Yes, as I mentioned on the previous thread, Isaac Held rejected this, the authors gave a response via ACP, and Held never got a chance to respond before the editor accepted it. In other journals, a reviewer that rejected a paper would at least be able to tell the editor whether the responses to his review were adequate, but ACP doesn’t seem to have that second round procedure, which is very strange. The responses to Held did not address his main concerns at all, so I am sure he would have still rejected it, because the paper hardly changed from the one he reviewed.
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Jim D
Pekka, yes, I came to a similar conclusion when this paper was first out. The latent heating from condensation raises the pressure by an order of magnitude more than the vapor loss decreases it. In an ascending condensing air parcel, this pressure rise leads to expansion, reduction in density, and buoyancy. It has the reduced density more because it is warmer, not so much because it lost some vapor.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Chief, the main thing to me seems to be cloud formation. If the the air is saturated it is saturated, why does there need to be an aerosol factor? By setting c=cs they are looking only at a 100% relative humidity condition. If a cloud doesn’t form then because of lack of aerosols to start formation, chill that sucker down some more to form ice crystals and it should make its on substrate to form. Add aerosols and you reduce the energy required to initiate condensation i.e., form clouds.
If CO2 or anything else causes surface warming which in turn increases the ethalpy moist air, that would change the temperature required for saturation. More water means condensation starts at a higher temperature, lower altitude. Lower altitude, higher density, the clouds can absorb more energy producing an increase in “upper” level convection with a greater likelihood of mixed phase clouds. Which can result in hailstone or ice crystal recycling, basically an atmospheric heat pipe. Leading to all sorts of neat stuff potentially, like say SSW events and ozone depletion.
Trendberth BTW, missed 20Wm-2 that is associated with clouds and surface energy absorption. Of course, he is just a scientist, not an HVAC engineer :)
I have no clue if this group has figured all that out, but there are some serious flaws with the application of radiant physics on a chaotic water world.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Alexander Biggs
“the ‘new’ theory certainly applies in the lower troposphere”
I was thinking of fog. But littlr vertical or horizontal movement occurs in thick humid fog. It is like being in cloud, so that discredits the ‘new’ theory at all levels in the troposphere.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by willard (@nevaudit)
> Who in their right mind would review again for this journal?
Judy, perhaps?
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Nick Stokes
HR,
It’s a paper of mathematics and physics. People in the Journal discussion and at blogs have pointed to shortfalls in the mathematics and physics. There is essentially no mathematical defence of the work by anyone other than Dr M. If Dr Nenes has something to say about why the mathematics is “not wrong”, I think he owes it to the reviewers that he invited, and to the journal readers, to say what it is.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Anastassia Makarieva
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps you might wish to clarify. Heat cannot be compared to volume of gas, they have different physical units, one cannot be larger than another. We might need to think of some realistic physical process where both effects of condensation are manifested and judge their significance from measurable parameters.
In our work we show that the effect of removing a little of gas produces a significant dynamic power. Similar estimates for latent heat are lacking in the meteorological theory, and the difficulty associated with obtaining such estimates was appreciated by people early in the first half of the 20th century.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Douglas in Australia
“steven mosher |”but the reviewers are the ones who have been ‘harmed’ here”
I hope not. This looks like an issue that Judy is well placed to answer (as one of the harmed referees). Active publishing researchers are engaged in these kind of debates on a daily basis and most develop fairly thick skin — and in this case there was never a hint of disrespect to anyone.
Do you suggest that a journal process should never contradict a referee? Or that journals should set aside their editor’s independence to attract referees? Its an idea, but it might discourage researchers with novel ideas from submitting their ideas.
This is a good place to highlight again how grateful we were to the referees. We welcomed their feedback. We have said it before and repeat it again.
We knew in advance that Dr Held was likely to be critical (he has published work that assumes very different atmospheric mechanisms) but we also recognised that critical scrutiny would be good for the paper (held us sharpen up the logic, spot flaws etc). Each and every technical point Dr Held made was addressed in our responses. You can see our replies at the APCD site. We specifically reviewed the study by Spengler et al. (2011) that Dr Held holds as a comparison to ours and we explained the flaws in its physics (see http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/C14894/2011/acpd-10-C14894-2011.pdf). We also argued why our ideas should not be given a “higher bar” than conventional ideas — even though that may seem reasonable at first glance (See http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/C15085/2011/acpd-10-C15085-2011.pdf).
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by A fan of *MORE* discourse
A Google search for the phrase “exact and inexact differentials” finds many thousands of explanations, in both articles and books, of this subtle (yet crucial) thermodynamical distinction.
And so it is concerning that, beginning with equation (1)
Makarieva et al. have (inexplicably) adopted a notation that fails to make this crucial distinction.
Concern increases further when these authors ignore the vast engineering literature on the flow of steam (which is precisely the domain where the effects they are describing are most prominent).
This paper makes extravagant claims, and had a tough time in review. This could be because:
(1) the reviewers are demanding an extraordinarily high standard of evidence and clarity of exposition, before accepting transformative findings, and/or
(2) the paper is obscurely written, with poor notation, and scanty references, and/or
(3) interpreted literally, the physics is just plain wrong, but the author’s notation is so poor that they themselves do not realize it, and/or
(4) once minor notational infelicities are corrected, the authors have found a novel path to rederive well-accepted thermodynamical models.
Conclusion On the evidence, it is entirely plausible that (1,2,3,4) all are correct! And that is why (quite properly) much further work will be required of the authors, along with independent derivation of their results by other workers using different methods, before these ideas are accepted — if indeed these ideas are not old wine poured into a new (bad-notation) bottle, or alternatively, just plain wrong.
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffbb&fg=ff0088&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Konrad.
Nabil,
avoiding revision of GCMs was the reason many thought the Knights of Consensus were fighting so hard to trash the M2010. It may be more serious than that. All it takes for the Makarieva Effect to work is for a rising moist air mass to be more diabatic than a dry air mass. This may involve radiative energy loss. Possibly IR from all that water vapour. The Knights of Consensus cannot allow any heresy involving atmospheric circulation being driven by radiative gases so they tried to trash the paper.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Michael
Not my feild, but I’ll go for 3, based on their other work in the biological feild, which I have had a bit of a look at – ‘just plain wrong’ sums up some of their claims there.
Wacky stuff, might be another reasonable summary.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Steven Mosher
Should it be in GCMs?
1. unconfirmed by empirical study
2. probably wrong
3. if correct, inconsequential.
so, re framing, should unconfirmed, likely wrong, inconsequential physics be put into models?
Some GCM are open source, believers should knock themselves out and stop pestering people with confusingly notated papers. write some damn code
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Konrad.
Manacker,
Yes, I am making a direct challenge to the failed hypothesis that radiative gases create a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. Those proposing that CO2 emissions will heat our atmosphere do so on the basis of critically flawed equations. The “basic physics” of the “settled science” never correctly modelled the role of radiative gases in tropospheric vertical convection. They never modelled a moving atmosphere, or the role of gravity in biasing conductive flux between the surface and atmosphere. (the surface is more effective at conductively heating the atmosphere than conductively cooling the atmosphere).
It is said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The AGW hypothesis essentially is an extraordinary claim that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce its radiative cooling ability. To date no supporting extraordinary evidence has ever been produced. What the M2010 incident shows is not only did some of the AGW promoters know their hypothesis was rubbish, but they have known for years.
↧
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Anastassia Makarieva
Thank you for your interest in our paper. Even if negative, it makes people think.
I think we addressed your point on writing some code in our post (“You should produce a better model than existing ones”).
There is theory and there are models. They are not equivalent. Theory comes first.
What does it mean in our case? We present a theoretical estimate of circulation power that fits the observations. Such an estimate does not exist in the meteorological theory on which the current models have been built. So where the current models are just fitted to reality (because of lacking theory), we offer a testable quantitative framework. And this is not about some detail — it is about a key parameter of atmospheric circulation: its power.
This is at least interesting, as admitted by even most critical peers (see, e.g., p. C14689) in the review of Dr. Held. At most it means a re-appraisal of our understanding of how the atmosphere works. So I see no harm if our work receives some attention.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Eli Rabett
Heat affects temperature. Condensation breaks the ideal gas law as a useful equation of state for the area where the condensation takes place, because knowing PV and n no longer tells you what T is.
The exception to that is if the temperature rise is small, and if that is the case then the condensation has no effect.
↧
Comment on Condensation-driven winds: An update by Eli Rabett
To expand a bit. It is unusual, but not unknown that an editor will publish against the advice of anonymous referees, or that a grant will be funded that does not score well. However, doing so when the names and reviews of the referees are public is not going to be taken well by anyone approached by Nennes to do a review. Even JC’s review did not endorse the paper, merely saying that it was interesting but flawed.
By adopting the open review process, the EGU took on a heavier obligation to the reviewers.
↧
Comment on Another Hockey Stick by Philip Finck
With respect to Canadian oil sands. The recoverable reserves will expand greatly as new technology such as injection horizontal wells (re:Cenovis) becomes the norm rather than open pit extraction methods.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Pekka Pirilä
Montalbano,
That’s correct but as long as we discuss only this principle that could occur very much later. It the ocean warms uniformly to depths like 1 km or more that point could come only after several decades. With stronger assumptions the delay could be hundred years.
Not that i would expect further delays of several decades, but I just want to tell that logic alone cannot provide strong limits.
↧
Comment on Another Hockey Stick by Robert I Ellison
There are at least two world views. For one the equation is people and the use of resources and the need is to reduce one or preferably both. The other understands that there are things that can be achieved in population management essentially through economic development, health and education and there is much we can do with technological innovation and the resources we have at hand. Indeed that there is much that can be achieved in ecological conservation and restoration and in carbon mitigation. Progress that has eluded us for decades. We believe that sustainable economic growth in free markets and democratic systems is not just possible but is the key to a bright future for humanity.
One side wants a rich, resilient world building on our technologies. The other side promulgates dire prophecies in the hopes of creating a revolutionary moment in which societies and economies can be radically reshaped. The choice between hope and despair is a simple one. The future is limitless.
↧
Comment on Another Hockey Stick by WebHubTelescope
The issue is that insiders all know how fast the Bakken will deplete, but it is not well advertised.
Realize that the petroleum engineers (and the specialist reservoir engineers) already know how to extrapolate how fast individual wells will deplete. However they only use this information to advance their company’s bottom-line.
Everyone should realize that they won’t go beyond this point and discuss it with the rest of civilization. It’s a cut-throat business after all.
So what happens is that the curious among us will pull together the data — however limited it is — and try to make sense of it.
What we find is that the flow of oil out of a frac’d well is diffusion limited over time and shows an extreme drop from the initial peak. In a few years it will drop even below stripper status, as there is no real reservoir to draw from. Google “diffusion limited” + Bakken and you can read up on it.
So what happens, is that the Red Queen phenomena starts to develop as more and more wells have to be drilled to make up for the severe declines of the previous ones Simple math really.
NoDak becomes GhostTown, USA in no time.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
