parallel code to avoid overlapping sequences from random number generators. Tim discusses different methods to use random number generators – including using independent generators for each thread and the “leap frog method” – to produce “pseudo random numbers” for statistical algorithms that work in parallel code.

---

Very interesting and important topic to any system that depends upon parallel computations being correct to protect limb, life and treasure.

Thanks to Intel, Tim Mattson and Ken Strandberg for this important information.

Open Source Science is the path through the dark into the new enlightenment

The articles linked here raise some very disturbing problems with the manner in which climate science is being conducted. This is especially important due to the HUGE public costs about to be undertaken over the next decades.

“The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia have been refusing access to the data used for their global climate averages and scientific studies.” – slashdot

Opening Science is the way forward, the path through the darkness, the endarkenment of closed source science.

If’s it’s paid by the public purse it must be OPEN data that anyone can see and audit.

Yes, you feel certain that you are right about your science but lets see the actual data and the methods used by that science to prove that your certainty is justified.

Science is based upon the notion of being able to validate or invalidate in whole or in part the “claims” made by various “hypotheses” put forward.

When you “BELIEVE” science you’re just another religion.

When you can’t audit the work of scientists whose work is the basis of public policy then you and the public are being endarkened and kept excluded. But why? For what or whose agenda?

As long as the data, the methods, the algorithms, the statical analysis, the step by step procedures are kept secret the work is suspect to scientific fraud.

Have the guts to open your science to the light of day, it will in the end be better for it once it’s vetted by more eyes and brains and math nuts and others poking holes in it.

ANY AND ALL CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO KEEP THEIR SCIENCE CLOSED AND SECRET is suspect of FRAUD. What are they hiding? Are they simply embarrassed to admit that they might be wrong? That they’ve made mistakes? That they are afraid that others might gain an edge in the grant process and shut them out of funding?

Open Source Science is the way forward through the darkness into the light that empower verification and falsification and thus progress EITHER way!!!

When you “BELIEVE” science you’re just another religion. In fact, open source science is the BEST and ONLY WAY to avoid science from becoming the new religion as it has, for example, in the climate debates.

The scientific method is the tool for vetting the works of science and if the work of science is closed and secret and kept close to the scientists chests by refusals to share their data, methods, source codes, procedures, etc… then their work can’t be verified and might as well be works of fiction just like those of any religious cleric or priest or nutter.

If you can’t take others vetting your scientific work then maybe you don’t belong in science?

Open Source Science raises the bar and will in the long run improve the quality of the science that is done. Some progress is being made, much more needs to be done.

---

Climate science makes extraordinary claims about Anthropogenic Global Warming and Global Warming.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan

Yet when asked for the data that is claimed to provide some of the evidence the data is refused on POLITICAL grounds. Very disturbing.

Regardless of the reasons that the data is not provided the bad science attitude by the MET office hinders actual science from proceeding. Very disturbing.

---

When you can’t test a scientific hypothesis or read all of the supporting evidence for it you must then rely on “taking their word for it” which is also known as “accepting based upon belief alone”. This is the end of science bit by bit and leads to the path of the dark side, to an age endarkenment.

When people find science open to validate themselves with experiments that they can do themselves or by reading all the evidence and vetting the work of others belief is eliminated and tested knowledge is obtained by that person bolstering the accuracy of their representation of the universe.

Belief is the enemy of science. Open Source science is the path forward that helps to eliminate belief and lay the ground work for a new scientific enlightenment accessible to the masses.

Terminate belief. Grow your knowledge based upon the scientific method. Stop being a science geek who takes it up the ass from authorities just like the religious nut jobs who take it up the ass from The Pope and his ilk.

The Wingnuts are at it again with “District 9” from Peter Jackson and Neill Blomkamp

“The film is about aliens landing in South Africa and becoming confined to a specific area and forced to work.”

Awesome! Fun summer sci-fi films are on the way!!! This looks promising… Moon ruled and now we’ll see who rules Earth!!!

District 9

Let’s go Direct to Mars for real!

Mars Direct is a proposal for a relatively low-cost manned mission to Mars with current rocket technology. The plan was originally detailed in a research paper by Robert Zubrin and David Baker in 1990. The mission was expanded upon in Zubrin’s 1996 book The Case for Mars.

The plan involves launching an unmanned “Earth Return Vehicle” (ERV) directly from Earth’s surface to Mars using a heavy-lift booster derived from Space Shuttle components. The booster is no bigger than the Saturn V used for the Apollo missions. Several launches are made in preparation for the manned mission.

The first of these launches the ERV, a supply of hydrogen, a chemical plant and a small nuclear reactor. Once there, a relatively simple set of chemical reactions (the Sabatier reaction coupled with electrolysis) would combine a small amount of hydrogen carried by the ERV with the carbon dioxide of the Martian atmosphere to create up to 112 tonnes of methane and oxygen propellants, 96 tonnes of which would be needed to return the ERV to Earth at the end of the mission. This process would take approximately ten months to complete.

Some 26 months after the ERV is originally launched from Earth, a second vehicle, the “Mars Habitat Unit” (MHU), would be launched on a high-energy transfer to Mars carrying a crew of four. This vehicle would take some six months to reach Mars. During the trip, artificial gravity would be generated by tying the spent upper stage of the booster to the Habitat Unit, and setting them both rotating about a common axis.

On reaching Mars, the spent upper stage would be jettisoned, with the Habitat Unit aerobraking into Mars orbit before soft-landing in proximity to the ERV. Once on Mars, the crew would spend 18 months on the surface, carrying out a range of scientific research, aided by a small rover vehicle carried aboard their MHU, and powered by excess methane produced by the ERV. To return, they would use the ERV, leaving the MHU for the possible use of subsequent explorers. The propulsion stage of the ERV would be used as a counterweight to generate artificial gravity for the trip back.

The initial cost estimate for Mars Direct was put at $55 billion, to be paid over ten years.

The Great Alaskan Goo Blob Mystery Deepens: Do you ever play with your food?

A giant mysterious blob is moving through Alaskan waters. The blob is made up of a gooey substance, and it has hair! Scientists don’t know what the blob is made up of, but the blob has already been found to have captured seabirds and jellyfish in its goo. Scientists have confirmed that the blob is neither algae nor oil.

Do you ever play with your food?

---

UPDATE: 20090722

“We got the results back from the lab today,” Ed Meggert of the state Department of Environmental Conservation told the Anchorage Daily News late last week. “It was marine algae.”

No one in the area — whether biologist, Inuit hunter or oil worker — had ever seen anything like the strange stuff, which moved slowly through the Chukchi Sea last week between the towns of Barrow and Wainwright.

It stank, trapped sea birds in its gooey mass and, perhaps most alarmingly, was pretty hairy. And most marine algae is green, yellow or red, not black.

Well, that’s too bad… the dreams of blobs sucking up people left right and center will have to await another day… however, the birds better be on the lookout!

The Blog in the news.

Iran’s Popular Revolution Driven by the Father that Will Never Go Away

The full interview is at Axis of Evil: Christopher Hitchens

Boiling Water Contributes to Greenhouse Effect – H2O vapor is ten times worse than CO2!

They claim that the C02 greenhouse gas is the biggest challenge to our existence on Earth; if it’s true that C02 is a serious problem then why not a single word from them about the dangers of Water Vapor and Clouds which are the largest greenhouse gas contributor!?

When gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

• water vapor, which contributes 36–72%, factoring in clouds up to between 66% and 85%
• carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
• methane, which contributes 4–9%
• ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Since water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds, don’t boil that water for your tea or for cooking dinner as you are directly contributing to green house gases with the steam! Don’t bring that water to a boil, don’t do it! DO NOT COOK WITH WATER!!! or you are a greenhouse gas criminal! – pwl

All the politicians and extremist environmentalists want to talk about is how much money it will take to correct the imagined C02 problem. Money to them. Mo-money to them. Give them all your money to solve the C02 problem. That’s what they want, your money. Save the Earth with your money. Nice scam. Why did you vote for them again?

