/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10096884
>Then you look at the amish or low vaccination rate countries and find they have lower rates of autism.
this is the most brainlet-tier correlation in existence.

when you don't take your kids to the doctor (whether because your country doesn't have a good health care system or because of your Good Christian Traditions), two things happen:
- they don't get vaccinated
- conditions they have don't get diagnosed
babby's first measurement bias.

>>10096900
nice fake graph. maybe if the chronic illness curve wasn't A FUCKING STRAIGHT LINE it wouldn't look quite so obviously fabricated.
I took the liberty of checking the listed sources, and not only do neither of them contain the data for that curve, but the second one directly contradicts it.
>https://www.academicpedsjnl.net/article/S1876-2859(10)00250-0/pdf
>https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/30207926/joc05003_623_630%20%281%29.pdf
why do anti-vaxxers always feel the need to tell such blitheringly stupid lies?

>everything is adaptive!
ISHYGDDT

>>10026063
>Hoover in office
>crash happens
>Hoover takes little action for three years
>economy remains stagnant
>FDR takes office
>takes aggressive action immediately
>within months, industrial production shoots back up, unemployment falls, GDP and money supply rebound, price index all the while remaining mostly level
yeah, FDR just made everything worse!

none so blind as them that will not see

>they had switched their more valuable gold for suddenly less valuable Fed notes
suppose you have three oranges worth 75c apiece. you sell them. then the price of oranges goes up to $1 apiece. how much money have you lost?
time to see if you can do simple math, fucko.

>>9904140
>The point is that the US has more money than China, so we can easily keep injecting the economy with money longer than China can. THIS is the point of a trade war. China will have to give in before us, and then we will win.
basically:
>I shot myself in the dick, but he shot himself in the head
>so I win!
the only way to actually win is not to play, retard. trade wars hurt everyone involved; a big part of the reason for modern peace and prosperity is that America and Europe have been working for decades and decades to reduce trade barriers.
high schoolers can understand this simple concept but it's beyond the capacities of Orange Daddy.

>>9842710
>Just give me one example of an oil funded denial of man made global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#2011:_Funding_controversy

>>9842875
>dumbass pic
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17783523
>Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO(3)(-) with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium. Recognition of the existence of such extreme deficiencies is necessary so that erroneous ages are not attributed to freshwater biogenic carbonates.
Radiocarbon dating only works when organisms get their carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or by eating plants). In a mineral spring environment, you're getting "old" carbonate that's been sitting in the ground for a while already. 14C radiochronology doesn't tell you how old an object is; it only tells you how long it's been since its carbon was in exchange with the atmosphere!
Turns out you can make the evidence say anything you want if you're too fucking stupid to understand what you're measuring.

>>9812463
>>9812471
>I don't know the difference between residence time and lifetime: the post
if you want to talk with the adults, please know what simple terms mean

>>9747944
>with a solar filter, you will see the sun getting smaller
plenty of footage like that, and the sun doesn't appear to shrink.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGvJqzUgWDI
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngSQngfOjmY
>inb4 muh vegutation
are you telling me that the sun shrinks as it approaches the horizon due to getting further away...unless there are some trees on the horizon, in which case it remains exactly the same apparent size all the way down? that's a neat trick for it to do; how's it know whether there's trees there?

>You see the sky and the water meet at the horizon line at your eye level.
wrong. the horizon line is slightly BELOW your eye level. it's just that at 6' above the water level (for those of us who aren't manlets) the difference is imperceptible. Go up fifteen hundred feet and that difference can be seen, however. >>9748049

>>9747945
>>9747977
>are you blind?
ah yes, back to the proof-by-shitty-instrumentation.
does it ever strike you as odd that the videos showing the sun appear to shrink dramatically are all poor-quality with loads of glare and bloom, while those with good image quality show the sun remaining the same size?

>I have brainlet, the earth is flat.
evidence or it didn't happen

reminder: you still have no comeback to this video, which I posted >>9746234
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8

>>9708031
>so what if CO2 emissions caused the most devastating mass extinction in the planet's history? that CO2 came from VOLCANOES!
>surely CO2 put out by human activity couldn't do anything bad. it's only the volcanic stuff we have to worry about!
this is what deniers actually believe.

also, there's no credible evidence for the Permo-Triassic Extinction being caused by an impactor. you're thinking of the Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction.

the trouble with being this retarded is you can't even tell when you're wrong about something. too stupid for introspection or reconsideration.

>>9633657
>transitioning living things right now - have evolutionists been able to point any out ever
literally everything alive on this planet.
but if you want to see dramatic change we can see results of over a human lifetime...
>rhagoletis pomonella
>biston betularia

>>9633661
>useless leftovers from evolution
niBBa what is an exaptation?

>>9633928
>By definition, evolution must create a new gene that is a long term advantage
you have no fucking idea what the definition of evolution is, you actual brainlet.

