Saturday, May 23, 2009

Last Call

UPDATE: Thank you for approving "COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"".

Submitted.

The files have been uploaded to the International Journal of Modern Physics B, and are available at Rabett Run Labs. Eli is looking for suggestions to send to the Editor for referees. Particularly valuable given the editorial board would be referees from Germany, Singapore, China and south and southeast Asia.

Eli would appreciate if you, dear Readers took a quick look at the files for errors. There was a considerable amount of reformatting needed to get the figures to stick in place and the bunny is sick of looking at the thing.

10 comments:

Hank Roberts said...

Spellchecking, Open Office, skipping the German words because I don't know any of them, found:

issupposed

Hank Roberts said...

and email sent with more notes; just did one pass straight through. Oh, and I skipped the math of course. Someone competent please proof that.

Magnus Westerstrand said...

He looks kinda German?
Erland Källén

http://www2.su.se/sukat/person.jsp?dn=uid%3Dekall%2Cdc%3Dmisu%2Cdc%3Dsu%2Cdc%3Dse

Chris Winter said...

Problems with G&T version 2.11 (the MS Word version):

1. First footnote (following "(hereafter GT09).") — is a plain number; needs conversion to superscript.

2. Quibble and nit: Page 2, paragraph 1 has "Navier Stokes equations for fluid flow in an unionized medium"
a) S/B "Navier-Stokes"
b) Change "unionized" to "un-ionized."

3. Page 3, paragraph 1: "GT09 fail to acknowledge..." GT09 refers to the paper, a singular subject, so this should be "fails

to acknowledge."

4. Page 3, paragraph 3: Commas changed to semicolons (two places.)

IS: "These problems are characteristic of the remainder of the paper. First, the authors’ lack quantitative familiarity

with the field they are criticizing, second their claims of complexity or invalidity, impossibility, and occasionally fraud

regarding well-established quantitatively verified analyses of atmospheric processes, and third their extensive diversions on

topics that do nothing to further their own argument or a reader’s understanding."

S/B: "These problems are characteristic of the remainder of the paper: First, the authors’ lack of quantitative familiarity

with the field they are criticizing; second, their claims of complexity or invalidity, impossibility, and occasionally fraud

regarding well-established quantitatively verified analyses of atmospheric processes; and third, their extensive diversions

on topics that do nothing to further their own argument or a reader’s understanding."

5. Page 3, paragraph 3: "We address these below" — Sentence lacks a period.

6. Page 3, paragraph 5: "Following Smith14 which was a response to an earlier version of GT0915 we find..."

Commas missing: S/B "Following Smith,14 which was a response to an earlier version of GT09,15 we find..."

7. Page 4, paragraph 2: "Second Law of thermodynamics..." — Capitalize "thermodynamics."

8. Page 5, paragraph 6: "Fig. 1 is not meant to be a GCM, but an illustration of the vertical thermal energy flow from the

sun, the surface and in the atmosphere." — Probably S/B "flows."

9. Page 5, paragraph 6: "Gerlich and Tscheuschner might want to reconsider their standard representations of heat engine

(Fig. 31 and Fig. 32 in GT09 and Fig. 3 below) which uses the same sort of arrows." — S/B "which use."

10. Page 6, paragraph 6: "According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Bakan and Raschke's scientific misconduct and by association

that of Goody and Young,17 their Ref. 103, was..."

Missing punctuation: S/B "According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Bakan and Raschke's scientific misconduct (and by

association that of Goody and Young17), their Ref. 103, was..."

11. Page 7, Fig. 3: "netto in equals netto out" — What's netto? Should this be "net T0"?

12. Page 7, paragraph 4: Odd formatting; paragraph starts at right side of page. Suggestion: Add another C/R.

Continued in part 2.

Chris Winter said...

13. Page 8, paragraph 2: "This does not affect the argument in GT09" — Missing period.

14. Page 8, paragraph 5: "In their Fig. 32 (Fig. 3 above) and in other places in GT09.," — Punctuation; period followed
immediately by comma. Remove the period.

15. Page 9: Figure overlaps text. (Maybe the PDF is OK...)

16. Page 10, paragraph 2: "If they were finite, they would eventually reach a common temperature, however, the argument would be essentially the same for the process with minor changes to account for the changing temperatures of the disks." — Change highlighted comma to semicolon.

17. Page 11, paragraph 5: "The net energy flow through the system – i.e. from central blackbody to A, from A to B, and from B into space, is (1/3)σT4." — Following "space", change the comma to an M-dash.

18. Page 11, paragraph 7: "The same is true of the earth / atmosphere case where the net flow of heat is from the earth to the atmosphere and yet..." — Here, "earth" S/B capitalized. (Two places)

19. Page 13, paragraph 2: "At night, no part of the Earth cools anywhere near the absolute zero temperature implied by a local radiative equilibrium even at the poles during their six month long nights." — Highlighted phrase S/B "cools to anywhere near."

20. Page 14, paragraph 5: "GT09 show how to integrate temperatures over the globe's surface, and they correctly note that the value obtained by such integration should be less than Teff if surface radiation only balances the solar input. They fail to note that if you actually do integrate over the surface of the Earth you get a value substantially greater than Teff. This difference is explained by the greenhouse effect."

Here you again treat "GT09" as a plural subject, contrary to most occurrences where the term is treated as singular. S/B
"GT09 shows how to integrate temperatures over the globe's surface, and it correctly notes that the value obtained by such
integration should be less than Teff if surface radiation only balances the solar input. It fails to note that if you
actually do integrate over the surface of the Earth you get a value substantially greater than Teff. This difference is
explained by the greenhouse effect."

(N.B. Sec. 3.3 was written by a different author, wasn't it?)

21. Page 17, paragraph 1: Text overlaps Fig. 8, which is referred to on the preceding page. (Maybe the PDF is OK...)

22. Page 17, paragraph 2: "This claim is very misleading and especially if one does not have a working knowledge of the
infrared spectrum of both molecules." — S/B very misleading, especially."

23. Page 17: Caption for Fig. 9 is an orphan. (The figure itself appears on following page.)

I did not look closely at the Reference Section. I might have missed something here.

All in all this paper looks very good. It certainly achieves its objective wrt G & T. To paraphrase Lt. Cdr. Data, you busted them up.

Hank Roberts said...

Chris's No. 2--yesyes. I was haunted knowing I'd noticed a hyphen missing, somewhere, but didn't locate the spot;
"unionized" (duh) I missed in the notes I emailed Eli. I agree with most all the rest, especially the ones I failed to notice; a few are editorial option phrasing stuff like
No. 6 -- the comma before 'which' is American but not British English.
No. 9, I like whatever it was I suggested better, maybe just adding an "a" in addition to the other;
"netto" -- I agree, I thought that was a dessert topping, was puzzled, paused, ignored, should've asked what it meant.

Awesome nitpickery, Chris.
"... and greater fleas have lesser fleas, and so _ad_infinitum_."

Are the references there? I didn't see'em, will look for them again.

Hank Roberts said...

Sigh. It never ends, does it?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl7536426072q7j7/

EliRabett said...

Been there Chilingared that As a matter of fact that drove Werner Aeschbach-Hertig to start blogging, which almost made the whole thing worth while

chriscolose said...

I should add that in "order of authors" that I would love having a phD, but can't claim that honor.

gravityloss said...

Looks great to me, having just read the moon example.
Hopefully some physics teachers will read this as well if they want to explain the greenhouse effect thoroughly.