“With five months left to go before Copenhagen, international attention is fixed on coming to an agreement over emissions targets. The failure, at last week’s G8 summit, of the world’s 17 major polluters to agree to specific cuts in greenhouse gases by 2050 only sharpened this focus, as China and India rebuffed a firm commitment in part because industrialized nations have refused to agree to mid-term 2020 goals. But buried beneath the headlines was the other reason negotiations fell through, and the one that could turn out to be the deal breaker in December: cold, hard cash. In recent months, developing nations, with China at the helm, have grown increasingly insistent that wealthier nations should provide poorer ones with financial assistance to help them cope with climate change. This includes funding for so-called “mitigation” efforts that curb carbon emissions and for “adaptation”—the long-term adjustment to rising tides, higher temperatures, drought, and increased infection rates of a warming planet. Despite two long negotiating sessions held earlier this year, however, no country has yet started putting money on the table.” – SEED

Scam… scam… scam… scam… bigger than Madeoff.

The fears about C02 are a complete overblown scam. If you really are afraid of C02 then you should be utterly terrorized about water vapor! Not to mention the real pollution issues that are facing our planet.

The REAL indisputable pollution are things like The Great Pacific Garbage Patch and yet people worry about imaginary things, like AGW which are most likely Natural Cycles in action. Clean up the actual pollution mess and give time for the long term climate science to get some actual standards.

“The way we approach it may be better or worse, but the vast majority of REAL climate scientists have no doubt that it IS happening, and that that tons of gases we put into the air over the past couple of centuries played at least some part. why even subscribe to Seed if you’re gonna listen to the folks who aren’t actually doing the science?” – Brooks Onley, July 13

Take a good long peek at WattsUpWithThat and you’ll see that the so called climate science isn’t as sound as it’s sold to the public to be. Consensus isn’t science by the way Brooks, it’s believe based culture not much different than theology. Water Vapor is by far the biggest green house gas so we should be working to eliminate clouds by the C02 scare logic. Get real.

“Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.”

Don’t boil that water for your tea or for cooking dinner as you are directly contributing to green house gases with the steam!

As someone very interested in and dedicated to hard science the more I learn about climate science the less I’m I’m able to accept about AGW due to the many faulty claims made by the fear mongering soothsayers of global doom. The more I learn about climate science the more I see that it’s not a hard science after all but a fledgling science with some hard (yet flawed) data collection but lots and lots of interpretations based upon massaged statistical games, but above all it’s not much better than a lousy guess and not much different than the ancient practice of soothsaying.

For example, clouds are not modeled properly thus the climate models are incomplete.

“The effects of clouds are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on the climate. One of the roles that clouds play in climate is in cooling the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space; another is warming by increasing the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the atmosphere to the surface. In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change“!

Wow, so even the IPCC admits that clouds, aka water vapor in the form of clouds, are one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change! So climate science is not settled science by their own admission that there are significant areas of uncertainty!

They also have forgotten that the Weather and thus Climate are not predictable systems as these systems are governed by Stephen Wolfram’s Law of Predictability paraphrased here as: waiting till the future arrives is sometimes the only way to predict the future, especially with Natural Systems! Stephen Wolfram proved that in his book, “A New Kind of Science”, Chapter 2.

Added 20090820: Cloud cover is influenced by Cosmic Rays.
The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Institute “investigates the connection between solar activity and climatic changes on Earth”.

“Svensmark proposed that as cosmic rays fell through the Earth’s atmosphere, they formed “condensation nuclei.” Water vapor molecules could then stick to the nuclei and eventually form clouds. More clouds would reflect more sunlight, and the Earth’s temperatures would drop. In contrast, fewer cosmic rays would mean fewer clouds and a warmer climate.” – The Cosmic Climate Connection.

“During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world.”

The more I learn about AGW the more I focus on REAL pollution as it’s clear that real pollution is a real problem. Pick up your garbage! Reduce your consumption of consumables. Don’t use that bag. Don’t buy that bottle. Reuse.

