/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9889308
obviously different races must be able to synthesize different amino acids, then, and the claim of 9 essential amino acids for all humans must be a myth.
like, they're different in all these other ways, but this absolutely 100% stops at peptide biosynthesis because uh...biological constraints, right?

this is what you stormfags sound like when you insist that when populations diverge, they must necessarily diverge in all traits.

>>9750280
>enlighten me as to how perspective works
perspective effects (apparent convergence, foreshortening, etc.) depend entirely on the relative position in space of the objects observed: that is, the distances and angles between them. rotating the camera doesn't change any of these so long as the camera remains in the same place.
toddlers can understand this.

>Projection
fool, I work with complicated mathematical models (just did a project involving CO2 sequestration) and spatial statistical methods (my masters work was on morphometric ontogeny). my bread and butter involves the kind of math that apparently terrifies you because, again, it's too complex for your tiny brain to make sense of.
>not an argument
my argument is that you believe math is inherently untrustworthy to the point of outright DISMISSING anything that involves math. maybe this explains why you don't understand basic geometry.

>>9542890
this. PCA is just about squishing down a big nth-dimensional data set into two or three dimensions so you can visualize it better and identify which variables actually contribute significantly to variance. (good rule of thumb is any principal component that doesn't explain >10% of total variance isn't important.)
actual cluster analysis requires further techniques; PCA just isn't about that.

t. guy who did relative warp analysis (PCA for morphometrics) for his thesis.

>>8754588
this may be news to you, but AmTrak is a for-profit business. it took over publicly constructed infrastructure, and it receives subsidies (and what big businesses don't these days?) but it is a privately held and managed corporation.
your argument kinda falls flat on the basis that your vaunted example of inefficient public works is actually a private sector mess.

check your facts next time, you fuckwit.

>>8668789
>It's given as a ratio of c13 to c12. c12 is the stable isotope, it should be millions of times higher than c13 anway, but at any rate, the isotope that should really be downgraded is C14. Natural sources contain C14, ancient sources like fossil fuels do not. Why don't climate scientists directly measure the percentage amount of Carbon 14 compared to carbon as a whole?
okay there are some problems with this. both 13C and 12C are stable, but 12C is way more common naturally. 14C is radioactive and is continually generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays impacting the earth. the trouble with trying to measure changes in the 14C anomaly is that there are a multiple possible explanations; a lower anomaly could mean more light carbon emitted from within the earth, or it could be changes in cosmic ray flux caused by variability in the solar wind causing less 14C to be produced. and even if you tie it to emissions of lighter carbon (we can rule out solar variability through the sunspot record) that still doesn't tell you whether it's fossil fuel carbon or inorganic carbon (e.g. from volcanism) that's being emitted, since both will be entirely depleted of 14C due to long-term isolation from the atmosphere.
luckily, fossil fuels and inorganic carbon differ in 13C content. lots of biochemical reactions are finely tuned, so finely tuned that they can preferentially select more common isotopes of a given element based on tiny differences in bond strength. so when plants fix carbon from the atmosphere, they select ever so slightly for 12C over 13C, causing organic carbon to be isotopically light. purely physical processes don't do this. so if the atmosphere is suddenly becoming more depleted in 13C (relative to 12C), it's extremely strong evidence that some organic carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) is making its way into the air. yes, 13C is already rare, but it's getting even RARER.

>>8668791
>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts

>>7676924
>earth's biosphere had been changing since its inception, so about 3.5 billion years. that asteroid impacted in less than a second? so I'd say probability that the K-T extinction was terrestrial in origin is 99.99999% or something like that
never doubt the capacity of brief but extreme (even if relatively small in immediate scope) events to cause drastic change.

>>7676963
Kingsman was shit from beginning to end.
>hey maybe if we put English accents and monocles on a trashy spy movie it'll seem sophisticated and interesting

>>7676977
>baiting this hard

>>7677878
>The hotspot doesn't exist
Spotted the denier. You realize that only people who read WUWT care about this imagined lack of a hotspot, right? Anyone with any actual understanding of the science doesn't make that line of argument.
OP, for your reference: the missing hotspot he refers to is the result of deniers comparing a model to readings and looking at the difference. The only problem is, the model doesn't describe the same thing as the measurements. Also, the hot spot that deniers inexplicably think should exist is not nearly as important as changes in the lapse rate. Complaining about the missing hotspot is roughly equivalent to using the word "chemtrail".

>>7650760
>/sci/ - Wizards and Homework