/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10070866
>There's literally nothing different between he two except one is a bell curve of graph bars because of many trials and one is a single bar at 50% because of one trial. You made a bad analogy.
You're so close to getting it you can almost taste it...
(the single bar is at 100% by the way, brainlet)

>when have global warming predictions ever come true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
most of the shit conservatives scream about is a strawman, predictions that were never actually made by climatologists.

>>9157623
>You've got a degree in learning by heart
confirmed for never taking a geoscience course ever
oh also I've got TWO degrees in geo

>my degree taught me about system modeling, and the increadibly complex behavior that may arise from even the most simple, linear systems
>You would be delusional if simple cause->effect relationships are enough to derive predictions in a dynamic system
there are two ways in which you're fucking up:

one, you're talking about predictions without considering the precision, confidence, or intervals of those predictions. YES, it is true that it is nigh-impossible to exactly predict a particular state in such a complex and difficult-to-measure system. BUT, it is entirely possible to make a prediction WITHIN CERTAIN BOUNDS, AT A SPECIFIED LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE. we don't have the ability to say "at X time it will be Y temperature and Z pressure", but we can say "around X time there is a 99% chance that temperature and pressure will be within these ranges". and then you improve your measurements and models to try and shrink those ranges a little.
a marble rolling down a bumpy hillside is hard to model, but any jerk with a decent grasp of Newtonian mechanics can tell you about where it's probably going to end up.

two, you're ignorant of some very basic concepts related to earth science. clouds are made of liquid or solid water, not gaseous water (which is invisible to us). water vapor in the atmosphere is tightly controlled by temperature and pressure, thanks to the oceans. CO2's low concentration doesn't preclude it from driving warming.
you can't claim that you understand this better than the rest of us when you're so obviously wrong on the very basics.

>>8777659
>Trump is more popular than hillary
sigh
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html
nice appeal to anecdotal evidence, but people actually like Clinton significantly more than they like Trump. (and that was BEFORE he actually took office and hilariously shit the bed.)
think of how unpopular Clinton is...and then realize that people like Orange Daddy even less.

go ahead, keep posting your (((alternative facts))). some people just aren't cut out to live in the real world...

>>8622201
>>8622218
>>8622230
even taking Trump at his word that he's worth $10B, he'd have even more if he'd just invested his inheritance in an index fund.
>http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
What kind of genius businessman can't even beat the stock market?

>>8581096
>objective fact
>unquantifiable and unsupported prediction
pick one and only one

>their inability to properly function in a first world nation rests on the average genetics of blacks
see that's the thing. you cloak your ideology in scientific terms by claiming that it's all just genetics, but there's no actual evidence (as I'm sure you're dimly aware) to support you.

>there is NO black majority city in the United States that has a crime rate on par or below the US average
cities, REGARDLESS of demographics or color, tend to have high crime. it's a well-known effect of population density.

>serious question
>AiG
STOEP

>>8144435
>nutrition isn't their top priority, making monkey is.
monkey cloning technician here, can confirm