|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: jon_banquerjon_banquer Date: May 2, 2008 18:04
"I'll leave the description of D Murphy to the reader. "
Okay. I'll take a stab at it:
Good machinist, decent person, capable of letting others have a
different opinion, never uses Tom Brewer, Joe788 or Cliff Huprich Nazi
propaganda tactics, has good taste in food, knows CADCAM systems need
work, is too reliant on Microsoft crap like MS Word rather than a
first rate text editor to create and edit G code programs, needs to
understand that monocoque chassis are the way to go and that there is
no reason they shouldn't be used and be almost as affordable as
triangulated tube frame. Should have cut Cliff Huprich off a long time
ago but must be bored and wants the amusement.
Was that the description of D Murphy that you expected?
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 22:58
On 1 May 2008 23:20:32 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff aol.com> wrote in
>news:f45j141nnlka9hp1vskjlvnb228hg5t664@4ax.com:
>>> On 1 May 2008 03:42:35 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>Cliff aol.com> wrote in...
|
| Show full article (8.68Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:30
On 2 May 2008 02:47:38 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>Cliff aol.com> wrote in
>news:gqok149eaq9kpuk2qbkptm0jf0a3q4sqm5@4ax.com:
>>> On Thu, 01 May 2008 07:57:17 -0700, Dan hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>Cliff wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 01 May...
|
| Show full article (5.46Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:32
On Fri, 2 May 2008 18:04:14 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer yahoo.com>
wrote:
>"I'll leave the description of D Murphy to the reader. "
>
>Okay. I'll take a stab at it:
>
>Good machinist, decent person, capable of letting others have a
>different opinion, never uses Tom Brewer, Joe788 or Cliff Huprich Nazi
>propaganda tactics, has good taste in food, knows CADCAM systems need
>work, is too reliant on Microsoft crap like MS Word rather than a
>first rate text editor to create and edit G code programs, needs to
>understand that monocoque chassis are the way to go and that there is
>no reason they shouldn't be used and be almost as affordable as
>triangulated tube frame. Should have cut Cliff Huprich off a long time
>ago but must be bored and wants the amusement.
>
>Was that the description of D Murphy that you expected?
IOW You don't think he knows much about the subject, eh?
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:34
On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The land bound ice covers about 3-1/2%% of the Earths surface and thus
>>> can only absorb a proportional amount of the total energy warming the
>>> surface of the Earth.
>>
>> He failed physics and chemistry.
>
>I see. So what mysterious force is focusing the sun's energy on the ice
>covered areas?
Ever hear of "convection"? Or air or water?
--
Cliff
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:36
On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Consider the temperature of the ice. It's averages around
>>> -15 degrees not zero. Also there is the matter of elevation and local
>>> temperature. Antarctica has an average elevation of around...
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:44
On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>>> So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice to
>>> raise seas by 20 feet.
>>
>> He failed geology and climatology.
>
>How much does the temperature have to rise to make ice sitting in -50
>degree air melt? How much of the world's ice is sitting in just such a
>location?
Ice flows downhill too. And while ice is a poor conductor of heat
(compared to metals) it does conduct. So .... is it warming up?
Lots of thermal mass to keep it cool for a bit ..... as it warms so
will that air ....
--
Cliff
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:45
On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Even if the temperature were to rise an additional 6
>>> degrees. Not enough ice exists at lower altitudes and in warmer areas
>>> to raise the seas by that depth. Hint: the easy to melt ice from the
>>> last ice age has mostly melted already.
>>
>> He failed paleontology.
>
>Hint: You haven't a clue.
You took it & passed?
--
Cliff
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 2, 2008 23:47
On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy comcast.net> wrote:
>Well let's hear your explanation of how another five degree rise in
>temperature will melt all of the ice on the planet in anything less than
>a millenia.
You just claimed *that it would not melt*.
>Feel free to use science and numbers.
Give it a try . Use calculus as needed.
--
Cliff
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: CliffCliff Date: May 3, 2008 00:11
On Thu, 01 May 2008 23:13:12 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:
>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:48:07 -0500, Whata Fool wrote:
>>> Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
>>>in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
>>>of that ice to zero C.
>>
>> It's not all going to increase in temp equally or uniformly. Ice is not
>>a very good thermal conductor.
>
> If it is not a good conductor, then it is a good insulator?
Define "good". Ice is a slightly better thermal conductor than water.
>
>> Did you calculate the added heat we get each year due to global warming?
>> I did some time ago. Guess where it ends up.
>
> I have no idea what kind of calculations you have done that
>the Billions spent on research hasn't explained.
|
| Show full article (3.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
