/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11282594
>>11283939
Kurisu is a neuroscientist, not a physicist

>>9746010
oh, the fact that bloom is a problem isn't proof of the heliocentric model. it's just proof that your video >>9745837 isn't evidence in support of your claim.
bloom alone explains why the sun in that video appears to be larger during midday; the same video taken using higher quality equipment will show that the sun's apparent size doesn't change (except for some slight atmospheric lensing effects messing with its outline at the horizon).

>>8995173
But enough about the miscellaneous whinging ignorant complaints related to the fossils. Let's talk about the complaints leveled against the reconstruction:

>How could anyone make an accurate drawing based on these few bones?
Just because you are incapable of something doesn't mean it's impossible.

>How does the artist know H. habilis had an opposable thumb?
Because opposable thumbs are present in literally all the great apes known. It's all about parsimony.

>Consider this artist’s painting that we found on the Hunterian Museum web page. It shows Homo habilis using a crude stone tool.
And this is known because stone tools, and bones bearing their marks, have been found along with Homo habilis.

It all comes down to "well, I just don't understand how they could know this", the classic argument from incredulity. As usual, it speaks more to the ignorance of the speaker than to anything about the methods of the experts.
Forensic scientists use basically the same methods to reconstruct the build and appearance of murder victims whose otherwise unidentifiable partial remains are found. The fact that these reconstructions, from fragmentary remains, are frequently successful in identifying the deceased is proof that these techniques work. Chew on that for a moment.

>>8995243
apparently it takes a PhD to realize that "larger in apes than it is in humans" does not mean "absent in humans", you moron.

>>8870382
>Agriculture emmits THE MOST AMOUNT OF MAN-MADE CO2
land use changes only account for 10-30% of CO2, according to Salinger (2007)
why must deniers cite sources that BTFO their own claims? could it be that they haven't actually read the papers and are merely repeating claims they heard from some other idiot?
>and nobody talks about it:
the IPCC devotes big chunks of their reports to agriculture and the effects of deforestation, you nitwit
>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
>https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/srl-en.pdf

>>8870412
>http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
Oh look, another graph showing higher CO2 levels pre-1855, back when they didn't have a way to accurately measure CO2 levels and everything was open-system and therefore contaminated by the lab environment (urban).
>At first, the levels found were about 350 ppm. Further researchs that beared in mind these processes showed higher levels of about 500 ppm.
Your link references Neftel et al. (1982), but you're badly distorting their results.
>http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/neftel82-85.pdf
As you can see in Figure 1, the samples in which high (>350 ppm) CO2 concentrations were recorded are all prone to enormous experimental uncertainties (error bars with spans of 100-250 ppm), and all but one were observed to be contaminated with drill fluid, casting doubt on the accuracy of those readings. Additionally, though the overall trend in CO2 content closely matched that of the d18O signal (proxy for size of icecaps), there are no excursions in the isotopic signal that correspond to the observed spikes in CO2 concentration.
All this just goes to show that you should read the papers you cite instead of just claiming they prove your point. Because actual geoscientists like me WILL read them, and we'll quickly realize whether you're serious or just full of shit.

>>8752000
>muh cunspuracee
>>>/x/

>>8720372
>cherry-picks paper (written by unabashed denier, natch) that claims solar irradiance is increasing
>accuses consensus that solar irradiance is holding steady of being cherry-picked
Projection much?

if solar activity were responsible for the warming, we'd expect days to warm faster than nights, summers to warm faster than winters, and the tropics to warm faster than the poles. and yet we're seeing the opposite. care to explain how that is?

>>8700579
>thread is on page 3
>guy posts demanding thread be saged
>bumps thread with post
idontbelieveyou.dll

>>8638051
>We need to produce a way to travel through the vastness of space. This is our collective duty.
>we
>our
>collective

Nice try, you transhumanist commie.

There's plenty of room on Earth and plenty of exploitable resources in our solar system. In all likelihood, we will never exhaust it.

There is no reason to venture into the cosmos on a rickety rowboat powered by friendship.

