Talk:Atmospheric lapse rate

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Refers to the change of an atmospheric variable with a change of altitude, the variable being temperature unless specified otherwise (such as pressure, density or humidity). [d] [e]

Wikipedia has an article on this subject

This article was written from scratch. Any material in this article that looks similar to content in the WP article is purely coincidental.Milton Beychok 22:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

More could be written about lapse rates, but ??

There is more that could be written about atmospheric lapse rates, but I'm not sure if more is required of an encyclopedia article. Milton Beychok 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits by anonymous on Knowino

Milt, when you're interested in changes made by 173.20.51.14 to the present article, see Knowino ALR. You can undo the changes if you wish (or copy them here). --Paul Wormer 06:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your heads up, Paul. But I have no inclination and no time for reviewing what some anonymous person has to say in another wiki. Especially when words like "junk" and "Jesus, you really said this?" are used. That is the type of language from anonymous sources that drove me out of Wikipedia. As I recall, when I wrote this article, you read it and offered no comments. Your Barometric formula article here in CZ speaks of constant lapse rates and of temperature being linear with height (which is just another way of describing a constant lapse rate). So why a comment like "Jesus, did you really say that?" ? I thought we were friends, Paul. Milton Beychok 07:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. You know that I didn't write these comments and would never use language like that. I thought that you were seasoned enough that it wouldn't hurt you, and that you would look at the actual changes (I did not yet give them any thought). So in your opinion these anonymous changes are not an improvement? (My experience at WP is that 1 out of 10 changes is good, 4 out of 10 is debatable, and 5 out of 10 is plain wrong. In the 1 out of 10 chance that 173.20.51.14 knew what he was talking about, I gave you the heads up.)--Paul Wormer 08:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Paul, even if I were inclined to do so, my work on the Management Council plus being the sole Editorial Personnel Administrator plus handling our donations funds and paying our server costs take up most of my time. I am not interested in even checking the changes made by the foul-mouthed anonymous 173.20.51.14 just as I no longer visit Wikipedia to check for changes in articles I originally wrote there. But thanks anyhow and I'm glad to learn that the "Jesus, did you really say that?" was not your comment. Milton Beychok 08:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Milt, Boris wrote a reprimand, see [1].--Paul Wormer 16:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)