In article , Martin
writes
However some believe the end of the world will happen in 2012, so no need to
worry.


London will grind to a halt in 2012 putting on the blinking Olympics
anyway so maybe that's not far from the truth.
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Janet Tweedy wrote:
However some believe the end of the world will happen in 2012, so no need to
worry.
London will grind to a halt in 2012 putting on the blinking Olympics
anyway so maybe that's not far from the truth.

Would be a very inconvenient time for a meteor to hit.

On Jan 4, 9:53*am, wrote:
Janet Tweedy wrote:
However some believe the end of the world will happen in 2012, so no need to
worry.
* London will grind to a halt in 2012 putting on the blinking Olympics
anyway so maybe that's not far from the truth.

Would be a very inconvenient time for a meteor to hit. *

I thought that the world Had ended.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jan 2011 09:53:06 GMT, wrote:

Janet Tweedy wrote:
However some believe the end of the world will happen in 2012, so no
need to
worry.
London will grind to a halt in 2012 putting on the blinking Olympics
anyway so maybe that's not far from the truth.

Would be a very inconvenient time for a meteor to hit.



"But it was 2012 that came in for the most criticism, a film that
according to
Nasa left many in America fearing for the future. "The agency is getting
so many
questions from people terrified that the world is going to end in 2012
that we
have had to put up a special website to challenge the myths," said Donald
Yeomans, who runs the agency's Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous mission. "We
have
never had to do this before."
In the film, the earth's core is over-heated due to solar radiation,
causing a
catastrophic chain reaction of earthquakes, tsunamis and eruptions. Not
only do
thousands die but the London Olympics are cancelled, Mount Everest is
consumed
by a tidal wave and Las Vegas is swallowed by the Nevada desert."


Read mo
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/73228,...#ixzz1A416Qsty
--

Martin


Other than that, nothing will happen out of the ordinary.

Happy New Year

Mike



--

....................................
Today, is the tomorrow, you were worrying about, yesterday.
....................................

In article ,
writes
Would be a very inconvenient time for a meteor to hit.



Expect Red ken would have a laugh though
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Martin
writes
In the film, the earth's core is over-heated due to solar radiation, causing a
catastrophic chain reaction of earthquakes, tsunamis and eruptions. Not only do
thousands die but the London Olympics are cancelled, Mount Everest is consumed
by a tidal wave and Las Vegas is swallowed by the Nevada desert."


Will Tesco be open as usual though?
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Martin
writes
Only for those who believe London is the whole world :-)

Think how peaceful it is going to be elsewhere.


Two of our friends have already agreed to rent out their house whilst
it's on (they live in Streatham) He said he wasn't going to even try to
get to work whilst there was mayhem on the roads and rail!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In message , Granity
writes

Stewart Robert Hinsley;909004 Wrote:
In message , Martin
lid writes-
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:31:20 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
-
In message , Martin
lid writes-
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:47:40 +0000, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:

In message , Granity
writes

="" a=""What mechanism do you propose operates to prevent the addition
of
greenhouse gases resulting in (on average) a warming of the climate?

Physics. .

The physics of heat transfer in the atmosphere imply that the addition
of greenhouse gases results in (on average) a warming of the climate.
What other physical mechanisms do you propose operate to prevent this
happening?

Radiation?-

Radiative transfer is part of the physics of heat transfer in (in and
through if you want to be picky) atmosphere.-

and? The earth loses heat via radiation.-

As radiative transfer is part of the physics of heat transfer in the
atmosphere it is not another physical mechanism.

As for why increased radiation does not prevent warming, the basic
principle is that half the radiative heat absorbed in the atmosphere is

re-radiated back to the surface. This means that the incident radiation

at the surface is increased. This means that more energy has to leave
the surface.

The amount of energy radiated by the surface depends on the temperature.

(For a black body it is proportional to the 4th power of the
temperature.)

So, if the additional energy is leaving the surface by radiation the
temperature of the surface has to be higher. In other words radiation is

not a process which prevents the addition of greenhouse gases from
resulting in an (on average) increase in temperature.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

CO2's properties as a 'greenhouse gas' come from its absorption of
infrared radiation coming from the Earth's surface (which it then
re-radiates, thus keeping the heat in the lower levels of the
atmosphere
rather than letting it escape to space). The contention is that *all*
the IR radiation which *can* be absorbed by CO2 already is, so adding
more CO2 to the atmosphere can't increase the heating because there's
no
more radiation to be absorbed.

That contention (the "saturation argument") is false. It depends on the
false assumption that radiation is absorbed at most once during its
passage through the atmosphere.

I've modelled this myself, to verify my intuition that the "saturation
argument" is wrong. But a simple refutation is to consider Venus.
Because of Venus's high albedo solar irradiation at the surface is
comparable to that at the surface of the Earth. But the surface of Venus
is very much hotter. If the "saturation argument" was correct that would
not be the case.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley