The editors of the EGU Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, specifically Athanasios Nenes has thrown the journal and it's open review system into the trash pit, which will take some effort to climb out of. Nenes has agreed to publish a paper “Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics” by A. M. Makarieva et al., under the delusion that jackels can be enticed to walk peacefully with lambs.
As you may recall, this was a paper that was the hit of a while ago, and our Judy made explicit mention of this in a review she submitted
This paper (M10) has been discussed extensively in the blogosphere, with participation
of the paper co-authors (including Makarieva):
The authors are to be commended for their willingness to engage in extensive publicAs ER has remarked, this paper is an archetypal of a class of nonsense which attracts axe grinders, obsessives and the willing to be confused
discussion of their paper.
Eli has learned over the years that all sorts of strange people write the same paper, very long, very hard to follow and very wrong. These papers and their defenders play the Gallileo card early and often. No one can follow the algebra (these things always hide under a blizzard of algebraic incantation), but you can look at the assumptions, and when you do this carefully you find some amazing stuff, not believable, not correct, but amazin.Such documents provide endless streams of diddle because they are unclear, full of logical jumps, and anyone coming to them can weave infinite elaborations out of them. Hydrinos, did Eli mention hydrinos? You can even make a business of it.
Nick Stokes pointed out that Eq. 33-37 were the key and Isaac Held agreed that it was the jump at that point that made the paper equation salad, but, being a kind person he was not direct enough in his verdict
The authors make an extraordinary claim that a term that is traditionally considered to be small, to the point that it is sometimes neglected in atmospheric models and, even when not neglected, rarely commented on, is in fact dominant in driving atmospheric circulations. . . . A claim of this sort naturally has to pass a high bar to be publishable, given the accumulated evidence, implicit as well as explicit, that argues against it. I am afraid that this paper does not approach the level required. I have done my best to keep an open mind, but do not see any cogent arguments that overturn the conventional wisdom. I do applaud the authors for questioning the foundations of our understanding of the atmosphere and provide some unsolicited advice on how the authors might proceed to clarify some of these issues.Nenes, did Eli mention that Nenes is Georgia Power Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Physics at Georgia Tech, has a remarkable justification for publishing this thing
Eli confidently looks forward to the avalanche of crank papers from the Oliver Manuals and Tallblokes of the world which will soon inundate ACP. They asked for it, go give it to them guys.
For those of us who favor the open review system, this will be a disaster. The predictable outcome is that people are going to cite this example as a reason to throw ACP invitations to review into the trash pit. Open review required that the referees put their reputations on the line. Their reviews are out there for everyone to read. If the editors ignore them, why do so?