Leo Simpson explains it quite well here:

“For a start, let’s consider this highly emotive term “carbon pollution” which is constantly being bandied about. It only takes a moment’s thought to realise that there is no “carbon pollution” problem. It did exist 50 years ago, when we had steam trains and diesels with smoky exhausts and coal-burning power stations which had less than complete combustion. It used to be called soot. But it is not a problem now, in most countries. Now I know that some people use “carbon” as shorthand for carbon dioxide but it is sloppy thinking and generates worry in the unthinking masses that we are spewing all this carbon into the air. We’re not.

We are burning tremendous amounts of fossil fuels and that is putting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that is a big worry, isn’t it? Well, maybe. But all these doom merchants who worry about carbon dioxide never say anything at all about the other greenhouse gas which is produced when fossil fuels are burnt. What is that? It’s called water vapour – the same stuff as in clouds. Is water vapour a problem? Definitely not.

Just in case you don’t believe me, consider the combustion of petrol which is mainly octane, C8H18. When this is burnt, the chemical reaction is:

2C8H18 + 25O2 16CO2 + 18H2O

octane + oxygen carbon dioxide + water

If you calculate the molecular weights of the two combustion products, carbon dioxide and water, you will find that there is more water produced than carbon dioxide. But greenies never mention it. Why? Because they have either forgotten their high-school chemistry or they are completely ignorant of it.

The point is that both water vapour and carbon dioxide are normal components of the air that we breathe. They are not pollution. They are both necessary for life to exist on the planet. If there was no carbon dioxide, plants would not grow (more high-school chemistry – it’s called photosynthesis). Without plants, no animals, including us, can live. It’s a simple as that. If there is more carbon dioxide in the air, plants grow more profusely. In fact, it is common practice to increase the carbon dioxide in greenhouses and aquariums to make the plants grow more vigorously.”

– Let’s have no more of this carbon pollution nonsense

That’s very interesting, especially the point about there being more water vapor produced with the burning of fossil fuels than C02. If you or someone else is freaking out about the C02 produced then they MUST also freak out about the amount of H20 vapor being produced! Both are greenhouse gases!

I’m constantly surprised by so called environmentalists who won’t do anything about real pollution since they are focusing only on their imagined C02 soothsaying fears. Help clean up the real pollution please.

---

Questions:

I’m wondering how much human activity causes water vapor to enter the atmosphere: cooking, boiling water for cooking and tea, industrial water boiling, nuclear plant steam emissions, vapor from human breath, etc…

Considering that water vapor and clouds are the largest percentage of greenhouse gas (up to 85% of all greenhouse gases) wouldn’t it be better, as in more effective with immediate results, to Ban Cooking and Outlawing Making Tea than limiting C02 to reduce greenhouse gases?

He’s cooking with water, shoot to kill! Making tea, how opulent, destroy and obliterate that house! That puts an end to that particular source of greenhouse gases.

Wouldn’t it be easier technologically and cost wise to take water vapor out of the atmosphere than C02?

Are there any studies that have been done to see how much Water Vapor in the Atmosphere is allegedly from human activity? How does that compare with the amounts of C02 that are allegedly from human activity?

Maybe Nature corrects for too much greenhouse effect by adding more clouds? Any studies on that?

How much water vapor would we need to remove from the atmosphere to compensate for the allegedly human caused C02?

And if we did remove water vapor from the atmosphere using some technology wouldn’t it just be replaced by an equivalent amount of water vapor by Nature? Would we need to terrorform Earth into a desert to avoid Al Gore’s horrific soothsaid Waterworld?

How much does plastic in the oceans effect our world?

---

Thoughts

Someone replied “that she is with Brooks”, whatever that means.

It really isn’t about who is with who, it’s whether or not the AGW hypothesis is correct or not; if you assume it’s correct and begin terraforming the Earth the wrong way you’ll just make matters worse off. Following the logic of the AGW hypothesis would mean that eliminating C02 could trigger an ice age if you eliminate too much. How much is that? Who knows!!!

How about working on real indisputable pollution problems rather than imaginary and unproven ones for a real change?

Let’s eliminate actual “carbon aka soot” and other nasty particles from coal power stations around the world rather than focusing on the plant food “CO2” that they emit. Plants need CO2 for their life and we need plants to have their CO2 for our life!!! Greenhouses regularly use ~3 times as much CO2 as is in the atmosphere to enhance plant growth!… Read More

Let’s clean the oceans of plastics! That’s cleaning up real pollution.

What other real pollution problems you can work on to solve that involves actual problems?

Someone else was suggesting that people just want money.

I have no plan for your money. Unless… just kidding… really no plans for your money. All I’m asking is that people do something about real pollution rather than do nothing by listening to the fear mongering of the climate of fear soothsayers. Pick up trash. Plant a tree. Don’t toss out that bag without reusing it at least once or thrice. … Walk rather than drive. Cycle without getting yourself killed (difficult in modern cities). Add solar to your dwelling unit if appropriate. Don’t toss your medicine in the trash, return it to a pharmacy for proper disposal. Recycle your electronics. Resell your things or give them away rather than tossing them. Save the oceans from plastic. Hug someone in need. Live a real life rather than one distracted by delusions that can’t be proven.

Know that climate and weather are natural cycles of Nature and that in our arrogance to save our planet we might do more harm than good so there is wisdom in taking solutions slowly; fools rush in.

Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number – British Police State Repression in Action

Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number

The Guardian has obtained this police footage of Emily Apple and Val Swain being arrested by surveillance officers after asking for their badge numbers at the Kingsnorth climate camp last year. The two women speak to Paul Lewis about their arrest, imprisonment and official complaint

Clearly the British Police are now on par with the likes of the Iranian State Control freaks.

Maybe the officers, er if they can be called that, the thugs names will come out into the public view. Put the officers in jail and toss away the key.

Surfing Standing Waves in Montreal and other Rivers

“Preparing to surf a standing river wave in the St. Lawrence, where high-velocity water roars over a steep river-bottom depression, pitches back and upward, and creates a waist-to-overhead breaker. Surfers paddle into it or swing out by rope to catch the green-faced wedge, rewarded by a seemingly endless ride.

“Once you’re carving, it’s exactly the same feel as on an ocean wave,” said Chris Dutton, the founder of the Web site SurfMontreal.com, “except that instead of going straight down the line, you carve a little bit, flip around, carve back, and can go all day.”

Modern river surfing on standing waves evolved on the Eisbach River in Germany in the mid-1970s. Tidal bores have been ridden for years on the Severn in England; in Bordeaux, France; and on the Amazon. New standing waves are being pioneered almost daily in rivers in places like Colorado, and in Ontario and Alberta in Canada.”

Surf’s up in Montreal!

Obama, God and Global Warming + Bill O’Reilly’s insanity

Yeah, it’s great that Obama is a “Secular” USA President. His dad was raised in Islam and became an atheist in a Muslim country, not an easy thing to do. Nice to have someone who comprehends the distinction of a Secular State and how important Separation of Crutch and State is.

As for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) the jury is still out and it’s not looking good for the theory that humans have caused it. The evidence and counter evidence is mounting that it’s just part of a Natural Cycle and we’ve not had much if anything to do with it.

Of course, let’s clean up real pollution on a global scale instead of playing political games with poor and premature science. All the main claims of Al Gore’s in his movie have since been proven wrong.

Check out these articles on climate science here or over at Whats Up With That for lots of interesting true facts about climate science.

Oh, belief has no place in science, so when someone says they “believe in global warming” (or they don’t) it means that they ARE treating it like a religion and don’t know what they are talking about since they don’t know the actual science, they just “believe”. Asking someone if they “believe” in global warming is also asking them their religion.

Science over belief and propaganda, that’s what will ensure a healthy environment on Earth. It is important that we don’t mess up the planet worse with the wrong diagnosis!

Al Gore’s Nazi’s are a critical pivot point, a turning point, a crossing of Al Gore’s own river Rubicon

Al Gore has Crossed the Rubicon with his latest statements comparing Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka Human Caused Climate Change) to the battle against Nazi’s.

Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, and which has become an … adage. It states: “As a … discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Al Gore has now achieved this critical turning point fully committed forever and can no longer retreat back across his own river Rubicon.

the “Last Page” columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, “you have only to say ‘Godwin’s Law’ and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles.

When one stoops to using a Nazi comparison in a serious debate one is basically admitting that one no longer has any serious arguments left in one’s quiver. Al Gore committed a serious error in the ways of debate, he admitted that he has no serious arguments by stooping so low.

If you don’t believe in global warming aka climate change aka we humans did it then your a Nazi and since you’re a Nazi you are a criminal and since it’s a war you can be shot. That is the implication of Gore’s thinking taken to the extremes that some might want.

So duck, the real climate wars are coming. Being armed with the facts doesn’t seem to matter any more. Now they’ll seek out and destroy Nazi Climate Deniers!

It’s really interesting to me that so many people blindly follow people like Al Gore without even looking into whether or not what he is saying has any basis in the actual reality we live in rather than the imagined reality in their heads.

Maybe Al Gore and his Nazi’s are doing us all all favor by showing how radical and radically stupid he is being? Could this be a turning point in the debate? Could Al Gore have crossed the Rubicon, the point of no return? Yes. This is a critical turning point in the debate about climate. Fear mongering from the likes of Al Gore verse actual science grounded in objective reality!

Indeed, while 1998 was the warmest or second-warmest year on record, no year since has been as warm. And while there have been more warm years than cool ones in the past decade-and-a-half, the trend, since at least 2003, has been downward.

And — this is the one I really like — according to climatedepot.com,since Al Gore released his movie An Inconvenient Truth in October 2006, the Earth’s temperature has lost 0.74F, almost exactly the amount the UN’s climate panel claims was gained in the entire 20th century. The latter stat is apropos of nothing. As a correlation of Al Gore’s bombast vs. worldwide temperature averages, it is pure fluke. But you can bet that if there had been a similar rise in the past 33 months, the headlines would be blaring that the end of the world was near.

Gore Nazi Google News search.

---

Gory Nazis are best left to this summers crop of movies:

Inglorious Bastards Redux, unlike your parents Inglorious Bastards.

Nazis in Space Attacking Earth from the Moon, how cool is that?

Nazi Zombies from Hell, what more could you ask for (in a fun movie)?

Plus Nazi Dinosaurs in Antarctica! Where Gore’s Nazi Dinosaurs meet Climate Change head on!
.

The only way to save the polar bears is to send us money! – WWF TV Advertisement! Yeah right and I have a bridge to sell you in the arctic from Ellesmere Island to Hans Island!

CAUTION THIS ARTICLE HAS VIDEOS THAT SHOW POLAR BEARS KILLING ANIMALS AND ATTACKING HUMAN BEINGS FOR FOOD WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TO BEARS!

Just saw a blatant rip off ad on a US TV cable channel for (WARNING MONEY SCAM WEB SITE LINK FOLLOWS) http://helpWWFusa.org which redirects immediately to a money grab web page. The TV ad represented that the only way to save polar bears, which are going extinct according to the ad, is to send money. Just like a good old time religion scam tv ad/infomercial.

“Rising global temperatures are threatening wildlife all around the world and putting polar bears at risk of extinction. WWF is working to save polar bears and other species, and to preserve the habitats they need to survive. We need your help to put our solutions into action. With help from supporters like you, we can continue to protect endangered animals from climate change and other global threats. Your gift of just $16 a month could mean the difference between survival and extinction for polar bears, orangutans, tigers and other wildlife.”

Who will protect the bears from the WWF?

Who will protect your wallet from the WWF?

They also have a video with their false claims that misrepresent the facts.

What a repugnant scammer preying on people’s good nature to see their world improve conning them out of their money based upon false claims.

The funny thing is that they don’t need to make false claims if they had actual viable projects and spoke honestly about them rather than pushing their [hard] soft sell scam. The bears will die without your money! What hokum. What will go out of business without your money are the WWF scammers.

Polar Bears have survived for a very long time through multiple ice ages and the warm periods MUCH warmer than now in between. Leave them alone.

