/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10602363
>I didn't say he didn't read it, I just said he didn't actually pay attention to it.
this is just about the most pathetic attempt at spin/damage control I have ever seen on this godforsaken website. this is, like, toddler-tier explaining.
>I didn't kick him, I nudged him with my foot!

>>9745837
>>9745872
>poor camera quality leads to bloom
>bloom makes brighter objects look bigger
>therefore the sun is closer during midday
ah yes, proof by using the world's shittiest instrumentation

>>9734816
>intelligence isn't a trait vital to the life habit of humans
o I am laffin

>a unique biosynthetic pathway isn't going to arise de novo in a group of organisms that didn't have it before
this is literally how organisms evolve new biochemicals

>when you turn into a nigger
you literally just posted a figure showing that it's the other way around

>its laughably obvious you really have nothing substantial to refute by claims
Danth's Law applies?

Literally all you have to say is that genetic distance between two populations directly implies that they will have diverged in all traits...except for the traits which you arbitrarily think might be conserved. And naturally you are unable to explain why intelligence wouldn't be conserved; you immediately resort to proof by repetition. Amusing, but not impressive.

>>8994069
>Your mention of cladograms not stopping at "species" is a concession that the differences observed in the particular flies your brought up are files do not qualify as speciation.
No, it is not. All I said is that a cladogram will have the same appearance regardless of whether some fork is classified as species or subspecies in level.
>reproductive isolation in species "concept"
in sexually reproducing taxa, the biological species concept holds that populations are part of the same species iff they can interbreed to produce viable (and fertile) offspring. this has some trouble with ring species, and with things like lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (P. tigris) which can be made to interbreed but do not under natural conditions.
>Also, how do we know they don't breed?
Because in the wild, they emerge at different times and have fairly short adult lifespans, you twit. (Not to mention, the genetic differences between them suggest that little to no interbreeding is taking place.)
see: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/62806/336061a0.pdf
>Especially you, how do YOU know?
Because I, unlike you, am capable of reading and understanding technical literature.

>>8870798
the coming ice age is scheduled for ~8300 years in the future.
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900567
assuming human civilization is still around, we'll be able to adapt to the gradual cooling (especially given the kinds of technology we'll likely have at our disposal then). the sudden (century-scale) disruption currently caused by climate change is far more threatening, and the (uncertain) prospect of tipping over to a hothouse condition (no ice caps, no precessional ice ages) is even more so. ice ages aren't nearly as scary as you want to believe.

nice false dichotomy though, have a smuganimeface.jpg

>>8780229
>>8780249
>>8780266
>hurr we win every time
>and we're totally not /pol/

>>8749400
>Actual Climate Change Pronouncements by Scientists
literally only 1 out of the 10 has any basis in any actual climate change pronouncement by a scientist whatsoever
(care to guess which one?)

>invokes processes operating on timescales of millions of years
>to explain a hundred-year trend
I shiggy that diggy

Brad Sageman is cool though. I volunteered in his lab for a little while when I was an underageb&. Neat professor, does interesting research.

>>8580914

>Or if you're not retarded just major in Physics

>>8580748
>homicides still skyrocketing
SKYROCKETING, GUISE

>>8530763
holy shit, you are stupid.
Jacka and Budd doesn't make PREDICTIONS; as the title would suggest, it's all about MEASURING CHANGES AS THEY HAPPEN. There's no modeling in that paper, as you'd know if you'd bothered to actually read the whole thing.
>http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/24/041/24041533.pdf#page=74
Boer et al. also contradicts your boneheaded claim. from RIGHT THERE IN THE ABSTRACT:
>The simulated accumulation rate of permanent snow cover decreases markedly over Greenland and increases slightly over Antarctica.
HEY LOOK, MODERATE WARMING IS PREDICTED TO CAUSE SLIGHT INCREASES IN PERMANENT SNOW COVER IN ANTARCTICA
Also, this is an EQUILIBRIUM response (which has the luxury of avoiding messy circulation models). We're nowhere near equilibrium yet (still in a warming phase) and the whole point I made is that ocean circulation SLOWS THE RATE at which the Antarctic communicates with the midlatitudes.


Qi et al.:
>Antarctic SIE [sea ice extent]
and this is where babby learns the difference between sea ice extent and sea ice volume. hint: one is area, and the other is volume.

So basically, your argument makes sense only if you don't actually READ THE GODDAMN PAPERS YOU'RE CITING and instead just pull a few words out of the abstract and call it a day. QED, ya drillbit.

