>blizzard in mid-march
>temperatures in the teens at night
>over a foot of snow
Is this the global warming "scientists" were telling us about?
>>8744230
>He doesn't understand the difference between climate and temperature
Kindly remove yourself from the gene pool you autist
Climate=average.
Weather is like one spin of roulette,
climate is the essential probabilities of the game.
And now the game is changing.
Who is the meme scientist you hate the most and what would the world be like if there none of them?
>>8744134
>Who is the meme scientist you hate the most
the entire society of climate scientists
You, OP. Fuck you.
This guy is top on my list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski
Messed up.
>>8743680
seems like a fare punishment to me
>>8743773
>fare punishment
I was really hoping he murdered a guy by throwing him in front of a bus or something, but it was just with a hammer. You disappointed me.
>>8743680
Wait
>ted
>teddy bear
>bear
>nature
>primitivism
How will you be celebrating it? (no pie answers ffs)
>>8742313
Gonna go to Bakers Square
>>8742313
Eating pie.
I won't commit suicide to another ocassion...
Photo taken from Mr. Brunswick peak. Elevation 5,866 ft.
Largest peak in photo is of Mt. Rainier. Elevation 14,411 ft.
Notice all of Mt. Rainier is visible.
According to these calculations https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=190&h0=5866&unit=imperial
... about 40% of it should be below the horizon.
Am I getting a red pill enema or too stupid for reality?
>>8741025
Pretty sure I can see a horizon line in front of the mountain.
Are you blind or just that retarded? You can clearly see the horizon line in front of Mt. Rainier.
>>8741060
If you're referring to the white line that is low altitude cloud coverage.
Hello /sci/,
It's currently 9F here and it's only going to get colder as the night goes on. Looking out my window, I noticed this bird that appears to be bundled up and chilling. It didn't even react to my accidental camera flash so I am not sure if it's sleeping or what.
Regardless: how the fuck is this thing going to survive the night? It's cold as piss outside and it's going to remain this cold for the next 2-3 days.
Is this little fella going to die?
>>8740488
>Is this little fella going to die?
Eventually, everything dies
If it didn't react to anything, maybe you should consider capturing it and bringing it inside for the night.
Someone please tell me that birdbro is going to survive the night. I'll capture him and put him in my basement if I have to.
Thoughts?
Interesting. I wonder if a preconceived notion has quantum effects?
>>8740287
Hawking throws shit parties.
>>8740297
LOL and nobody from the future wanted to show up
So how long would we last if the sun dissapeared....Let the responses begin.....
>>8737421
Define disappeared.
The planet will freeze in few years. If there are survivors after the chaos they'll either have to get used to live off what's available from earth-moon system, or figure out a way to get to a nearby star.
Ambient temperature near the Equator drops 30-40 degrees with <12 hours of no sun. You figure it out.
/sci/ continuously says:
>Computational geometry, Quantum computation, Abstract Algebra, Computational Number theory, Automata theory, Computational Complexity, Design & Analysis of Algorithms, Data Structures, Number theory, Combinatorics, Category theory (Type theory applications0, Cryptography, Graph theory, Information Theory, Machine Learning, Numerical Analysis & Scientific Computing and so on is for brainlets.
So if CS research is so brainlet tier (according to /sci/) how come folks on sci aren't revolutionizing the field of CS research since it's for low IQ plebs?
Where are our jacob barnett triple integral geniuses at for CS in /sci/?
CS research isn't brainlet tier, CS majors are "largely" brainlet tier at 99% of schools where 99% of students just want to make vidya and get through 4 years barely able to write basic code
>>8736337
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
>>8736252
Because this is the average CS "student" who can do such awesome things as code you a fizzbuzz (with GUI!) in Python after graduating with a "BSc in CS"
Also make this a tranny, and you have up to 75% of all CS graduates for the passed 10 years
>19-years old
>non-smoker
>drink once or twice a week
>recently start getting abdominal pain
>noticed thin stools only an hour ago
>didn't go all day yesterday
>frequent flatulence
Is it cancer, /sci/? I'm really freaking out here
>>8744493
Yes, it's the cancer that's killing /sci/
>>8744493
>>frequent flatulence
Yes.
