Forum Nobility
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Priory_of_Sion last won the day on March 26

Priory_of_Sion had the most liked content!

About Priory_of_Sion

  • Rank
    [cries alone]
  • Birthday 09/10/1996

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    In Sturgeon's Guest Bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

257 profile views
  1. Saw a Timber and an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake down here last month. It was a juvenile gray rat snake. I was at a university outreach event for my herpetology class and someone brought this rat snake. The asshole bit basically everyone that tried to pick it up. It bit me four or five times that day by that bugger.
  2. Monster turtles are much more rare today than they were a century ago. Georgia's alligator snapping turtle population took a big hit in the 70s and 80s due to trapping and turtle populations are really finicky because it takes forever for them to age to sexual maturity. I assume this applies to the other states they're found in too. I've only caught common snappers, which look just as wild in my opinion.
  3. cool
  4. A completely unfalsifiable position that doesn't really care what is true and false is really cute, but completely worthless. If you come across something that actually debunks 150 odd years of science, let me know.
  5. 15 times Fuck that crowd then. Well there's a couple established ways the climate changes, with these 3 being the major global drivers of climate. solar irradiance orbital perturbations atmospheric composition Solar irradiance has, on the average, been fairly steady over the past couple decades The earth's orbit has been relative constant over in this modern era too and thus there's no reason to suggest that warming is caused by shifts in the earth's orbit. So that leaves atmospheric changes. Sulfate concentrations (which have a cooling effect and where behind the global cooling scare) are going down and GHGs are increasing in tune with temperature. In the past, solar irradiance & orbital changes were the triggers for climatic change with CO2 levels increasing following the initial warming and thus exacerbate that initial warming. Today we have an initial warming that isn't related to those things, but warming does match up with CO2 They When the poles were ice free, yeah That is why Well, if you include the positive feedback loops, it gets really complex, but its also alarmist to talk about a runaway greenhouse effect. I used to be extremely skeptical of climate change a couple years ago. I changed my mind based on rebuttals I read. I had to agree with the I Fucking Love Science crowd, but they bumblefucked into being correct about something. By hating these idiots so much on every other issue, it must be impossible to accept that they can be right about something huh?
  6. I thought you wanted to know why it is believed that its human CO2 emissions that are behind elevated CO2 levels. So you wanted something like this? My sarcasm is that the leap in logic needed to say an increase in a gas known to increase temperature will increase temperature isn't a leap at all. Saying its just a correlation is just dismissing. I didn't watch Lindy's video. So I don't know what you mean at the time. I still don't know exactly what he means when he's going on about there's no linkage between CO2 and warming temperatures. That would help, but having the world's entire plant biomass increase CO2 uptake by ~8% seems rather daunting in my opinion. These are good opinions. Having modern ecosystems and human civilization to adapt to Miocene conditions within a century or so seems problematic. Its a tactic that's carried over from the evolution vs creationist debate that has become habitual. As I noted, the 3 degrees is a conservative estimate based solely off CO2 emissions and doesn't touch on all those feedback loops that aren't that well understood, from my understanding, regarding how much warming they'll cause. Besides a moderate 3 degree increase would put us about where the Eemian interglacial was at its absolute peak where sea levels were 20 feet higher than today and when hippos thrived in the Thames. Agreed. I say it every 5 times a day I think you can tell the difference when you get to know their opinions about nuclear energy and GMOs. How many actual geochemists, climatologists, etc do you see on TV talking about this? None. You get fucking Bill Nye and you get rather poorly written articles in pop science magazines/websites. It's honestly not that different from most other fields of science in that regard.
  7. The concern is that carbon sinks aren't able to take up that CO2 due to warming and thus accelerate warming. The Ocean is the largest carbon sink and takes in gigatons more CO2 than it emits. The problem is that human activities has thrown the sink/source equilibrium out of whack so now the atmosphere is taking in more of the share of CO2 because as temperatures increase, the oceans lose their properties as good carbon sinks. Totally. Yeah, it was sorta figured out in 1956. Carbon 14 and 13 ratios are decreasing and thus the source for the extra carbon in the atmosphere is from an old and organic source. That suggests fossil fuels are driving the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Depends where you live and how bad desertification/deforestation is in whatever region you're living in. I can see being skeptical about alarmism, though I can't see how a new climate regime being rapidly changed within a century's time can be harmless. There's plenty of worry about regarding positive feedback loops arising such as permafrost melting that will release methane that will warm the atmosphere even more. I touched on the oceans losing their ability to be carbon sinks earlier which is another feedback loop and you've also touched on the increased temperatures means increased water vapor (another greenhouse gas) feedback loop, the melting of ice is another feedback loop because ice reflects a good bit of solar radiation, but dark substrates such as the ocean or rocks will absorb heat and thus you'll get even more warming. This is what the alarmist sentiment is about, and the science behind how these feedback loops work are solid. I've tried to look for negative feedback loops associated with CO2 induced warming and I can't find anything. Many IPCC reports just focus on warming from CO2 emissions and not the warming that caused by these feedback loops as well, and thus there's been plenty of criticism that climate change projections, which often look at the end of the century, only show a rise in temperature of only a couple of degrees. Hell, even the sea level rise projections are just based off of thermal expansion and don't include ice melt. The powerful individuals and organizations... is an argument that goes both ways. Plenty of organizations, people, companies, etc are using global warming as a tool for their scams. It's disheartening for me as there's plenty of research papers documenting the potential negative effects of global warming and the most obvious solution is still demonized.
  8. The most idiotic claim in this is the idea that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. It's been understood since the mid-1800s that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Its not magic, its the physical properties of CO2 molecules that interact with long-wave radiation that the earth gives off and radiates that back. CO2 actually does match up well with temperature once you also include that the ancient sun was less irradiant. CO2 has doubled in the atmosphere, and its isotopic signature shows that it is from fossil fuel emissions. It's fine to debate how bad climate change will be, but this guy's "we don't know how the climate works, but doubling CO2 will surely make things better" is rather disappointing. I was expecting something more. Something not retarded.
  9. I just come back to Nixon's madman theory when it comes to his rhetoric with hostile states. To be honest though, it is hard to tell if the madman is an act or not.
  10. Some Houthi propaganda
  11. Yeah that's my bad. The little poster thing seems too small to tell any details
  12. Is that an Abrams silhouette on the skirt logo?
  13. Hadi, president of the Saudi-backed govt in Aden, sacks an influential governor of Aden province and the minister of state. This came on the heels of a piece in the Economist which runs down how the UAE has backed a number of South Yemeni secessionists and how popular the South Yemeni movement is and how little control Hadi has over the south.