The Canadian and American governments (Greenland and Russia too?) take effective steps to protect the polar bears.

Reports are that their population is rising not falling!

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears’ demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, “the Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”

I’m sure that if humans actually try too hard to help the polar bears we might actually drive them extinct!

Polar Bears have survived for a very long time through multiple ice ages and the warm periods MUCH warmer than now in between. Leave them alone. Move them don’t shoot them when they dig into garbage and they’ll be fine.

Also, when you see one up close it’s likely too late – kiss your ass good bye WWF scammers.

Bears of all kinds are LAND SHARKS.

Shouldn’t the zoo officials have taken precautions to prevent their flesh eating monster from attacking someone in the first place? These are not your cute stuffed animals that you fell asleep with at night, these are flesh eating machines designed to survive and kill anything that they can to feed including YOU!

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a bear native to the Arctic Ocean and its surrounding seas. It is the world’s largest carnivore species found on land. It’s also the largest bear, together with the omnivore Kodiak bear which is approximately the same size[3], but which is a subspecies of the brown bear that is normally smaller than the polar bear. An adult male weighs around 400–680 kg (880–1,500 lb),[4] while an adult female is about half that size. Although it is closely related to the brown bear, it has evolved to occupy a narrow ecological niche, with many body characteristics adapted for cold temperatures, for moving across snow, ice, and open water, and for hunting the seals which make up most of its diet.[5] Although most polar bears are born on land, it spends most of its time at sea, hence its name meaning “maritime bear”, and can hunt consistently only from sea ice, spending much of the year on the frozen sea.

Binky (1974–1995) was a polar bear who lived at the Alaska Zoo in Anchorage, Alaska, and was famous for mauling zoo visitors. He was found orphaned on the coast of the Beaufort Sea in 1974 and was taken to the Alaska Zoo the next year.

In July 1994, an Australian tourist named Kathryn Warburton climbed over the second of two safety rails to get a close-up photograph and was bitten as the bear stuck his head through the bars and grabbed her; she received a broken leg and bite wounds. Another tourist caught the event on tape.[3] Binky kept the woman’s shoe for three days before it could be retrieved by zoo officials, and the day after the attack a news photographer took the iconic image of Binky with a shoe in his mouth that was printed in almost every press account of the incident.

You’ve got to be kidding me, naming a killing machine “binky”? WTF? Anthropomorphizing these killing machines as if they are cuddly toys or harmless as dogs is insanity. Also putting them into zoos is entirely irresponsible. Sure I like anyone have appreciated seeing them but they are evolved by Nature to be out in the wild and that’s where we should leave them. A better name for binky would be “bone crushing flesh eating machine”!

Another nutso human thinking that bears should have cute names. Anyone who gives a killing machine a cute name is guilty of any crimes that that killing machine commits as a result of it’s cute name. Give these animals accurate names: bone crusher, flesh eater, blood drinker, human taster, …, maybe then idiots will stay away. Actually don’t keep them in zoos at all. Videos are effective. Put a giant screen into the polar bear exhibits!

Unlike grizzly bears, polar bears are not territorial. Although stereotyped as being voraciously aggressive, they are normally cautious in confrontations, and often choose to escape rather than fight. Fat polar bears rarely attack humans unless severely provoked, whereas hungry polar bears are extremely unpredictable and are known to kill and sometimes eat humans. Polar bears are stealth hunters, and the victim is often unaware of the bear’s presence until the attack is underway. Whereas brown bears often maul a person and then leave, polar bear attacks are more likely to be predatory and are almost always fatal. However, due to the very small human population around the Arctic, such attacks are rare.

Protect these animals from those who exploit them! Zoos and wildlife organizations like WWF!!!

CAUTION GRUESOME: Take a quick look at the gruesome way polar bears treat humans: as food! Gruesome photos of what’s left after an attack from those lucky to get away!

I hope that you now know that these aren’t cute things to cuddle with and that they are built for survival in one of the most inhospitable zones on Earth!

Respect Nature or it’ll be resting with you in it’s belly satisfied with a tasty meal.

