I have been receiving emails from the authors of the condensation driven wind theory for several days now as they have published a new paper. Since I have no time whatsoever, I haven’t even read their latest work.
Judith Curry has kindly taken on their guest post and it can be read there. Condensation-driven winds: An update
Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li
the Air Vent 
Way off topic….
Can anyone get to Climate Audit??
I can’t.
WUWT has an update
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/02/about-climate-audit/
Jeff, I am not sufficiently versed in this area to have an opinion on the correctness of the theory being proposed here. I do, however, see something in the criticism that might just be a lack of expertise on my part here, but in my view part of the problem is that the modeling covering this area of weather is not sufficiently well founded such that counter theories can be presented. It appears to me that these models have sufficient parameters to obtain the right/resonable answers and without supporting physical theories. From my view I see a lot of what appears as handwaving by those criticizing and the authors replying by going back to their theory.
On Judith Curry’s blog the argument seems to evolved into one of the editor over ruling the reviewers in allowing the paper to be published. Could it be that the editor did not see good counter theories from the reviewers and thus with personal misgivings allowed the publication? If all this encourages the science community involved in this area to put their models on a better physical footing then what the editor did would be a good thing.
Kenneth
“Could it be that the editor did not see good counter theories from the reviewers and thus with personal misgivings allowed the publication?”
It may be. He gave no scientific reasons at all.
But reviewers presented with a paper depending on cruddy maths and physics are not expected to present a superior alternative theory. Their job is to get the maths and physics set right. If it can be.
“But reviewers presented with a paper depending on cruddy maths and physics are not expected to present a superior alternative theory. Their job is to get the maths and physics set right. ”
If only Mann’s reviewers had done so …
“But reviewers presented with a paper depending on cruddy maths and physics are not expected to present a superior alternative theory.”
The editor did not select the reviewrers as I take they volunteered. Are you saying that the editor was incapable of recognizing cruddy math and science? Or might he not have recognized it as cruddy math and physics by the reviewers comments? Are the models for weather covered in this paper well based in physics or are they parameter dependent? Are the parameters well based in physics?
Kenneth,
“The editor did not select the reviewrers as I take they volunteered.”
Well, not exactly.
“The Editor handling our paper has invited ten referees so far. Only one, Dr. Judith Curry, accepted.”
I think he’ll have less success next time.
The ACPD discussion with referee reports is here.
Jeff,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Makes me recall my days as a nuc. I look forward to seeing how this evolves.
Blogged here:
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/02/atmosphere-giant-steam-engine