You have stage 3 cancer.
>>8744493
Consider trying eating some cookies faggot.
>be me
>fake results for about 5 papers and publish them in top journals
>already 100 citations in total
>mfw most scientists are too autistic or scared to complain to the journals that my papers are fake
>>8744313
Kek, enjoy your timebomb
All it takes is a complaint or enquiry, and twenty years down the road you'll lose your job and academic qualifications
You've royally fucked yourself there
>>8744318
>implying karma is real
>>8744331
It's not about Karma, it's about risk
If you become a successful academic, more people will read your papers and hence will be more likely to notice the errors
Especially if research is done based on your findings you will most likely be found out eventually
Imagine an Earth where there is NO gold. Absolutely zero grams. Reason? Just chance. For some spectacular reason, no gold would've found its way on our planet. Gold would exist everywhere in the universe, just not on our planet.
But the concept of gold exists very clearly. It's an arrangement of X protons, Y neutrons, and Z electrons. Comes after platinum, comes before mercury.
How would scientists deal with this gap in the table of elements? They would predict there being an element with 79 protons, but never finding it. Would they re-design the entire table of elements? OR would they formulate magical laws and matter like 'dark gold' or 'dark energy' preventing magical number 79 from appearing?
Look up technetium
>>8744181
we can make gold
it's just very difficult and expensive
there's plenty of things on the periodic table that don't seem to exist naturally, and we don't treat them like dark matter.
there would however be theories as to why there is no gold on this planet, because it seems incredibly unlikely that would happen
>>8744181
We would know it must exist but we would probably have hypothesis to explain why we don't find any atoms of element 79 but we do find atoms of numbers 78 and down and 80 and up. Most likely it'd be an interesting textbook fact that for some reason element 79 is so unstable that it decays instantly upon formation, so we don't see any of it in nature. That would be the most likely explanation, because we'd know at that point that some elements are unstable and others are so unstable that they have very short half lives.
However if we ever tried to test that hypothesis by combining atoms in an accelerator we'd find that gold is actually very stable and would scratch our heads as to why it doesn't exist in Earth' crust. We'd find it by probing the solar system both in asteroids and in the crusts of the other planets so further head scratching would ensue. Eventually through some means we'd acquire a sample of gold and learn that it is yellow, very corrosion resistant, conducts heat and electricity well, and so forth.
https://www.edx.org/course/science-religion-ubcx-religionx
New MOOC goes live this week. It's free. I recommend it (because i produced it).
you're at ubc too?
>>8743932
Do religious or superstitious societies have a general advantage? It seems a natural selection type of thing for religion or spiritualism to drive most societies throughout history.
>>8743942
One side composed of fanatics will beat another side of unmotivated nihilists.
Can anyone solve this?
>>8743740
Add a dark number and it's 3
1.9999...
-1/12
am I funny yet?
4-4+4-4+4-4+...
>>8743793
4-4+4-4...=s
4-(4-4+4-4...)=4-s
4-4+4-4+4...=4-s
2s=4
s=2
you are wrong
2-2+2-2...=1
Is Evolution and Natural Selection still a theory? Even with all the evidence supporting it?
nothing ever stops being a theory
you keep testing it over and over and over and over
>>8743735
Evolution is a fact, it has been observed in laboratory settings. The theory of evolution via natural selection is the best explanation for the observed fact of evolution.
A scientific theory isn't a guess. Words don't always mean the same thing in science as they do everyday usage. A scientific theory is a model for how something works. The theory is accurate if it matches whats happening in reality.
With evolution there's some confusion because it is a fact that species evolve. The theory of evolution is the model of how and why that happens.