- #1
- 1,647
- 9
Well, word has just come through so I'm going to announce it here. I'm now officially a published physicist! If you really go into the details it isn't quite as impressive as might appear at first glance, but hey. I'll accept congratulations in any case! 
I'm very pleased, but to keep this in perspective, it is in a comparatively minor journal, and the accepted paper is a "comment" on a preceding paper, and the paper we comment on is an oddity which has no real scientific influence, and the content of our paper is easily within what is accessible to an undergraduate studying the relevant aspects of thermodynamics. Originally I had felt it wasn't even worth writing a paper on it, but I was persuaded to join in the project. None of my co-authors are prominent as physicists.
The reference is:
)
Chris Colose is also a member here, but currently inactive, I think.
The subject matter of our paper is climate, but only at a very elementary level. In particular, it isn't about "climate change", and neither is the paper we respond to, although it tends to present itself in that light. The point at issue is much simpler; it is whether or not the "greenhouse effect" as described in conventional atmospheric thermodynamics is a violation of the second law. Hence it is probably technically within the current guidelines for discussion, but in practice it rarely stays that way. I won't be opening any new threads on the content in any case; and I'll support without qualification or qualm the mentors in applying the guidelines to any discussion anyone else might bring up. Personally, I now devote pretty much all my PF content discussions to cosmology matters, which is a long standing interest of mine.
Relevant links:
I'm not wanting to open this thread to detailed discussion of the content here -- just let friends and colleagues here know of a forthcoming physics publication for which I am a co-author. I'm sure even people who disagree with me on the now completed climate discussions will still be happy for me and my co-authors simply at a personal/professional level! Some of the content of the paper actually appeared originally in my posts on climate at physicsforums.
Cheers -- sylas
I'm very pleased, but to keep this in perspective, it is in a comparatively minor journal, and the accepted paper is a "comment" on a preceding paper, and the paper we comment on is an oddity which has no real scientific influence, and the content of our paper is easily within what is accessible to an undergraduate studying the relevant aspects of thermodynamics. Originally I had felt it wasn't even worth writing a paper on it, but I was persuaded to join in the project. None of my co-authors are prominent as physicists.
The reference is:
- Joshua Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann (2010) Comment On "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics", (to appear in) http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/ijmpb.shtml , Vol 24, Iss 10, March 30 2010.
)Chris Colose is also a member here, but currently inactive, I think.
The subject matter of our paper is climate, but only at a very elementary level. In particular, it isn't about "climate change", and neither is the paper we respond to, although it tends to present itself in that light. The point at issue is much simpler; it is whether or not the "greenhouse effect" as described in conventional atmospheric thermodynamics is a violation of the second law. Hence it is probably technically within the current guidelines for discussion, but in practice it rarely stays that way. I won't be opening any new threads on the content in any case; and I'll support without qualification or qualm the mentors in applying the guidelines to any discussion anyone else might bring up. Personally, I now devote pretty much all my PF content discussions to cosmology matters, which is a long standing interest of mine.
Relevant links:
- The http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/ijmpb.shtml .
- The paper we comment upon (GT09).
- My PF blog article, https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=1493 . This is actually a more general piece, as part of a series of 4 posts I used to kick off my PF blog "What is mainstream science", "Journals to avoid", "When peer review fails", and "How to debate online". The paper GT09 was one of four examples I used where peer review slipped up, and one member here queried that, so we talked a bit about that in the comments. That blog also has some links to threads in the main forum, which should not be reopened for discussion.
I'm not wanting to open this thread to detailed discussion of the content here -- just let friends and colleagues here know of a forthcoming physics publication for which I am a co-author. I'm sure even people who disagree with me on the now completed climate discussions will still be happy for me and my co-authors simply at a personal/professional level! Some of the content of the paper actually appeared originally in my posts on climate at physicsforums.
Cheers -- sylas
Last edited by a moderator:
