For At Least One Game, Mesa's NVK Driver Can Outperform NVIDIA's Proprietary Driver

[oiaohm]

1. Then why was the earth in an ice age at over 10 000 ppm co2?

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-7/

Excuse me. There is no icecore data that shows 10000ppm on earth. Highest possible found 1000ppm(but there was a handling error so it only possible).

400 to 600 ppm sounds scary but is negligible. Lets talk when we are at 1500+ ppm which is not even dangerous for all life just mildly dangerous for humans.

There is a problem where level CO2 do you think we find inside building suffering from sick building syndrome.

https://www.co2meter.com/en-au/blogs/news/high-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-indoors

Yes over 2000ppm. Take your normal air CO2 level *by 3 to 6 depending on how bad the building airflow is and that the CO2 level you expect to find in a bad building or car or so on. That modern day buildings.

cj.wijtmans also note something I did not give a rats about global warming. "lower human cognitive ability." There are historic building that human use to live in that if we rebuilt today and tried to live in we would die because humans lived in those building when atmospheric CO2 was under 200 and the building has a CO2 multiplier of 10+. Does help to explain why in particular areas in human history are having no technological advancement once they get to particular point of advancement because they are too dumb due to CO2 exposure to have technological advancement due to their building designs.

Yes lot of building that have been diagnosed with sick building syndrome would have been fine humans if atmospheric CO2 levels had not been increased since they were built. Increasing CO2 in atmosphere does en up rendering existing building/cars/... not usable.

Like it or not humans are built for particular environmental conditions we should became that we don't proceed terraforming earth into a place that incompatible with us.

Global warming is not something you can confirm part question in a lab. Building issues that exist now that did not exist when the building was built due to increasing CO2 is something you can confirm in the lab with build models. Of course there is a red line of atmospheric CO2 that no matter how we design our buildings we are screwed. Basically change in atmospheric CO2 we need to be able to understand the cause.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

Another lab measurable thing. As CO2 goes up the food quality of our common food plants for humans goes down. Basically we let CO2 in the atmosphere go too high we will basically end up dumb and stave and decent percentage of the population killed by toxins produced by plants. The earth seams to have a built in human population control system.

I have never understood with CO2 why are we worried about global warming. By the time CO2 assisted global warming is bad enough to effect humans with tempeture we have already been killed off the earth by being turned stupid and our food sources failing so we are not be on the earth to suffer the adverse effects of global warming.

There are some mistakes that people using from parties who study historic building that leading to 10000 and higher ppm figures this what would be the value of the building inside at today CO2 level not when historic humans were living in them. Yes the right CO2 time-frame has humans living in a max of 3000ppm(not particularly healthy at that level of course).

[LockedPotato]

My previous laptop had dual AMD graphics. One iGPU and one dGPU, both from AMD. It just werked under Linux. I now have a laptop with Intel/Nvidia (95W 3050 Ti) dual graphics. I haven't installed Linux on it yet because it seems like optimus is a massive PITA on Linux. Especially with Wayland. I'm thinking I'm going to wait until Nouveau/NVK matures and is usable for gaming. Even if it's not on par with the blob still. I think it'll "just werk" like my previous laptop did once the open source drivers are good enough.

[cj.wijtmans]

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-7/

Excuse me. There is no icecore data that shows 10000ppm on earth. Highest possible found 1000ppm(but there was a handling error so it only possible).



There is a problem where level CO2 do you think we find inside building suffering from sick building syndrome.

https://www.co2meter.com/en-au/blogs/news/high-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-indoors

Yes over 2000ppm. Take your normal air CO2 level *by 3 to 6 depending on how bad the building airflow is and that the CO2 level you expect to find in a bad building or car or so on. That modern day buildings.

cj.wijtmans also note something I did not give a rats about global warming. "lower human cognitive ability." There are historic building that human use to live in that if we rebuilt today and tried to live in we would die because humans lived in those building when atmospheric CO2 was under 200 and the building has a CO2 multiplier of 10+. Does help to explain why in particular areas in human history are having no technological advancement once they get to particular point of advancement because they are too dumb due to CO2 exposure to have technological advancement due to their building designs.

Yes lot of building that have been diagnosed with sick building syndrome would have been fine humans if atmospheric CO2 levels had not been increased since they were built. Increasing CO2 in atmosphere does en up rendering existing building/cars/... not usable.

