Solar and GHG effect in vertical temperature of the atmos.

[Diogenes]

Freude, schoner Gotterfunken,
Tochter als Elysium
Wir betreten Feuertrunken
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum
Deine Zauber binden weider
Was die Mode streng geteilt
Alle Menschen werden Bruder
Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt.

Could you translate that into Yiddish? Well my Yiddish is not that good either (I mostly know the swear words). So how about English?

Tis a flight of fancy. If the human race could ever get along, I would call it a shpadoinkle day!

(have you ever seen "Canibal: the Muscial! " ? )

Apart from that, could you teach me the swear words ?

[Diogenes]

Geeze it's good to be back home! It rained for all but two hours in Kirkland!

[MSimon]

Freude, schoner Gotterfunken,
Tochter als Elysium
Wir betreten Feuertrunken
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum
Deine Zauber binden weider
Was die Mode streng geteilt
Alle Menschen werden Bruder
Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt.

:)

Could you translate that into Yiddish? Well my Yiddish is not that good either (I mostly know the swear words). So how about English?

Tis a flight of fancy. If the human race could ever get along, I would call it a shpadoinkle day!

(have you ever seen "Canibal: the Muscial! " ? )

No.

[CaptainBeowulf]

A google search led to various results, including a wikipedia page which provides the following translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_N ... ethoven%29

Joy, beautiful spark of divinity
Daughter of Elysium,
We enter, drunk with fire,
Into your heavenly sanctuary!
Your magic reunites
What custom strictly divided.
All men will become brothers,
Where your gentle wing rests.

Looks about right - I learned a fair bit of German years ago but I've forgotten most of it. But I remember enough to say that the translation isn't too far off.

Evidently words written to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Apparently the 9th symphony is also the anthem of the EU. All roads lead to Brussels and Strasbourg, evidently.

[alexjrgreen]

Could you translate that into Yiddish?

College Yiddish has "Ale mentshn zaynen brider"...

[alexjrgreen]

drunk with fire

feuer can also mean "passion".

[CaptainBeowulf]

Old English:

Eal menn weorthan brothor

(More or less. Not sure I got the declensions 100% right. Don't get much chance to practice dead languages.)

[alexjrgreen]

Old English:

Eal menn weorthan brothor

(More or less. Not sure I got the declensions 100% right. Don't get much chance to practice dead languages.)

Eart þu se Beowulf, se þe wið Brecan wunne?

[MSimon]

The educational opportunities here are fantastic.

[Jccarlton]

Many points made by various members of the polywell discussion group are also discussed in this report

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/s ... -chap5.pdf

But I would like to point out three points they made:
1. Increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (which are primarily due to fossil fuel burning) result in largescale
warming of the Earth’s surface and troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere.
2. Increases in solar irradiance warm globally throughout the atmospheric column (from the surface to the stratosphere).
3. Natural factors have influenced surface and atmospheric temperatures, but cannot fully explain their changes over the past 50 years.

Another climate scientist pointed out that solar causes heating in both stratosphere and the lower atmosphere which made me think about the sun's quantum blackbody radiation and the fact that UV heats the strat.
Whereas the Earth's quantum blackbody radiation is shifted toward IR where it is absorbed by water and CO2, so to me it makes sense that increased GHG is a predictor of changes in the lapse rate. Anyway, I'm not an expert on this and I could be wrong about the reasons, so I leave it to the experts like the report above to give you a better discussion on the subject.

You do know that the paper in this link was written by the climate cabal. After climategate it behooves all to make sure that we do not use data that is known to be corrupted. There is no point in arguing nonsense, which this paper is.

[MSimon]

Here is a good one:

IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report - and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.

The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review - and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So how could such speculation have become an IPCC "finding" which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel's chairman? We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked "climategate" emails.

Links and my comments here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... lting.html

And note:

IPCC Chairman defends known faulty data.

I'm glad he is not engineering my railroad. He is just trying to railroad my government.

[Jccarlton]

Here is a good one:

IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report - and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.

The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review - and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So how could such speculation have become an IPCC "finding" which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel's chairman? We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked "climategate" emails.

Links and my comments here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... lting.html

And note:

IPCC Chairman defends known faulty data.

I'm glad he is not engineering my railroad. He is just trying to railroad my government.

I'm a better railroad engineer than he is. And my railroad is 1:87 actual size. I would note that the supposedly melting Himalaya glaciers has been one of the most frequent scares I've been hearing recently.

[flying_eagle]

You boys are missing the point of this post which was to get you to consider the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere for clues of what was causing the increased warming, commonly known as Global warming and changes in the lapse rate.

