86 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2024
    1. Dr Minor would read a text not for its meaning but for its words. It wasa novel approach to the task – the equivalent of cutting up a book word byword, and then placing each in an alphabetical list which helped the editorsquickly find quotations. Just as Google today ‘reads’ text as a series of wordsor symbols that are searchable and discoverable, so with Dr Minor. A manualundertaking of this kind was laborious – he was basically working as acomputer would work – but it probably resulted in a higher percentage of hisquotations making it to the Dictionary page than those of other contributors.
    2. Over thetwenty-three years that Minor had sent in slips to the Scriptorium, he mainlyread travellers’ tales and medical texts from the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies. It was the travellers’ tales that interested me because they broughtthousands of words from indigenous languages around the world into theEnglish language.
    3. the outright winner was a mysterious character called Thomas Austin Jnr whosent Dr Murray an incredible total of 165,061 over the span of a decade.Second place goes to William Douglas of Primrose Hill who sent in 151,982slips over twenty-two years; third place to Dr Thomas Nadauld Brushfield ofDevon, with 70,277 over twenty-eight years; with Dr William Chester Minorof Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum coming in fourth place with 62,720slips.

      Top slip contributors to OED: 1. Thomas Austin Jnr. 165,061 slips over 10 years (45.22 notes per day) 2. William Douglas 151,982 over 22 years (18.92 notes per day) 3. Thomas Nadauld Brushfield 70,277 over 28 years (1.98 notes per day) 4. William Chester Minor 62,720 slips over 23 years (to 1906) (7.5 notes per day)

  2. Dec 2023
    1. They don't want their intimate convic-tions turned over and examined, and itis unfortunate that the emphasis put

      upon minor differences by men of science and belief in their strenuous search for the completest truth and the exactest expression sometimes gives color to this sort of misunderstanding.

      This emphasis on minor differences is exactly what many anti-science critics have done. See examples with respect to evolution and climate science denial.

  3. Oct 2023
  4. Sep 2023
  5. Jun 2023
    1. The progression shown in Figure 9.9 exemplifies the structure of a minor blues.4The chord structure of the minor blues is characterized by the presence of traditionaltonal progressions. For instance, the tonicization of iv in m. 4 uses a secondary dominant7th, V7/iv, and the motion to V 7 in m. 10 is prepared by the ≤VI7 chord. This particularpreparation of the dominant 7th, ≤VI7–V7, is one of the harmonic trademarks of the minorblues.
  6. Mar 2023
    1. I justhaven't used it since January lastyear, so I'm not getting thatagain.

      What do we see here? Why would he get it again?

    2. Not quite human.

      it's punchy, but what does it mean? be more specific.



  7. Feb 2023
  8. Oct 2022
  9. Apr 2021
    1. Asia Minor also called Turkey, where there are many cities and castles.

      Turkey at this time were heavily influenced by Persian tradition and embraced the Islamic faith. They were once a nomadic horde that expanded into Persia then Byzantine Empire. Becoming the dominate force in Anatolia.

  10. Jan 2021
  11. Oct 2020
    1. Horizontal eddy viscosity1 m2s−1Horizontal eddy diffusivity20 m2s−1

      Can you justify the use of such different values for horizontal eddy viscosity and eddy diffusivity? As far as i Know the turbulent Prandtl number, defined as the ratio between eddy viscosity and eddy diffusivity should be close to 1.

    2. Red and black lines represent results for the modeled andmeasured daily-scale values, respectively, while blue and green represent results for the modeledand measured instantaneous-scale values, respectively.

      In both figure S1 and S2 there are no red or blue lines. adding these colors as written in the text would let the plots more readable

    1. For the model boundary conditions, the eighteen main tidal har-208monics (M2, S2, SA, Q1, O1, P1, K1, 2N2, MU2, N2, NU2, L2, T2, R2, K2, MN4, M4,209MS4) obtained from the model Oregon State Tidal Prediction (Egbert & Erofeeca, 2002)210were used as the astronomical forcing (water levels) at the o shore boundary

      The Oregon State Tidal Prediction model should provide also the barotropic velocity components due to tides. Why didn't you use also these variables as boundary conditions?

    2. It can be partially concluded that that neglecting the waves in the outer522basins of bays that are not signi cantly protected from wave action can lead to signif-523icant errors.

      This sentence should be revised. Neglecting waves lead to significant errors in which variables? all or only some of them? This work clearly shows that waves can influence the hydrodynamic in some areas of the bay, especially in the outer basin and near inlet 2, but I think that a conclusion that neglecting waves can lead to significant errors should be supported by comparison of the model output with some observations (sea level, u ,v , Temp and Salt) that demonstrates the benefits of including waves in the simulation. I suggest to modify the sentence or to add some statistical index quantifying the improvement of the simulation with waves compared with the one without waves. This also is connected to the sentence in the conclusion at line 606

    3. values of the radiation stress gradients (f)

      plot f) of the radiation stress gradients is missing

    4. Density (a), salinity (b) and temperature (c) distributions along the bay transect

      It is straightforward from figures title but the a, b and c references of the figures are missing. As in line 206 the C of Celsius degree is missing in the temperature plot.

    5. Wave (d) and wind (e) roses at thestudy site

      What is the reference period of wave and wind data shown here? Is it the same period of the model simulations? Is the percentage shown representing the percentage of time in which those conditions are present considering the entire observation time? I suggest to add these information in the text.

    6. Location of study site, dashed blue line corresponds to the contour of the meshof the Cadiz Bay

      I can't see the dashed blue line in figure 1a

    7. Panel d) shows thenon-dimensional humidity (blue), solar radiation (red), rainfall (yellow) and evaporation (purple)

      This is the same caption of figure 3. It must be changed with wave height and Direction.

    8. Density (a), salinity (b) and temperature (c) variations along the bay transectwhen waves are considere

      Same issue of figure 3. the letter references in the plot are missing

    9. The correlation ranges from 0 (no240correlation) to 1 (complete correlation).

      The correlation can be negative. It ranges from -1 (anti-correlation) to 0 (no correlation) up to 1 (total correlation). I suggest to correct the definitions.

    10. Wind conditions (data from Buoy 2342, Puertos del Estado, Spanish Ministry of141Public Works; Fig. 1e) are stronger and predominantly north-westerly from January to142April due to the trade winds.

      Can you explain me this sentence? Trade winds may explain the E or NE direction of the wind. Looking also at the spreading of the wind in the W-NW directions in figure 1e and at the positioning of the cost, it seems that W-NW wind direction could be attributed to breeze.

    11. However, the hydrodynamics of inner basins is com-57monly driven only by wind, tides and/or baroclinic ows that are mainly triggered by58solar radiation and strati cation, since river discharges of fresh water are usually neg-59ligible in bays, in contrast to alluvial estuaries (Savenije, 2005; Dez-Minguito et al., 2012,602013; Serrano et al., 2020)

      Are you talking of bays in general or only Spanish bays? I don't know, maybe most of the Spanish bays have a negligible contribution from freshwater? However there are places where the freshwater contribution in lagoon is very common, e.g. many lagoons discharging in the Baltic sea (Curonian lagoon, Vistula lagoon, ...). Can you be more specific?

    12. 0.45

      C in Celsius degree is missing

    13. hat

      Do you mean "than"?

    14. igs. 4a

      I think here you want to refer to fig. 4b1 isn't it?

    15. R2is correlation

      R squared is the determination coefficient, that is the squared value of the correlation coefficient and is different from the definition given before (line 238-239). What is the actual value of table 1?

    16. 15

      The C of Celsius degree is missing

    17. RMSE ="1NNXn=1(OnMn)2#1=2

      The common definition of RMSE for the term between brackets is Model output minus Observation. This however does not affect the result

    18. The model198grid is curvilinear (Fig. 1a) with a minimum cell size of 2020 m2. For this particular199study, the grid was re ned in both Carracas and Sancti-Petri Creeks (Fig. 1a) to cap-200ture in more detail the circulation through these creeks between the inner bay and the201open ocean. This re nement was also used to reduce the inaccuracies of the drying/ ooding202modeling (threshold depth of 0.1 m) at these shallower areas, where the intertidal zones203are proportionally larger

      The definition of the numerical grid is not totally clear. There are no clear correspondences between figure 1a and the highlighted test. The cell size 20x20 is the one in B or C of figure 1a? and why there is no grid in the creeks in figure 1a? How is defined the grid in the outer domain (A in figure 1a)? Is it the same of B?

    19. 7000 h

      I think it is better to use SI units.

    1. so there is no signi cant correlation be-302tween Fram Strait sea ice drift and AO/DA indices

      Smedsrud et al. (2017) point to the fact that the AO - Fram Strait export correlation is non-stationary in time. The results presented here are in line with what Smedsrud et al. report for the 21st century. Yet, I am curious about the earlier period, do you see any correlation between drift and AO in earlier periods of the FESOM simulations?

    2. Relative contributions from winds and thermal forcing

      I find this section very convincing!

      One additional suggestion, still. What do the sea ice area export curves look like in the FESOM simulations? I am assuming that if you were to look at area export (function of ice drift and ice concentration), you would get a similar picture to Fig. 3c - i.e.: slightly positive trends, with the variability almost entirely explained by winds. Is it possible to show that (additional panel in Fig. 3)? I believe it would bring yet an another argument supporting that the long term trend in volume export has to be thickness driven.

    3. trend in PIOMAS, which is nearly224zero when calculated over the same period

      I would like to see just a little bit more detail as to why PIOMAS shows no trend. Selyuzhenok et al. (2020) report that the systematic error in PIOMAS (smoothed difference between thick and thin ice) might play an important role in this discrepancy. Do you have any other insight as to why the Selyuzhenok et al. PIOMAS trends stand out compared to the other?

    4. e ective sea ice thickness at Fram Strait

      Same comment here. At Fram Strait - average thickness across Fram Strait is implied?

    5. the

      Remove 'the', unless there is a missing word following Greenland?

    6. ntroduction

      I find the introduction very clear and well structured.

      I would consider including a word on Fram Strait sea ice area export (which is reported to be increasing (Smedsrud et al. 2017)), which would help set a contrast with volume export, which is decreasing. 'sea ice export' is used to describe area or volume export, depending on the paper. Although it is perfectly clear through the manuscript that we refer to volume export, a short note on area export in Fram Strait could be of interest for readers.

    7. variability of both the SLP gradients

      I don't understand this part of the sentence. What does 'both the SLP gradients' mean? Was it meant to refer to the mode that better describe the thickness variability and the sea ice drift variability?

    8. The strong correlation is because the spatially large SLP pattern over the329Eurasian Arctic, which partially resembles the AO pattern, can signi cantly in uence330sea ice drift in both the TDS and the Fram Strait

      This is in line with the findings of Williams et al. (2016) Fig. 3, who demonstrate co-variability between sea ice area export in the Eurasian sector and sea ice area export in the Fram Strait, and further show the correlation with the AO index.

    9. e


    10. sea ice drift

      I understand this is the sea ice drift averaged across Fam Strait? Furthermore - is this the component of the drift perpendicular to the Fram Strait gate? I think these details are important to precise in-text.

    11. nnual mean sea level pressure

      Why not calculate correlations with SLP over land? There might be some interesting connections when thinking about high pressure systems above Greenland?

    12. Winds lead to strong variability in both sea ice thickness

      Can you provide more information as to how the winds induce sea ice thickness variability in the Fram Strait (in the wind_vari setup)? In the following paragraph you make the case for convergence of sea ice causing an increase in thickness. Could other mechanisms, such as advection of thicker ice from regions with typically thicker ice, due to a change in the atmospheric forcing pattern - also be at play?

    13. are not well correlated with each other285(Fig. 4b)

      I do not see the correlation between ice thickness and drift reported anywhere?

    14. Annual mean sea ice volume export

      This is the annual mean anomaly with respect to the 1992-2014 mean, is that correct? Maybe precise this in the legend.

    15. Results

      Please precise the definition of the Fram Strait used for producing the results. Is it a line of constant latitude (82°N)? Or a straight line between Greenland and Svalbard?

      The Fram Strait gate could also be illustrated on the map of averaged thickness and sea ice drift I suggested above.

    16. he same as(a) but for sea ice thickness.

      In Fig. 2b - the observations are the Cryosat-2 thicknesses, correct?

      I understand that CMST assimilates sea ice thickness from Cryosat-2. Therefore, why is there such an important discrepancy in the ice thickness in Fram Strait between CMST and the observations?

    17. FESOM has a decent performance in simulating Arctic sea ice extent and133thickness in comparison with other state-of-the-art global ocean models

      More precision on how FESOM simulates sea ice should be included. Are there any know biases?

      Also, I think a useful additional figure would be a map of averaged thickness and sea ice drift over the 2001-2019 period for the control run (a figure similar to Fig. 1a in Min et al. (2019)).