Like it or not humans are built for particular environmental conditions we should became that we don't proceed terraforming earth into a place that incompatible with us.

Global warming is not something you can confirm part question in a lab. Building issues that exist now that did not exist when the building was built due to increasing CO2 is something you can confirm in the lab with build models. Of course there is a red line of atmospheric CO2 that no matter how we design our buildings we are screwed. Basically change in atmospheric CO2 we need to be able to understand the cause.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

Another lab measurable thing. As CO2 goes up the food quality of our common food plants for humans goes down. Basically we let CO2 in the atmosphere go too high we will basically end up dumb and stave and decent percentage of the population killed by toxins produced by plants. The earth seams to have a built in human population control system.

I have never understood with CO2 why are we worried about global warming. By the time CO2 assisted global warming is bad enough to effect humans with tempeture we have already been killed off the earth by being turned stupid and our food sources failing so we are not be on the earth to suffer the adverse effects of global warming.

There are some mistakes that people using from parties who study historic building that leading to 10000 and higher ppm figures this what would be the value of the building inside at today CO2 level not when historic humans were living in them. Yes the right CO2 time-frame has humans living in a max of 3000ppm(not particularly healthy at that level of course).

Its not caused by co2. Its caused by other complex carbon molecules. As i said for example tires going over the road produce these. The worse the quality of combustion the more complex toxic carbon molecules are released, again not co2.

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html

in greenhouses they raise co2 up to 1000 ppm. Its not toxic or harmful. I dont know what junk science you are reading but they probably did not do proper research. You can measure high co2 yes bit then completely ignore the other complex carbon molecules that are actually the culprit.

[oleid]

5. The warm periods in the two previous cycles before the current cycle were warmer than it is today and already showed an upwards trend. Way before humans had any impact.

Yes, it has been warmer before. Yes, we also used to have more CO2 in the atmosphere.
But there are two things to bear in mind here.
1. Previous changes were much slower than today, so nature had more time to adapt.
2. At the time when humans existed, they were able to cope with the warmer climate, but they simply migrated to other regions. Humans were not sedentary at that time and there were orders of magnitude fewer people living on the planet than today. About 1e4 people back then vs. 7e9 today.

7. Co2 is not the dominant ghg not even at 10 000 ppm and has little impact on temperature. That is only 0.1%.

There are few things on which there is more scientific consensus than on the influence of humans on climate change through CO2 or methane emissions.

[cj.wijtmans]

Yes, it has been warmer before. Yes, we also used to have more CO2 in the atmosphere.
But there are two things to bear in mind here.
1. Previous changes were much slower than today, so nature had more time to adapt.
2. At the time when humans existed, they were able to cope with the warmer climate, but they simply migrated to other regions. Humans were not sedentary at that time and there were orders of magnitude fewer people living on the planet than today. About 1e4 people back then vs. 7e9 today.




There are few things on which there is more scientific consensus than on the influence of humans on climate change through CO2 or methane emissions.

There is no evidence of the speed whatsoever since the timescale of the cycles is so large and no accurate measurements back then heck we barely have accurate measurements since recently since we added a couple of sensors in the ocean. Secondly np it was not warmer "before" it was warmer the 2 previous cycles -1and -2, showing a warming trend between cycles before humans had any influence over temp at all.

[oiaohm]

in greenhouses they raise co2 up to 1000 ppm. Its not toxic or harmful. I dont know what junk science you are reading but they probably did not do proper research. You can measure high co2 yes bit then completely ignore the other complex carbon molecules that are actually the culprit.

What you get away with in a greenhouse is not what you get away with in a field.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076292/

Rice major food. You increase CO2 rice grows faster. Rice no longer produces the chemicals that protect itself from pests. So pest eat more of it and the food quality worse.

https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/71/19/5990/5873843

Then you go to another grain crop. wheat. This one is particularly bad. Increased CO2 does not increase yield at all. Reduces plant resistance to disease and pests.

This now means higher risk of crops being toxic due to fungal infections and other things.

We found that elevated CO₂ had a clear effect on grain composition, leading to lower contents of N, amino acids, and microelements

This is the real deadly line in that report. This has been found across all in-depth studies into the plants we use as grains. As CO2 goes up the nutrition of all grain goes down with close to zero yield increase.

