/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8933962
>How specific do you have to go in this field? Can you study evolutionary bio and proficiently understand across all species and eras or would you have to focus on something like mosasaurs.
Studying evo bio gives you a broadly applicable toolset, but generally you either focus on a certain group or on a particular preservational/taphonomic process. There are trilobite guys, and echinoderm guys, and bivalve guys, and brachiopod guys, and that's not even getting into vertebrate paleo! But there are also paleoecology guys, and konservat-lagerstatten guys, and stable isotope paleoclimatology guys, and biogeochemistry guys too. (And of course there are niche fields like ichnology and paleobotany and biostratigraphy and stuff.)

To give a few examples, my current advisor studied graptolites for his thesis work, but ended up becoming a trilobite specialist (Ordovician trilobites in particular). My upcoming advisor (for when I go off to start my PhD in the fall) doesn't study a taxon, though; rather, he looks specifically at predator-prey interactions and parasitism.
I'm not the paleofag to ask about specializations within the field, though; my thesis work is on an Ordovician trilobite, but I'm not sure what I want to devote my career to yet. (When I got my B.S. I was more interested in vert paleo, but inverts kinda grew on me.)

>Is it possible to still be an "adventurer" in this day and age?
You might enjoy the fieldwork. But I'll warn you, it ain't for the faint of heart or hard of breath.

>>8629860
>when they happen, as they regularly do
The nifty thing about supervolcanoes is that their eruptions aren't actually regular the way those of smaller volcanoes are. Because so much more pressure has to build up, and because the intervals are so long, normally slow processes can affect the accumulation of magma above the hotspot. supervolcano eruptions are far rarer than you ever imagined, and very unpredictable (on geologic timescales)

>>8629866
>any number of /sci/ participants are capable of reading and interpreting data
the trouble is most people seem to have a lot of trouble interpreting data, particularly when it relates to a technical field they're unfamiliar with. it's easy enough to look at a simple data series and eyeball the trend; it's frequently a lot harder to understand what that trend represents in the real world.

>>8629879
>skeptic advances unpopular theory
>evidence overwhelmingly supports unpopular theory
>unpopular theory gradually accepted by scientific community
>"well the skeptics have been right before, so you have to believe my idea even though it doesn't have evidence supporting it"
the reason people like Wegener and McClintock and Einstein were vindicated is because the evidence supported their ideas. until you've got that, you ain't got a pot to piss in.

>>8629910
>>8629912
>Happer revealed as big oil paid shill
>deniers immediately shit pants and try to distract from it

>>8629921
>A white paper he had already written
Except he hadn't actually already written it, you brainlet. They offered to pay him to write the report.

>>8629927
>rounds to 1F
Really? Rather than report 1.4, you're gonna round it down to 1.0? Rounding errors aren't supposed to change a value by a whole TWENTY EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT.
You got caught in a fuckstupid lie, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. Sad!

>>8629964
deniers BTFO