>>9616290
>Each Dog breed have a certain innate characteristic stereotypical behavior & temperament , influenced more by genetics than environmental factor.
you may be a literal retard if you actually believe this. pibbles are inherently friendly and playful, but can be raised to be vicious killers. environment is far more important to a dog's temperament than its genetics.

also:
>dogs that have been selectively bred for specific purposes for thousands of years have differences in temperament
>therefore humans that briefly evolved independently in similar environments must also have differences in temperament
okay maybe you are actually intellectually disabled if you think this.

>>9455406
>Check the graph on nasas site, the trend continues till today retard.
Funny you say that! According to the graph on NASA's site, sea level actually rose noticeably since February 2017. Dickhead.
Do you always make false claims and tell people exactly where to look to disprove them?

>according to you we have no evidence that sea level has ever decreased or remain stable
You think satellite altimetry is the only line of evidence we have? How little you know! Tide gauge data goes back about 150 years, and it shows an increasing trend accelerating rapidly starting in the early 1900s. Additionally, the very existence of coastal terraces (erosional landforms around the waterline) show that sea level had indeed remained stable for quite a while before humans started fucking around with things.

>>9347114
>A scientist would argue against the data, methods, or conclusion in the paper itself.
the whole point people have been making is that there AREN'T any methods. the poster says they made a comparison, but doesn't say what kind of comparison they were making. l2read

>>9347651
oh boy, it's the "numbers don't real" guy again
>HURR DURR YOU'RE NOT REALLY MEASURING THINGS UNLESS YOU MEASURE EACH PARTICLE INDIVIDUALLY, AGGREGATE MEASURES DON'T COUNT
neck yourself my man

>>9217612
>I'm gonna post a bunch of nonsense about a technical term and then bitch and moan when someone calls me on it
>maybe if I pretend that "niche" doesn't actually have a specific meaning nobody will notice.

you talk pretty big for a guy who thinks that less-advantageous traits don't become extinct, that the individuals bearing them just evolve into other stuff. (which shows that you don't understand that evolution happens at the population level, not the individual level.)

>>9202210
>not using a log scale to compare those quantities

>>9180977
>I don't understand how rising sea levels could possibly increase the risk posed by tsunamis
brainlet

>>9180994
>>9181132
>vegetation has increased
>therefore it must be caused by CO2
>correlation implies causation but only when I want it to, don't go trying to link hurricanes to warming

>>9160077
>This is the whole point of the greenhouse effect: Electromagnetic radiation is converted to molecular motion, which we measure as heat. The extra heat keeps us cushy so we don't freeze, because the heatball in our core is not enough to keep us warm. So the more molecules you have in the air, the more heat is being trapped.
a laughable misconception :^)
the greenhouse effect is not the conversion of radiation to heat in the atmosphere, but rather the ABSORPTION AND IMMEDIATE RE-EMISSION of infrared (terrestrial) radiation. since the re-emission is in a random direction, half goes up and half goes down. the thicker the atmosphere is (or rather the IR-active part of it) the greater the expected number of times an individual upwelling photon is absorbed, with each expected absorption halving the total radiation escaping to space.
this is a fairly basic concept in atmospheric science and yet you've gotten it ass-backwards.

>athmospheric H2O outweights CO2 by at least a factor of 25 - 125
>water vapor is still 12 - 60 times as effective at trapping heat in the athmosphere, again due to the concentration
except that water vapor is rapidly controlled by temperature (again, following the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) and can only act as a feedback, not a driver.
and of course you're 100% wrong about the relative contributions of H2O and CO2
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
water is responsible for 60% of warming, compared to CO2's 26% of the total. you're off by an order of magnitude.

>Couple this with the fact that only 5% of the carbon concentration is manmade (what, 20 ppm ?)
preindustrial CO2 was 280 ppm. now it's 410 ppm.
that's a difference of 130 ppm, or 32%. why must you continue to pull numbers out of your ass?

>>8938154
this isn't actually how things work.
as it turns out, a sample size of 1067 will give you an answer to within 3% with 95% confidence. want to get that to within 1% with 99% confidence? you'll only need 16,640.

pic related, it's you.

>>8766056
>Ah, so why isn't that data included in the model? If they know what the temperatures are, then they are intentionally withholding by your logic.
The map is not "everything we know about temperature"; it is "here are the temperature anomalies from these two specific data sets". The data displayed are from GHCN (a weather station network) on land, and from ERSST (a compilation of buoy and ship sensor data) at sea. The poles aren't displayed because there simply isn't dense enough coverage there to get an accurate temperature record FROM THESE DATA SETS. (See also the gaps in coverage in the Amazon and Congo jungles and the Sahara Desert, again due to a lack of stations.)
We know that the poles are warming (and warming faster than the rest of the earth) from other data, such as satellite measurements and individual weather stations. But those data aren't what's being displayed here. In science, we report what we have as we have it; we don't try to just mash everything together.

retard.

>>8754717
>What does is this word salad even trying to imply?
ironic!
I understand that you are too ignorant to parse that and too lazy to google the difficult terms, so let me explain.

