Bruce it’s difficult for me to take you seriously when you say things like “ In some ways that is what models are for ... to leave out what is negligible so as to leave the simplest picture of what is important.” and then you proceed to take out the single most important heat transfer mechanism.
Do you seriously consider in your first analysis that radiative heat transfer could have been negligible? So then you in the name of “simplicity” You just decided to leave the major HX mechanism out of your model?
I’m sorry but it’s increasingly difficult for me to take you seriously. This is not meant to be an ad hominem attack I’m simply commenting on the lack of rigorous scientific logic. We are hoping to publish in a mainstream journal and release all data links at time of publication. Until then we cannot release anything so you can feel free to model all you want with that data once it’s published.
Also, in addition to your lack of normal scientific rigor, I still fail to understand your key point. Are you claiming that if your model which is not even serious, differs significantly from empirical data that then you can claim some kind of systemic error?
I’m all for receiving any kind of criticism as this helps me to refine my experimental methods, but your line of reasoning has no real destination. It’s as if you are modeling an aircraft in flight and you model pitch movement but no elevation changes. Then you make a statement like if I pull back on the yoke and my elevation doesn’t increase your airplane isn’t actually flying. It’s complete nonsense in my humble opinion. I don’t mean to be personally rude but I’m focusing on the science part and perhaps I’m lacking understanding of where you are going with this but I just don’t get your point.