>>8508021

>Overall the historical geological record indicates ice ages are becoming more frequent over geological time.
Not Actually True. Keep clinging to that meme though, it's funny.
>We know the earth has a molten core as we don't have to even drill down very far to feel the heat.
We know that the outer core of the Earth is molten (the inner core is actually solid) because of the P-wave shadow zone. The fact that the deep crust and the mantle are hot has very little to do with rocks melting. (In fact, when rocks melt to produce magmas, they usually COOL while doing so.)
>I was just making a point it seems to be ignored in all climate calculations.
You're demonstrating your ignorance. You really think the slow cooling of the Earth's core influences 100-year trends in temperature at the surface? Let's say that 10 million years' worth of cooling causes temperature to drop by 1 K. That's pretty gradual, right? In fact, over the course of all of human prehistory, we'd only see a change of 0.2 K.
Well, that super gradual effect would imply that in the Cambrian period, when animals really made their big appearance, the surface would have been 54 K hotter than today, hot enough to fry an egg. And 2.2 billion years ago, when the Great Oxygen Catastrophe was getting started, the temperature would have been 220 K hotter; things would be literally boiling hot for another billion years still. And yet we know from fossil evidence that liquid water was abundant at the surface, that there was plenty of aquatic life, and that there were even major glaciation events. CLEARLY, therefore, the Earth's cooling cannot have a noticeable effect on climate on the timescales of interest.
See, we can predict the future by studying the past. And if you'd only had the sense to realize that, you wouldn't have made that retarded-ass post. But you did.

>>8380039
in order:
>Freeman Dyson, a physicist who agrees AGW is real and a major problem but thinks that incomplete models are being given too much credence
>Bjorn Lomborg, an ECONOMIST who agrees that AGW is real, but thinks that the risks are exaggerated and that there are better ways to combat it than Kyoto etc.
>Myron Ebell, an ECONOMIST who works for a denier think tank and has no published articles to his name
>Kiminori Itoh, an INDUSTRIAL CHEMIST with no background in climatology or atmospheric scientist, who works for the Heartland Institute
>Ivar Giaever, a MECHANICAL ENGINEER and SOLID STATE PHYSICIST (the only Nobel laureate in this list)
>William Happer, an ATOMIC PHYSICIST
>Ian Plimer, a MINING GEOLOGIST
>Michael Crichton, a fucking NOVELIST
>Alan Carlin, an ECONOMIST
>Patrick Michaels, a CLIMATOLOGIST. Note that he's the only climatologist on this list...and also that he admits that 40% (!!!) of his funding comes from the oil industry.

So to sum up:
two physicists with no background in climate
a chemist, again with no background in climate
two economists
a mining engineer
a novelist
a climatologist who's directly dependent on oil money by his own admission
and two guys who actually agree that AGW is indeed happening.

nice list.

>How wrong are they in this page?
exactly how wrong they are on everything else.

the teal deer is that they claim paleoanthropologists can't find any transitional forms. this is explained by saying that everything is either an ape that paleoanthropologists falsely claim has some human features or a human that they falsely claim has some ape features. of course, this line of argument sort of falls apart when you see something like early Homo erectus, which walked upright and made tools and used fire, but still had the long arms and round abdomen of an ape.

>>8100720
>None of those articles are tinfoil.
In fairness, none of them are articles. Let's go over them one by one:
-tinfoil blog post alleging that a certain paper was taken down by the anti-smoking zealots. the paper, linked below, contains strong but not conclusive preliminary evidence that smoking fucks you up.
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray//sr10_034acc.pdf
-tinfoil blog post alleging that the research shows no correlation between smoking and mortality, with a few linked papers at the bottom that demonstrate the exact opposite
-tinfoil blog post with claims literally copied and pasted from the above two sources
-tinfoil blog post in the hilariously named Journal of Theoretics making similar claims

what do they all have in common? they claim that smoking isn't bad for you, that it's all a lie by Big Pharma, and then they link papers that prove that claim wrong. that's kinda pathetic desu senpai

>>8006033
you do realize that you (or whichever fuckface) actually (probably unintentionally) labeled his images as coming from /pol/, right?
>>8004876
>>8004882
>>8004883
>>8004887
(check dem filenames)

>you church of AGWtards are the laughing stock of the public. Literally nobody buys your shit.
Oops: http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx
>64% of Americans /worried/
>only 10% think there won't be any effects
>65% think humans are to blame
you're doing that thing again where you confuse your opinions with the facts

>>8006038
>climate changed in the past for natural reasons
>therefore it can't be changing for man-made reasons now
top zozzle. hey, your body temperature changes around a bit on its own, right? then you won't mind if I set you on fire, right?

>>8003897
>>8003913
0/10

>>7967053
>https://www.wolframalpha.com/

>>7961043
THE ORIGIN OF THE SITE WAS INTENDED FOR YOUR SO CALLED ''PEDO'S'' but nice bait any way

>>7959797
Like sitting in your basement and making cod videos?

>>7960027
so the only alternative to fucking up the biosphere is to completely dismantle our society?
wow, and YOU call US alarmists.
>WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
>OR WE'LL ALL FUCKING DIE