Either way, my point was that we are not going to drastically change the earth's atmosphere that much. It will happen fairly naturally, much like it has in the past.
Twispy is correct. Personally, I don't see how magnetic pole reversals can effect climate - unless the reversals are linked to solar activity such as a period of significant solar activity and warming. This is certainly nothing we can do anything about.
The thing that gets me about the "carbon debate" is that no one seems to be recognizing the obvious here (though I suspect Twisp does) - all of the carbon locked up in coal and petroleum used to be freely circulating in our atmosphere. So, what's "unnatural" about returning the carbon to the atmosphere where carbon based life can make use of it?
If we were "aliens" looking at life on earth and wanting to see what the effect of all this organic activity was - we would immediately be struck with the fact that life on earth is a huge carbon sink. All of the organisms on the planet interact in a system that sucks the free carbon out of the atmosphere and locks it up in the rocks of the earth.
Our "alien observers" would then see industrial humanity as a kind of "savior" for the planet because we are freeing up the carbon that doesn't recycle naturally.
In the film, the local Marshall (played by Cooper) faces a show down with some bad guys who will arrive in town on the train that arrives at noon on a particular day.
The Marshall attempts to organize a posse to confront the bad guys but no one wants to "get involved." The Marshall stands alone. The clock is ticking.
Sean Connery plays a "Marshall" on a space mining colony in an interesting remake of the the original film. Connery's film was called "Outland" and only rates a solid "B" in the sci-fi genre; but it was an interesting concept.
I don't know about the usage here, but the phrase "High Noon" usually is used to refer to a show down or confrontation of some sort. If they want to be true to the movie, then we need to have a "Marshall" character who is battling the urge to run and hide while also trying to find support from the reluctant "town's people." The "Marshall" ultimately stands his ground on principle - AND he finds support and help from unlikely sources. There is a sort of redemption for those who stand on principle, in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgcraig
Main Entry: high noon
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: precisely noon
2: the most advanced, flourishing, or creative stage or period <the high noon of her career
Ok.
For the longest I thought that this phrase had something to do with noon being the hottest part of the day.
Within the context of this thread, I was going to discuss how that 4pm - 4:30pm seems to be the hottest part of the day and how that seems odd to me.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Global climate disruption replaces climate change replaces Anthropogenic Global Warming
Like the name change?
It is like Baptists taking baptist out of their church name.
The most vocal Prophet/preacher of ACGW, Al Gore, has called global warming a “spiritual crisis.” The religious parallel goes beyond the general and into the specific to the point of ...
I think the reason why they are changing the name is because the notion of "global warming" often gets laughed at while temperatures are dropping. The problem is... global warming does predict that temperatures will drop. I think the new name is a more accurate name.
I think the reason why they are changing the name is because the notion of "global warming" often gets laughed at while temperatures are dropping. The problem is... global warming does predict that temperatures will drop. I think the new name is a more accurate name.
Actually the opposite of what you claim.
Global warming advocates claim we are at the tipping point and warming will increase at an increasing rate. The hockey stick.
The research suggests that the transformation may already be underway. Much of the region has been in a severe drought since 2000, which the study's analysis of computer climate models shows as the beginning of a long dry period.
The study, published online in the journal Science, predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest — one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation.
The data tell "a story which is pretty darn scary and very strong," said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study.
Richard Seager, a research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and the lead author of the study, said the changes would force an adjustment to the social and economic order from Colorado to California.
There are going to be some tough decisions on how to allocate water," he said. "Is it going to be the cities, or is it going to be agriculture?"
Seager said the projections, based on 19 computer models, showed a surprising level of agreement. "There is only one model that does not have a drying trend," he said.
By Alan Zarembo and Bettina Boxall,
LA Times Staff Writers
April 6, 2007
The Met Office in the UK was wrong in its forecasts 10 out of the last 10 years. 9 of the years it was wrong, they forecasted TOO HOT.
In fact not only do they predict warming, they claim the increase of CO2 can create nothing but warming.
Coadie, as temperatures rise, the polar ice caps are supposedly going to melt. As they melt, they supposedly send cooler waters into the oceans. As the cooler waters cool otherwise warmer waters, cooler weather fronts develop. The fictional movie, Day After Tomorrow, illustrates this theory.
I'm not going to argue with you. It's just a theory.
It has a gigantic supercomputer, 1,500 staff and a £170m-a-year budget. So why does the Met Office get it so wrong?By Richard North
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 3rd January 2010
Its supercomputer makes 1,000 billion calculations a second - then tells us to expect a mild winter. But what would you expect from a 'scientific' organisation that for 20 years has been dominated by climate change zealots, and whose current chairman is the former boss of the World Wildlife Fund?
Either way, my point was that we are not going to drastically change the earth's atmosphere that much. It will happen fairly naturally, much like it has in the past.
interesting. we do however agree that by and large, the climate changes in natural cycles and our impact via CO2 is limited.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Coadie, as temperatures rise, the polar ice caps are supposedly going to melt. As they melt, they supposedly send cooler waters into the oceans. As the cooler waters cool otherwise warmer waters, cooler weather fronts develop. The fictional movie, Day After Tomorrow, illustrates this theory.
I'm not going to argue with you. It's just a theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQDSAiPiEDU
That is only one of the theories. it is a real theory used by the AGW crowd to scare people but it is not the only one nor is it the predominant one.
they still cling to the notion that runaway warming caused by CO2 will lead to ocean rise of 20 feet or so.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
interesting. we do however agree that by and large, the climate changes in natural cycles and our impact via CO2 is limited.
Definitely.
To me, our impact on nature is directly limited to mankind's future. If we scorch the earth with nuclear warheads on 10/15/2011, we will not be able to survive, but the earth will and some type of life will.
Linear Mode
