/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12788368
how surprising

>>12753694
>hyperreals, wheel theory
we're talking about -inf, R, +inf
you know, like normal people do

>>12700274
lol

>>12697809

>OP asks for examples
>people give OP examples
>OP constantly arbitrarily redefines criteria to exclude those examples, including making baseless statements >>9815113

>>9737757
>the predictive models have been proven false time and time again merely by observed data
>>9737825
>The models are getting better
>accurate to what standard is the debate here
wow just look at that backsliding

>>9619232
>Each Dog breed have a certain innate characteristic stereotypical behavior & temperament , influenced more by genetics than environmental factor.
>We are not talking about acquired behavior.
nice try, pic related

>>9551992
>lol you predicted that Venice would be underwater and it's not
>oh wait, it is?
>yeah, so what? Venice is underwater all the time, big deal.

>>9362085
>"there's no evidence showing that GMOs are safe!"
>yes there is
>"yeah well those experiments could be wrong! better not trust their conclusions until we've waited decades and decades just in case one of them is overturned!"
is this niBBa serious

>>8729930
>crystals aren't complex
they're highly ordered and have a lot more complexity than the solution they form from. you're doing pic related.
>biological systems
>purpose
o i am laffin

>>8730654
this one actually creates a pretty crystal
mustard gas is actually p. hard to make without a proper chem lab.

>>8687837
>demands testable hypothesis for evolution
>no no, it has to be in the future! if it's already happened that doesn't count!
if you're paying attention, the prediction in
>H0: there were no rabbits in the Precambrian
is that no specimens of rabbits will be found in Precambrian sediments. as long as this is the case, we will fail to reject H0; if a rabbit is ever found in such a setting, it will be a rather conclusive rejection of H0.
pic related though

>there was nothing except personal attacks
in >>8685980 the anon pointed out that the hypothetical example you gave of a silent mutation wasn't actually a silent mutation, since silent mutations by definition are neither selected for nor against. he also pointed out that you'd claimed my previous post agreed with you, when a competent reading of it reveals the opposite.
those are substantive points, but because he called you a dope and drew attention to your deficient reading comprehension skills, you seem to think it's an ad hom.
Paleofag's Conjecture: the likelihood of an anon knowing the correct meaning of "argumentum ad hominem" is inverse to their predilection for accusing others of it.

>>8634976
>Anthony Watts never got any oil money!
>>here's documentation that he did indeed get oil money
>well, he didn't get that MUCH money!
pic related.

>You just admitted that they were in the fossil fuel business!
Tetra Tech did some seismic analysis well before Nuccitelli worked for them. (They were never a petroleum company per se, they just did some consulting for some that were.) Does it make sense to accuse anyone who's ever worked for Volkwagen to be a Nazi sympathizer? After all, VW used to make troop transports for Nazi Germany!

>didn't come from temperature measurements, but wind correlates?
yeah, [citation needed] on that, buddy
>playing the statistical game of Kriging
>waah, statistical methods are fake if they yield results I don't like!
if Kriging wasn't a reliable way to interpolate sparse data, petroleum exploration wouldn't use it to actually find oil. it's a case of "science: it works, bitches"
>That's not a hot spot.
The data beg to differ. You're doing that pic related thing again.
>glad you admit its an important prediction
Never did. It's a comparatively minor part of current theories of climate change, but it's still nice to confirm the little ones along with the big ones.

>distorted temp scale of Sherwood where he makes dark red equal to about 0.2 C instead of the usual much higher value
Okay, here's where you demonstrate just how much of a brainlet you are. Why is this? Because you've just reminded us that you don't READ figures; you just LOOK AT them.
The units in the Sherwood et al. (2015) figure are in degrees C PER DECADE. The units on the predicted trends are in degrees C TOTAL OVER A 41 YEAR TIME SPAN. A change of 1 on the predicted figure is equivalent to .24 on the Sherwood figure. Hmm, those look to be similar colors to me!
READ THE GODDAMN SCALES NEXT TIME, YOU MORONIC DISGRACE TO THE GENUS HOMO.

>>8620372
>living a block south of hyde park
amazingly enough, not all of Woodlawn is a block south of Hyde Park. if you look on your map, you'll notice that it's got some blue in it.
nice pic related.

>>8600132
>AR4 completely failed!
>>um, actually AR4 is quite accurate for the few years since its publication
>yeah well AR4 has only been making predictions for a few years!
pic related

let's leave aside the fact that your latest pic has literally no citation whatsoever (literally just a bunch of unlabeled squiggly lines on a plot) and address this issue:
how does the success or failure of OTHER models relate to your claim that AR4 has failed? riddle me THAT.

>>8532765
>they reiterated the predictions of melting sea ice
no, they made observations that were consistent with "some models". again, NO PREDICTIONS MADE in this paper. if you think there was a consensus of medium-term decrease in Antarctic sea ice as a result of global warming, cite that paper. don't just skim unrelated abstracts for words you like.

>NO! The prediction was about melting Antarctic SEA ICE.
WHERE EXACTLY do you think Antarctic sea ice comes from? it flows off the landmass! it is not formed from water freezing; it calves from glaciers and ice sheets. so faster snow accumulation on the continent DOES INDEED MEAN more ice showing up (if not persisting) in the Antarctic Ocean. If you can't see how one is related to the other, I can't really help you.
and to reiterate once more, THAT PAPER DESCRIBES AN EQUILIBRIUM STATE. It is not intended to represent what happens during the course of climate change; rather, it's a prediction of what things will look like once the metaphorical dust settles. You're being extremely dishonest by attempting to apply it to an early transitional state.

also,
>ignoring the issue with Qi et al.
>denier cannot into dimensional analysis

talk about "rewriting history"! you're attempting to rewrite papers to support your opinion and disguise the fact that you cited sources that actually contradicted your claim. projecting much?

>>8111803
>hurr durr atmospheric CO2 isn't correlated to anthropogenic emissions!
> - dude, it pretty clearly is by this graph that you yourself posted
>hurr durr that correlation doesn't mean anything!
nice try, pic related

and does it matter that the anthropogenic CO2 flux is smaller than the total exchange? no. small changes can have huge outcomes.
to put it in terms your tiny brain is capable of understanding, if there are two 1000 kg masses balanced against each other on a scale, a 10 g mass will still tip the balance despite being much smaller than the other components

>>7906096
it's almost as though different people studying different systems will make different predictions

>>6698877
OP, aren't you tired by now? Those look heavy.