Some of the reason we are overeating items like breads is the grains that was used to make the bread has come a lower quality due to us living in a time of higher CO2.

Yes not all greenhouses in fact increase CO2 because lots plants you end up with poorer quality product with increased CO2 to the point humans will not even buy the product.

https://www.linde-gas.com/en/images/...dy_RZ_VIEW_tcm 17-590021.pdf

in greenhouses they raise co2 up to 1000 ppm.

This is lets skip the critical details. Lets take the above greenhouse growing tomato. A tomato is something that does increase yield with higher CO2 but only up to 1000ppm past that yield does not increase. Food quality does drop as well when you look at the composition of the tomatos.

Do notice the above paper writes 500-1000ppm as the CO2 value this is important.

In most instances it enriches with CO₂ from sunrise until mid to late morning

from the above document.

This line is key so sunrise to late morning the greenhouse goes up to 1000ppm but by sunset its down to 500ppm. Plants need to breath O2 at night or get sick.

I have build and run CO2 enriched greenhouse for commercial usage so you have moring CO2 ppm value to hit and a sunset CO2 ppm value to hit. The sunset one is critical get it wrong lose the complete greenhouse.

Yes enriched greenhouses you can push to 2000ppm but you cannot stay anywhere near that level without light or the plants will die. There is a difference between the CO2 level a plant will tolerate with light and without light.

Most plants to live though the night need a ppm under 700 some need 500ppm of CO2. We are getting down right close to where some crops not growing under controlled conditions will just be dead because they will not be able to live though the night.

Greenhouse enrichment studies for commercial usage are not like Greenhouse enrichment studies attempting to emulate what happens with the atmosphere don't mix them up in future please. The commercial crop usage will tell you way higher CO2 ppm because these are not 24 hour CO2 ppm values.

cj.wijtmans basically the study you pulled out was like me taking a studies that human can hold breath for 1+min so human does not need 02 but with plants. Yes a human with restricted O2 manages to do things human without restricted O2 could never do as well. Yes this is the same problem push to too far and opps just killed the human/plant.

The 24/7 CO2 ppm studies yes increased CO2 with no shaping like the natural atmosphere like the ones I pulled out on rice and wheat say we have major problems growing crops in fields if we keep on letting CO2 increase.

The commercial greenhouse studies the ones with shaping where you have 2 CO2 values one for the start of day one for night show increase yields. Problem the night value in these studies for CO2 is between 500-700ppm.

Of course we have not had people do studies on what exactly happens in major ways when you decrease CO2 on plants. In the small number of reports that have done this the food quality increases.

[oleid]

There is no evidence of the speed whatsoever since the timescale of the cycles is so large and no accurate measurements back then heck we barely have accurate measurements since recently since we added a couple of sensors in the ocean.

We have plenty of proxy values that can get used to determine local and when being combined global temperature and CO2 deviations.

Secondly np it was not warmer "before" it was warmer the 2 previous cycles -1and -2, showing a warming trend between cycles before humans had any influence over temp at all.

What are the exact windows of the cycles you're referring to? Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

In any case: yes, there are deviations of the global average temperature since the earth exists. That changes usually can get attributed to events with global impact. You cannot, however, conclude that since it happened before and humans had no influence back then that it is the same way this time. It just shows us that there can be multiple influences and that science has to rule out multiple factors. And this is what they did in the last 50 years. Like I said before: there is an enormous agreement in the scientific community that we are to blame this time.

[and.elf]

In calling the need for a mod to remove all off-topic posts. Please keep your posts related to the current subject.

[SophTherapy]

Hello everybody,

I would like to apologize for my posts under nickname "sophisticles" and "hel88".

the thing is, I am very sick person. Schizophrenia with manic depression.
When I'm on my medication like now, I feel ashamed for the things that I do when not on medication.

For example, when I'm not using my therapy properly I get this crazy tendency to troll on linux forums. For that devious purpose I am using nicknames "sophisticles" and "hel88". under those nicknames I write crazy, insane things. when I am on regular therapy like now, I cannot believe the crap that I wrote under those 2 nicknames.

overall, I would like all of you to know that I don't really mean what I write under those 2 nicknames and also, I love linux, open source and gpl. and yes, microsoft sucks.