Extrapolating Climate

Paraphrasing Al Gore: “It got a little bit warmer in the arctic one day and we don’t know what will happen next year or the year after but I’m here screaming at you that the entire arctic is going to melt just because we extrapolated that it will from a very limited amount of data and Nature won’t disappoint us with it’s natural cycles by cooling off again.”

Of course 2009 is a record breaker for being cold in the arctic and at this point in the summer the arctic temperatures still haven’t risen above zero (they are hovering just below zero).

The Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) Scientists approach to climate change which Al Gore adopted. The above cartoon shows why simplistic thinkers like Al Gore get caught up in silly nonsense and exaggerated claims like he’s made about AGW.

In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points. It is similar to the process of interpolation, which constructs new points between known points, but the results of extrapolations are often less meaningful, and are subject to greater uncertainty. It may also mean extension of a method, assuming similar methods will be applicable. Extrapolation may also apply to human experience to project, extend, or expand known experience into an area not known or previously experienced so as to arrive at a (usually conjectural) knowledge of the unknown (e.g. a driver extrapolates road conditions beyond his sight while driving).

The problem with the Climate Models is that they extrapolate on so many levels and in so many ways that that they are essentially meaningless as predictors of climate.

While extrapolation is a useful mathematical tool in so many fields of science, business and medicine it’s value in prediction isn’t dependable as the systems in Nature are not able to be modeled. Yes, that’s right, Nature can’t be modeled as it’s in a category of systems that must be computed in full by the actual system itself in order to find out what is going to actually happen. In other words, Nature must run it’s course for us to know what it’s going to do!

Thanks yet again to xkcd for an amazing cartoon.

The Stunning Effectiveness of Homeopathy – NOT!

The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy have been a main point of criticism. Homeopaths believe that the methodical dilution of a substance, beginning with a 10% or lower solution and working downwards, with shaking after each dilution, produces a therapeutically active “remedy”, in contrast to therapeutically inert water. However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in a dose of the final remedy.[81] Since even the longest-lived noncovalent structures in liquid water at room temperature are only stable for a few picoseconds,[87] critics have concluded that any effect that might have been present from the original substance can no longer exist.[88] No evidence of stable clusters of water molecules was found when homeopathic remedies were studied using NMR.[89]

Furthermore, since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that any glass of water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance, and so by drinking water one would, according to homeopathic principles, receive treatment for every imaginable condition.[90]

Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions (fewer potential molecules in each dose) result in stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body.[82] This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in multitudinous experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes,[91] rats,[92] and humans.[93]

Physicist Robert L. Park, former executive director of the American Physical Society, has noted that
“since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.”

Park has also noted that “to expect to get even one molecule of the ‘medicinal’ substance allegedly present in 30X pills, it would be necessary to take some two billion of them, which would total about a thousand tons of lactose plus whatever impurities the lactose contained“.

The laws of chemistry state that there is a limit to the dilution that can be made without losing the original substance altogether. This limit, which is related to Avogadro’s number, is roughly equal to homeopathic potencies of 12C or 24X (1 part in 1024).

Killing your child with the delusional beliefs of Homeopathy:

Going to jail for killing your child with the delusional beliefs of Homeopathy:

Save yourself from homeopathy!

Calculus

Calculus. (Latin, calculus, a small stone used for counting) is a discipline in mathematics focused on limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series, and which constitutes a major part of modern university education. It has two major branches, differential calculus and integral calculus, which are related by the fundamental theorem of calculus. Calculus is the study of change, in the same way that geometry is the study of shape and algebra is the study of equations. A course in calculus is a gateway to other, more advanced courses in mathematics devoted to the study of functions and limits, broadly called mathematical analysis. Calculus has widespread applications in science, economics, and engineering and can solve many problems for which algebra alone is insufficient.

Historically, calculus was called “the calculus of infinitesimals”, or “infinitesimal calculus”. More generally, calculus (plural calculi) may refer to any method or system of calculation guided by the symbolic manipulation of expressions. Some examples of other well-known calculi are propositional calculus, variational calculus, lambda calculus, pi calculus and join calculus.