    18. sea ice can be reasonably simulated compared to observations

      My comment above applies here - a map of averaged ice thickness and sea ice drift over the 2001-2019 period would be very useful in supporting this point.

    19. over the Arctic Ocean

      How is that being handled? Are the fields replaced by their climatology above a certain latitude (60°?), or is there a finer definition of an Arctic Ocean domain?

      Also are certain criterions imposed for continuity in the climatology/dynamic-fields transition zones?

    20. sea ice model

      What does the sea ice model use as an Ice Thickness Distribution (ITD)? ITDs will influence the representation of ice thickness in the model, and since ice thickness is of major importance in this study, I believe this is useful information.

    21. he decrease98of sea ice thickness in Fram Strait during the past decades has been con rmed

      I would find it interesting to have little bit more information here, on the changes in thickness reported by Hansen et al. 2013 and Renner et al. 2014. - i.e.: very briefly report on the change in modal thickness, or % change over recent decades.

    22. the long time scale

      What is being referred to as a long time scale? Decadal? Multi-decadal?

  12. Oct 2019
  13. Sep 2019
  14. Nov 2018
    1. Therefore, the impact of the diurnal cycle on the timing of tropical cy-136clogenesis is negligible in this simulation set

      It may be useful to also include a 'no radiation" case in Fig 1, to show both how the presence (and absence) of radiation affects the timing of cyclogenesis, as well as for clear comparison with previous studies (e.g., Melhauzer and Zhang 2014).

    2. two-moment microphysics scheme

      One major take-away from this work is that the outflow-layer circulation (daytime circulation) is sensitive to the concentration of ice, and therefore the model microphysics. How sensitive are these results to the chosen microphysics scheme? I do not suggest that the authors perform such sensitivity calculations for this study, but I do think this is an important aspect to consider (similar to the discussion of domain size in lines 367-374).

    3. horizontally invariant zenith an-96gle corresponding to equinox at 19.45N

      Are these simulates computed for a constant Julian day? If so, I would suggest stating that here for clarity and for possible reproduction of the work. If not, how might temporal variations in solar zenith angle affect the results for these long simulations? For example, after 90 days of integration, how might the change in incoming radiation affect the results?

    4. 500 m near model top91at 27 km

      With a stretched vertical grid, what is the resolution near the outflow layer in the simulated TC? How might this resolution affect the magnitude of the vertical circulation (w') at this level (e.g., Fig. 2a.-b.)?

    5. Given the sensitivity of daily mean radiative balance to diurnal cloud phasing [Bergman61and Salby, 1997;Yin and Porporato, 2017], understanding such mechanisms is critical.

      Suggest elaborating on "such mechanisms" for better understanding. For example, explicitly stating that "understanding this offset phasing in TCs" is critical.

    6. of transverse

      Add "the" after of

    7. that has long been puzzled over

      Suggest rewording of this phrase to, e.g., "that has long been considered in the literature."

  15. Dec 2016
    1. recently referred to as Evidence Informed Practice,1

      Dear authors, editors and readers,

      It is to mention that the expression "Evidence-Informed Practice" is far from being recent. Glasziou used it in 2005 with reference to a previous paper by Schriger, published in 2000, 16 years ago (although Glasziou made a mistake: the paper was not published in 1993).

      Here are the references : Glasziou, P. (2005). Evidence based medicine: does it make a difference? British Medical Journal, 330(7482), 92.doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.92-a Schriger, D. L. (2000). One is the loneliest number: Be skeptical of evidence summaries based on limited literature reviews. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 36(5), 517–519. doi.org/10.1067/mem.2000.110997

      All the best,

      Nicolas K.

  16. Sep 2016
    1. get an estimate of the causal effect

      To nitpick: you can still get an estimate of a causal effect without randomization (or adjustment), but it's likely to be a lousy estimate (unless particular assumptions are met).

    1. either going to sacrifice quality by using ugly Readymades, or they are going to spend lots of time looking for the perfect urinal.

      Consider rephrasing. I understand what you mean here, but a perfect urinal is indeed an ugly readymade.

    1. etc

      The period is missing from "etc." In general, I tend to prefer "and so on" or "and so forth" instead of "etc."

    1. transition

      You use the word "transition" a lot in the first few sentences. I'd consider replacing this word with "change" or "switch" (or something similar).

  17. Jun 2016