/sci/ - Science & Math

>what are you studying?
>paleontology
>oh, like dinosaurs?
>I'm an invertebrate paleontologist actually
>oh, you study...*thinking noises*...bugs?
sure, let's go with that

paleofag here.
there's plenty of use for comp sci skills in the field, especially with biomechanics, morphometrics, and paleoecology due to the amount of modeling and computation involved.

talk to prospective advisors. your fit with your advisor is more important than the quality of the school over all. oh, and learn R if you don't know it already. R is love, R is life.

>>9826197
>99.9999999999999999% of all people
that equates to 1 quintillionth of people being "mistakes", by which I assume you mean "intersex".
since the total number of humans that have ever lived is about 100 billion, you're saying that one ten-millionth of a human has been intersex, or about 8 mg of tissue.
by your own stated (read as: pulled out of your ass) number, the total amount of intersex humanity throughout our species's entire existence comes to about the mass of a flake of dandruff.

I know you dumbfucks are just making up numbers off the top of your head, but seriously, have a little respect for the power of decimal places.
traps are gay btw
also, gender is bimodal but not strictly binary.

>>9490934
>Water vapor the most important greenhouse gas
water in the atmosphere is in near-equilibrium with the oceans, you brainlet. putting more water vapor into the atmosphere has only a brief effect, as it is counterbalanced by an increase in precipitation in accordance with Le Chatelier's principle.
There is no such large reservoir of CO2 for the atmosphere to communicate with. When we put more CO2 into the atmosphere, it quickly overwhelms the ability of natural sinks to remove it.

also what >>9494623 said.

>M.S. in geosciences w/graduate minor in biology
>PhD student in geosciences
>TA any intro geo lab I want
>23k starting

>>8762243
>>8761915
>He spent fuck knows how much time ripping through every post I made,
did you really not know archive searches are a thing?
also, thanks for confirming that the same sad tosser did indeed make all those posts.

>>8762289
>Surface forcing represents a complementary, underutilized resource with which to quantify the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on downwelling longwave radiation. This quantity is distinct from stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing at the tropopause, but both are fundamental measures of energy imbalance caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases. The former is less than, but proportional to, the latter
Your whole argument is based on the increase in downwelling radiation being smaller than the top-of-atmosphere imbalance, allegedly because natural forcings are filling the gap, and yet you post this quote? If one quantity is smaller than but proportional to another, an increase by the same factor will result in an arithmetically larger increase of the latter than of the former. (Put in a less convoluted manner, 5% more of 500 is bigger than 5% more of 100, even though they increase by the same factor.) Do you understand simple arithmetic?

>>8762293
>As shown earlier, the answer is a mere one-third.
as shown earlier, you're comparing two different quantities to get this figure.
>99% of wavelengths that CO2 can absorb have already been absorbed at 200 ppm.
>CO2 is doing almost as much as it possibly can. That's why most of the warming is natural.
[citation needed] on that. but more importantly, you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding how greenhouse gases work. it's not about what fraction of CO2 gets absorbed at some point in the atmosphere; it's about how many times the average photon is absorbed and reemitted. because every time it's reemitted, it travels in a random direction; each "absorption thickness" effectively sends half the CO2 back down to the surface.