>Here, we used meta-analysis to test for biases in the statistical results of climate change articles, including 1154 experimental results from a sample of 120 articles.
they took a bunch of articles and analyzed them
>Funnel plots revealed no evidence of publication bias given no pattern of non-significant results being under-reported, even at low sample sizes.
they performed a statistical test, plotting measured effect against precision. if there's no publication bias, the distribution will look like an inverted funnel (hence the name) with the most precise tests producing results towards the middle of the range. if there IS publication bias, the most precise tests tend to be further to one edge due to low-precision results on that side of the distribution not getting published.
>However, we discovered three other types of systematic bias relating to writing style, the relative prestige of journals, and the apparent rise in popularity of this field: First, the magnitude of statistical effects was significantly larger in the abstract than the main body of articles.
in other words, researchers talked about the biggest effects in the abstracts and left the less impressive stuff buried in the results section.
>Second, the difference in effect sizes in abstracts versus main body of articles was especially pronounced in journals with high impact factors.
articles in more prestigious journals had a stronger tendency to put the cool results up front.
>Finally, the number of published articles about climate change and the magnitude of effect sizes therein both increased within 2 years of the seminal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007.
people started doing more research on climate change, and finding bigger effects, after the IPCC 2007 report.

it's not that hard.

>>8738946
>>8738993
>entire Unis like PragerU
if you'd spent literally five seconds on Google, you'd know that there is no Prager University. it's a conservative talk radio host's website where he posts five minute videos of his opinions.

pic related, it's (You)

>>8726157
>Laffer curve
>>>/x/

>>8726177
>tax cuts that are being proposed lower everyone's taxes
>only the military is seeing an increase in spending, everything else is cutting cut back to more reasonable levels.
Typical fascist lies. Orange Guy's tax plans would give the wealthy a 13% break, and the little guy would get 2%, and over 8 million families with children would actually see their taxes RISE.
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/11/27/some-middle-class-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase/94427186/
>http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan
>https://www.rt.com/usa/367846-trump-tax-plan-deficit/
this
and when your increases to military spending (which is far more than the Pentagon has asked for or needs) is greater than the comparatively small cuts to things like food stamps and education, you're still increasing spending overall. you can't spend an extra dollar, save an extra dime, and claim you're trimming the budget.

this is why we can't get along with /pol/acks; they live in their delusional little fantasy world that doesn't even obey the rules of basic arithmetic. contra principia negantem non est disputandum.

>>8677175
>I do expect more dense particles to on average be lower in the atmosphere
the effect of density fractionation is so small that it's drowned out by much larger variations related to the production/release and absorption/decomposition of gases (whether at the surface or elsewhere).
if your claim were correct, we wouldn't see ozone (which is ~1.5x as dense as average air) enriched 30-fold in the lower stratosphere; rather, its density would decrease with altitude.

>modern climate change models rely on the fact that since the climate pace change is slower, than it must reach a much larger peak because of the smaller second derivative
exactly what the fuck are you trying to say in this plateful of word salad?

>It's the highest in the past 20,000 years, but not the highest in the last 800,000 years. In fact it's right on target. Refer back to my graph.
Ya idjit, there are several things wrong with this.
First off, your graph doesn't show the modern-day state; it's JUST ice cores. Current [CO2] is ~400 ppm, which is WAY off the chart.
Secondly, you're talking about 800 kyr of ice cores, but the graph you posted only goes back half that time. Are you aware of this?
Thirdly, and most importantly, THE CLAIM WAS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE TEMPERATURE HAS BEEN HIGHER, BUT WHETHER CO2 LAGS BEHIND TEMPERATURE. As you can CLEARLY see in the figure I presented, over the past ~20 kyr changes in temperature were PRECEDED by changes in CO2 concentration. This is what you claimed never happens!

>>8616881
>but we can't predict the weather lol!
I can't predict the result of rolling two dice. But I can tell you what results you'll get if you roll a pair of dice ten thousand times, with a stunning degree of accuracy. Similarly, I can't tell you if it will rain tomorrow. But I can tell you how much rain a given city will get over the course of a year. I can't tell you when an individual uranium atom will undergo radioactive decay. But I can tell you how long it will take for a hand sample of pitchblende to lose half its radioactivity.
Sometimes large scale events are actually easier to predict than small scale ones, due to the law of large numbers. Little fluctuations tend to cancel each other out.

Please get this through your imbecilic little head. We've been over this many times before.

>>8608432
so your criticism of VAERS is that they're allowing doctors to cover up the hidden link between getting your shots and falling and hurting yourself.
shit, why not force doctors to report it if a kid gets cyberbullied within a week of being immunized? shills like me might say it's implausible for vaccines to cause cyberbullying, but how can we know if we don't ask that question?

I see that, having been apprised of the fact that the questions you raise have already been comprehensively answered, you have now moved on to the tactic of "U CAN'T KNO NUFFIN". You're attempting to tear down the evidence against you by moving the goalposts, demanding that no conclusions be drawn until doctors gather exactly the information that you think they should, regardless of whether or not it is relevant to the issue.
Do you really think you're the first person to try this line of obfuscation?

>>8608169
>accuses of resorting to ad hominem attack
>dismisses argument by claiming someone works for a pharmaceutical company
the clue meter is reading zero. pic related, it's you m88