/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11118836
>Letting politicians solve a problem that should be handled by engineers
>Not utilizing nuclear power to its full potential
>relying on sources of energy that goes dead depending on the time of day and weather

>>10602442
just straight-up lying now, are we?
remember, we're talking about
>https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

>his claims the data is fraudulent
not what the other anon nor I said. the ADJUSTMENTS to the data, dickhead.
and nowhere in the blog post does he say WHY the adjustments aren't justified.
>He doesn’t just look at US data he looks at global data as well
nowhere in the post does he discuss anything other than US data. and like the other anon said, the same adjustments that increase the US warming trend DECREASE the global warming trend. if they're faking the data to make it look like the Earth is warming when it's not, why would they make it look like the Earth is warming less than it is?
>He also does not just average the stations
literally the first figure on that post proves you wrong
>Hausfather’s work is not in contradiction to Heller’s viewpoint
Hausfather's work shows that homogenization (a large part of the "adjustments" in Heller's writing) removes warming bias. Heller says that all the adjustments add warming bias.

this is what happens when deniers try to argue.

this is a dumbfuck question.
no, she and Pierre were the coolest scientific power couple since the Lavoisiers. her achievements actually surpass his significantly, in large part because he was fatally run over by a cart while they were still working on a lot of their work.
remember, she won her second Nobel five years after her husband had died. she couldn't have isolated Polonium on her own if she had just been riding his coattails.

>>10083450
>Precession is the reason mass exists in the first place you fucking idiot.
so are your parents brother and sister or uncle and niece?

>>10021728
>if market forces are actually allowed to work, the price mechanism will function as it's supposed to.
ah yes, the unerring faith of the Libertarian dumbfuck. no matter how many times it fails, they're ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONFIDENT that their ideology will work this next time!
remember when Trump's people said that the tax cuts would lower prices and create jobs? and big businesses said they'd just use the tax cuts to buy back stock? and then they did? and meanwhile, the trade war he's gotten us into have sent consumer prices skyrocketing

>There is no consensus on the degree of human involvement
that's where you're wrong kiddo.
>nor is there a consensus on which solutions are going to achieve what ends
that's also where you're wrong kiddo.

>the bloated federal government created yet another agency to siphon money from taxpayers
hey, notice how our air and water have been much cleaner since the EPA instituted emissions standards? the Clean Air Act alone saves 160,000 lives every year.
>https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/summaryreport.pdf

>Entering the legal immigration stream, or even claiming asylum at the border, will allow you to remain with your children as your case is processed by immigration officials
literally a lie. scroll down to read about Ms. L, who presented herself at a border crossing to claim asylum but still had her child taken away during proceedings.
>https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-classwide-preliminary-injunction

>>9750769
>Therefore you're claiming that the "core" of the sun is the same brightness as the "surface" of the sun?
No, I am not. You must be 18 or older to post here.

>It can only be used as proof once the sun becomes smaller than it's being shown through a solar filter
aaand as before, there's literally no evidence that solar filters crop the sun. your only reasoning for it is that it MUST be true in order for the earth to be flat; and as you stated >>9750689, your belief that the earth is flat comes before all evidence.

>So the sun is brighter in its "core", but this brightness isn't detectable because the less bright outer layers absorb and re-emit it?
Yes. This fairly simple stuff.
Similarly, the Earth's interior is much hotter (and therefore brighter) than its outer crust, and yet the only light emitted from its surface is low-intensity infrared light.
>inb4 muh solids
why would fluids be unable to absorb light and re-emit it at lower intensity?

>Why doesn't a solar filter remove the outer layer light and show the brighter core?
The core's light is not being drowned out by the light from the outer layers, you imbecile. It is being absorbed by the outer layers themselves. You might as well ask why an infrared-blocking filter can't remove the crust's radiation and show you the glow of the hot mantle.