I prefer you use peer reviewed research papers if you are going to argue against any specific point. Your use of wattsupwiththat and Dr. Roy Spencer blogs and power and control references are not any better than me using news articles except some do tend to use published reports and research papers. So instead of giving me the digested version like news reports or people's blogs, and your person opinion about what ever, can you at least stick to science and rely on experts who dedicate themselves to their field of study? Unless you show me your PhD and your journalled and peer reviewed papers, it is a waste of time hearing opinion about science.

Consider that if you are going to speak, back it up with a published reference in science where we all have the chance to read the work and which sites other published work as part of its work.

You see you didn't want to argue the points made in the reports and papers I gave you. Instead, some just wanted to smear the work of the authors because of some tabloid trash articles about climate gate which does not invalidate the science work of thousands and thousands in all related fields of scientific study.

I will consider you smart if you have an hypothesis and you are honest with us about it and are looking for supporting evidence to validate your idea. But ranting about your knowledge or others lack thereof is not helpful. So please can we discuss the topic thread instead of what I'm reading here? It's beginning to look like a waste of time just to read these responses.

Make your point, back it up with research paper and let the next guy do the same. Then I can learn from you and you can learn from me. Deal?

[IntLibber]

Here's where eagle's focus on earth's black body heating CO2 falls down: albedo. Earth only absorbs what is not already reflected, either by clouds, or by the surface itself.

Ice/snow reflect solar radiation pretty much intact, so reflect that radiation back to space at wavelengths which CO2 is incapable of absorbing. The more of the earth which is covered by snow or ice, the higher the planets albedo is, and cooling is amplified. Currently the northern hemisphere has the highest level of snow coverage on record. Similarly, Antarctic ice extent (it is southern hemisphere summer) is at its greatest extent for this time of year on record. This also contributes to cooling.

Clouds also increase albedo, reflecting sunlight back to space. While clouds do keep Earth warm at night (and if you really study the subject, you will see that it is the night time lows that are most effected by CO2 increases, it has little to no impact on daytime highs), they also keep it cool during the day. How effective clouds are at both jobs is highly dependent upon what altitude the clouds form at, as well as the degree of cloud cover.

Cloud formation is found to be impacted by the amount of galactic cosmic rays hitting the planet, as these cosmic rays cause cloud seeding. The more GCRs, the more cloud cover. The deep solar minimum we are currently in is allowing more GCR's to reach earth than at any time on record, because the solar magnetic field is so incredibly weak, and solar wind density is also very low. The solar minimum is the longest in two centuries.

The main AGW proponents refuse to recognise the GCR/solar minimum connection to albedo changes, and their models do not accept changes in planetary albedo, which is a major flaw and helps explain why their models are so terrible at predicting the future.

[flying_eagle]

Here's where eagle's focus on earth's black body heating CO2 falls down: albedo. Earth only absorbs what is not already reflected, either by clouds, or by the surface itself.

Not really does it fall down, blackbody is the heat emitted where albedo is already taken into effect as less heat is absorbed and re-radiated by the earth.
Likewise, CO2 has absorption bands in the IR spectrum that is being emitted by earth's blackbody radiation. Like water and other gases, these create the greenhouse gas effect by their thermal excitation against other molecules and their re-radiation themselves to even longer wavelengths.
So the point is that the sun's blackbody radiation is more transparent in the atmosphere than the earth's blackbody radiation where we are making it more opaque with increased amounts of CO2.

Cloud formation is found to be impacted by the amount of galactic cosmic rays hitting the planet, as these cosmic rays cause cloud seeding. The more GCRs, the more cloud cover. The deep solar minimum we are currently in is allowing more GCR's to reach earth than at any time on record, because the solar magnetic field is so incredibly weak, and solar wind density is also very low. The solar minimum is the longest in two centuries.

Got a science paper on this? I could also say that about dust in the air being a seed nucleate. I'm aware that clouds generally form when dewpoint and temperature converge and reach the threshold for condensation. The height determined also by the lapse rate in that column of air.

The main AGW proponents refuse to recognise the GCR/solar minimum connection to albedo changes, and their models do not accept changes in planetary albedo, which is a major flaw and helps explain why their models are so terrible at predicting the future.

Most scientist already know models are limited in complexity but good for their limted domain of understanding. Math and computers do work well in modeling and in some cases physical domains can be explored this way as well. Models are always improving. Here is a paper on regarding albedo use in modeling: http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/atbd/atbd_mod09.pdf

I'm curious, how do you know a prediction is terrible about a future event until it becomes history?