>>8636384
>/pol/ is not unreasonable
>relatively moderate political views
nigga they still think PizzaGate is real
and right now there are like ten Canada hate threads up, three or four TEH JEWZZZ threads, and a few calling for the impeachment of the judge who dared to grant a stay against an executive order issued by Dorito Mussolini

>Since the cerebral cortex processes information, increased brain fissures increases the percentage of the brain that is cerebral cortex and should increase intelligence without increasing the volume of the brain, although this is difficult to establish quantitatively (Baker, 1974, p. 432)
>should increase intelligence
>difficult to establish quantitatively

If you spend enough time in /pol/ you will learn to deny meteorologists on the basis that their data is questionable.
But you will also learn that it's perfectly fine to believe in pseuds who have no data at all!

>>8629570
it's a bump in the field

>Just why is it that science and reason is seen as important?
he said, using his silicon transistor-based computational machine networked with thousands and thousands of other similar machines to communicate with hundreds of other individuals (none of whom have died of cholera or the plague) spread across the continents through the medium of a Bhutanese cheesemaking imageboard

sage and move on.

>>8581677
>hand-waving
this from the guy who
>Must have been a pretty decent shift in the black rate to register so highly in total since we know nothing changed in the white community recently.
>there is a war going on within our country
>blacks will always lag behind every other race of human beings
>the USA would legitimately see huge jumps in standard of living measures just by having no blacks

>w-won't someone think of the children
>some kid got shot, therefore murder rates are SKYROCKETING
>muh anecdotal evidence

>>8535873
>Do they even factor in the worlds livestock?
Yes.
>The effect of large water bodies?
Yes.
>The weather itself?
Yes.
Amazingly enough, the people who do this for a living actually put some thought into their models. Seriously, the examples you gave are, like, some of the FIRST THINGS you put into an atmospheric model.

>I am merely questioning what looks to be mostly wild speculation being passed off as science.
You're claiming that because YOU can't understand how it's possible to accurately model global climate, it's not actually possible to do so. This is sometimes known as "argument from incredulity" and is fallacious because of the implicit claim of "if it is possible, I can understand it". Just because YOU lack the capacity to make sense of it doesn't mean it's nonsensical; sometimes it's just that, well, you're a brainlet.

>What happens if the Yellowstone caldera blows a gasket?
Models typically don't account for black swan events like that because they are ultra-low frequency and ultra-high impact. (For the same reason, actuarial life expectancy tables don't account for the possibility of a meteorite impact wiping out half of humanity.) But the Yellowstone hotspot has NOT had a cataclysmic eruption in recorded history; so long as this remains the case, models can be accurate without needing to account for it. See how this works?

>>8516261
>in the proud tradition of speaking truth to power,
>much as Galileo Galilei once did!
>I shall cherry-pick 1998 as a starting point, conflate sea ice with glaciers, and insist that all evidence against my position is fake.

>>8348622
Wow I didn't know cavemen had weather satellites! /s

Those peaks and troughs are happening over the course of thousands of years. For example: those melting rates are measured in millions of years. Earths climate temp is rising incredibly fast over a shot period of time; much quicker then historically expected.

You do realize our atmosphere was prominently carbon rich during those warmer year?

What are the factors causing Earths temperature to rise and fall over these large periods of time? Volcanic activity, orbital periods, sun temperature, or greenhouse gases?

It seems like you're friend is misinterpreting data for his own benefit or is lacking any knowledge of historical climatology. He is however correct about over speculation by certain climatologists; the debate currently isn't over IF but HOW MUCH.

> P, therefore Q
> Q, therefore P
Just like historical climate data has no relationship with the greenhouse gas effect :^)

The greenhouse gas effect is real, here I found a page for your level of education: http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

>>8348680
Venus's atmosphere is made up of 97% CO2 (resulting in much higher surface pressure than Earths) . I'll remind you that the gas giants are also opaque, by your logic they should be incredibly warm as well.

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3987/1/INGjas69c.pdf

>>8348740
Being skeptical is a great thing to do, just be well informed when doing it.