>That gif shows the sun changing size and brightness, how is that possible?
because rather than a timelapse made from a continuous video, that is a series of separate photos stitched together, with different levels of zoom and exposure. (also, are you really surprised that the sun's total brightness changes during an eclipse? boy, you could not pour water out of a boot with instructions written on the heel.)
you still can't explain how the annular eclipse is visible, huh? ready to admit that solar filters don't actually crop the sun?

>By detecting the electromagnetic frequencies.
aaand how does a mass spectrometer detect the electromagnetic frequencies?

>>9377397
>Even if all whales went extinct, what would actually happen?
okay you massive gaylord, whales are actually vital to benthic/abyssal ecosystems. when a whale dies and sinks to the bottom, it brings huge amounts of nutrients from the surface, sustaining all sorts of weird critters. (whale poop does a similar thing, just not as dramatically.)
and guess what benthic nutrient transport is important to? the health of the entire oceans. the greatest marine productivity hotspots are where deep upwelling brings nutrients back to the surface, driving the entire local ecosystem. cutting off the nutrient circulation driven by marine megafauna could wreck a lot of fisheries.

know what you're talking about before you make ignorant assumptions. this whole thread is an embarrassment.
>hurr I don't know shit about these, surely nothing bad will happen if we get rid of them.

>>9181509
>he doesn't know that warmer tropical oceans = more moisture in air masses = more precipitation in temperate zones
warming doesn't mean less snow. it just means that the snow melts faster.

>>9043457
>How do we know those birds do?
we can directly measure the activity of their visual cortex.
>Birds eat an assortment of differently-colored food from many differently-colored surfaces.
yes, and their ability to pick out a black worm from a white substrate is proof that they can see dark prey against a pale background, checkmate atheists

>the Creationist who was so salty he'd rather claim that birds can't see light/dark than admit to microevolution being observed in Biston betularia
>HURR DURR U CANT KNOW NUFFIN

>>8995139
>neanderthals have been deliberately mis-reconstructed by the scientific community for decades!
>this non-scientific line drawing I got at the gift shop proves it!
Holy shit I did not know it was actually possible to be this retarded.

>>8995143
Java Man is now known to be an occurrence of Homo erectus. The skulls have been conclusively identified as early human, not gibbon.

>>8995149
Piltdown Man was a hoax that the scientific community never accepted. Not sure why you morons continue to bang on about it. Maybe because you've got nothing better?
We have literally hundreds and hundreds of Neanderthal fossils on record; if their morphology were simply the result of diagenetic strain, what are the odds that ALL of them would end up distorted in the EXACT SAME WAY? (And then there's the pesky matter of Neanderthal skulls not actually being crushed, like your picture claims they are.)
Peking Man (another kind of Homo erectus) was identified from multiple specimens considered separately; the pale regions in the picture are plaster/putty used to reconstruct the skull, not fragments of another specimen.

What claim exactly are you trying to make here? I've seen climate deniers with more coherence. The plural of "shitpost" is not "argument"...

>some back of the envelope math tells me that the moon is far away and the rocket is big
>therefore it's impossible!

basically, your entire claim rests on the nebulous and unsupported premise that we couldn't have done it, based on your practically nonexistent understanding of the engineering involved. it's not much different from creationfags who think evolution is a hoax because they just can't imagine it happening.
please take your argument from incredulity elsewhere. reality is not subject to the same limitations as your thinking is, and something seeming implausible to you doesn't actually mean it can't be done.

>>8870246
in addition to what >>8870304 posted, a few threads ago someone argued that a single supervolcano eruption would dwarf human CO2 emissions.
I did the math, and it turns out that even if a HUGE eruption (comparable to the one that created the Fish Canyon Tuff) happened, and the magma feeding it was quite gas-rich, the total CO2 emitted would still be only 1/3rd of what human activity produces in a year.

It's absolutely insane that people like you are still parroting that meritless claim about volcanoes. The correct answer to your conjecture is easy to find, but you lot aren't actually interested in facts of any sort.

your first mistake was misspelling "pyrene" as propane, you brainlet.
niBBa how the hell are you going to have substitution at the 10 location on a three-carbon alkane?

>>8670803
>California's drought wasn't caused by climate change, it was caused by awful government policy.
You seem to have confused "drought" with "water shortage".
This is an easy mistake to make if you are a retard.

>>8634975
>see the graph of data, including the data that was conveniently ignored (roughly pre 1980).
We went over this a few threads ago >>8619367, and you suddenly got all quiet after I debunked this failed abortion of a figure. (Well, it wasn't this exact figure, but it was another figure showing the same gawdawful attempt at a data series.)
Hmm, why does it look like pH varies so much? BECAUSE THE OLD MEASUREMENTS USED VARY WILDLY BY TIME OF YEAR AND LOCATION. If you're trying to see how pH changes year to year, you ABSOLUTELY MUST control factors other than what year it is! So if one year most of your measurements are taken from the Indian Ocean in April and the next year your data are dominated by measurements from the mid-Atlantic in September, what you get will be PRACTICALLY MEANINGLESS.
>https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/not-phraud-but-phoolishness/

I'd have thought that an actual published scientist (one who claims to care strongly about statistical rigor) would understand the importance of controlling your outside variables, and maybe understand why some data are more reliable and meaningful than others. What's your Ph.D. in, you jive turkey?

>>8582976
>Google that yourself.
LITERALLY THE VERY FIRST GOOGLE RESULT:
>http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-research-has-not-established-that-you-inherited-your-intelligence-from-your-mother/
YOU NITWIT

I'm leaving this forsaken board

>>8117671
>I'm not saying manmade climate change isn't real
>I'm just saying it's not manmade
ᎳᎬᎳ ᏞᎪᎠ

>>8027274
BECAUSE YOU ARE CLINICALLY RETARDED WITH YOUR DEGENERATE NUMBER SYSTEM
And when I say degenerate, I don't just mean that you're subhuman for inventing it; I mean there are multiple numeric representations within your system for the same number. For example, 12 and 20 would both mean the same thing (4 in decimal).
In summary, you make humanity stupid by existing and you should prepare yourself for a career taking orders at McDongalds. FUCKING 10/10, I RAGED HARD.

>>7088959
>Scientists aren't special people, above normal human motivations.
I know I shouldn't be responding, since you're either trolling or suffering from a serious mental handicap, but that's exactly WHY such a conspiracy is improbable.

Ever met a scientist who does research as their main job? Especially one reliant on public funding? They're all competing for fame and glory (in the long run) and grant money (in the short run). No conspiracy of more than 3 people could last any appreciable length of time without one guy turning on his co-conspirators. Imagine the amount of metaphorical pussy the guy who blew the lid off the hoax would get! He'd get grants left and right, his name would be in the textbooks, and he'd be a household name!
And yet somehow, the vast majority of scientists come to similar conclusions regarding climate, and none of them have come forward with any evidence of such a conspiracy. Instead we get a few people who allege a conspiracy but have no evidence either of its existence or of inaccuracy on the part of mainstream climatology. Hmm.

>he thinks reflected light from planets is a significant factor
OP, you're better off considering incoming light from nearby stars in the Sun's temperature then. proof: nearby stars are visually brighter than planets in the night sky.

>>6254373
you dense motherfucker. he has papers published in respectable neuroscience journals that are about neuroscience
his metaphysical views are widely shared by neuroscientists

>>5807038
>ants are quite intelligent

>>5412006
The early solar winds where munch more intense then they are now. The planet would remain inhabitable until the sun expanded to far with minimal maintenance.

>>5412036
It would only take a few hundred years if not less. Unless you are talking about making a perfect Earth analog which is stupid. A realistic goal is to have simple lifeforms grow on the surface and have a thick enough atmosphere so you can go outside in a parka/oxygen mask. This can already be achieved at low altitudes in the summer months.