the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Mar 2022
The effect of anthropogenic heat emissions on global warming
ESD chief editors
Abstract. The use of different primary energy sources in human society has led to two major polluting emissions in the environment: energy (mostly heat), and chemical substances (mostly carbon dioxide). In this paper, a new approach, based on the similarity between sensible heat and CO2 transfer properties, was used to determine the effect of anthropogenic heat release on the global air temperature. The total global anthropogenic emissions of sensible heat were divided into two separate streams: directly transferred to: (1) water and land, and (2) to the atmosphere. The direct emissions of heat to the atmosphere during the industrial era (years 1850–2018) were determined and their effect on the change of global atmospheric temperature was calculated. The global atmospheric temperature increase caused by anthropogenic heat emissions was estimated. The resulting calculations showed that at least half of the actual atmospheric temperature rise recorded during the last 170-year period, was due to the anthropogenic heat release. These results suggest that the temperature change of the atmosphere (global warming) is strongly affected by anthropogenic heat emissions.
-
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
-
Preprint
(548 KB)
-
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
- Preprint
(548 KB) - Metadata XML
- Editorial
- BibTeX
- EndNote
ESD chief editors
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-5', Richard Rosen, 02 Mar 2022
The science underlying this article is all wrong. You cannot determine the increase in temperature of the air due to the heat released by burning fossil fuels using concepts such as the heat capacity of the air as is done on line 259. First of all, the heat released by burning fossil fuels over 100 years will disipate fairly quickly out into space during each year in the form of long-wave radiation, which the author acknowledges. Then why does he add up all the energy released over 100 years and calculate temperature changes as if the energy was all released at once (or in a short period of time). Secondly, over a long period of time the energy escapes via complex radiative transfers between the different kinds of molecules comprising the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, including CO2, and the concept of the heat capacity of the air is only appropriate for very short term effects, before the heat can escape to space. In fact, if CO2 were not increasing in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and if only heat were released due to their combustion, there would probably be no yearly average incremental heating of the air at all, since the incremental heat would be radiated out into space very quickly, on a daily basis. It is the incremental amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year that fundamentally changes the radiation balance for a very long time, as long as the CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Thus, it is the CO2 which "traps" more and more radiation on a daily basis (especially at night) that causes the long term trend towards the higher average global temperature that we clearly see.
This article has no scientific basis and must be rejected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 07 Mar 2022
Dear Dr. Rosen,
Thank you for providing your opinion on my paper. Here I would like to reply to your criticism.
“The science underlying this article is all wrong.”
Reply: I don’t agree.
“You cannot determine the increase in temperature of the air due to the heat released by burning fossil fuels using concepts such as the heat capacity of the air as is done on line 259. First of all, the heat released by burning fossil fuels over 100 years will disipate fairly quickly out into space during each year in the form of long-wave radiation, which the author acknowledges.”
Reply: While the paper shows all the input data in numerical form, plus clear equations for the treatment of the numerical data, your comments lack any specificity such as numbers, models or references.
“Then why does he add up all the energy released over 100 years and calculate temperature changes as if the energy was all released at once (or in a short period of time).”
Reply: Both heat released to the atmosphere and long-wave radiation take place simultaneously. During any period of time a certain amount of sensible heat (dQin in Eq. 8) is released to the atmosphere. Both dQin and dT are based on an annual change. The only way to convert Qin to radiation is by increasing the air temperature above that of the previous year due to the heat capacity of air. Therefore, it is impossible to avoid the effect of temperature increase due to sensible heat transfer; the big question here is by how much, and I believe my paper answers that question. In my view, so far it was not possible to determine correctly the effect of anthropogenic heat on temperature change, because no data was available on the heat emitted by human society directly to the atmosphere. The latter was determined in my paper. The process of temperature decrease due to the outgoing radiation by anthropogenic heat input is asymptotic, and therefore, theoretically never reaches zero over time. At the end of any given year the amount of anthropogenic heat remaining in the form of sensible heat will “overflow” to the next year. Thus, there will be an accumulation of sensible heat in the atmosphere over time. Eq. 10 is obtained by the integration of Eq. 9 (the annual data), and therefore, it does not assume all 170 years worth of energy emissions to be released at once.
“Secondly, over a long period of time the energy escapes via complex radiative transfers between the different kinds of molecules comprising the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, including CO2, and the concept of the heat capacity of the air is only appropriate for very short term effects, before the heat can escape to space.”
Reply: In the paper it is assumed that heat transfer to land and ocean is not affected by anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere and the only loss is due to radiation to space. That is the main postulate behind Eqs. 3 and 4.
“In fact, if CO2 were not increasing in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and if only heat were released due to their combustion, there would probably be no yearly average incremental heating of the air at all, since the incremental heat would be radiated out into space very quickly, on a daily basis.”
Reply: I believe I answered that point above.
“It is the incremental amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year that fundamentally changes the radiation balance for a very long time, as long as the CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Thus, it is the CO2 which "traps" more and more radiation on a daily basis (especially at night) that causes the long term trend towards the higher average global temperature that we clearly see.”
Reply: The greenhouse effect of CO2 will actually amplify the air warming effect of anthropogenic heat emission by blocking some of its long-wave radiation to space.
“This article has no scientific basis and must be rejected.”
Reply: I don’t agree on the basis of the above discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Richard Rosen, 07 Mar 2022
Note that the author's own reference from 2016 by Bing Chen, et.al., completely contradicts this paper and the author's claims where Chen, el.al, used a sophisticated climate model. They find that the total increase in the global average temperature is only about 0.032 degrees C by 2012 due to the heat inputs to the atmosphere by human beings. As they say, so far that is fairly small compared to the overall increase by 2012 of about 1.0 degrees C as one might expect. In fact, Karamanev completely mis-characterizes the scope of the Chen paper as being limited to local heat island effects, which it is not, which might explain why he did not realize that it contradicted his own methodology.
To repeat one of the arguments I made in my first comment. The concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity at any given time is not valid, since the heat is constantly leaking out to space. Thus, the 2.3 degree C result cited on line 264 if no heat was leaking is invalide, since heat is constantly flowing out of the atmosphere to space. Similarly, because the concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity is wrong, Karamanev cannot rely on equation 7 on line 285 to calculate the incremental increase in the temperature of the atmoshere in any given year.
While I have not reviewed the Chen, et.al., paper in detail, its basic methodology seems to be correct since it models the constant flow of heat from its release in energy supply technologies out into space, implying that the Karamanev paper should not be published. Note also that Karamanev also makes some very silly comments about the science of climate change, e.g. stating that "Therefore, there is still no direct proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming." So he is dismissing all the results of climate science models done since the 1970s in one short sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 10 Mar 2022
“Note that the author's own reference from 2016 by Bing Chen, et.al., completely contradicts this paper and the author's claims where Chen, el.al, used a sophisticated climate model.”
Reply: That is correct, my paper contradicts the methodology and findings in the paper of Chen et al. (2016). The reasons are shown in lines 70-89 of my manuscript.
“They find that the total increase in the global average temperature is only about 0.032 degrees C by 2012 due to the heat inputs to the atmosphere by human beings. As they say, so far that is fairly small compared to the overall increase by 2012 of about 1.0 degrees C as one might expect.”
Please see my responce above.
“In fact, Karamanev completely mis-characterizes the scope of the Chen paper as being limited to local heat island effects, which it is not, which might explain why he did not realize that it contradicted his own methodology.”
Reply:
- Chen et al (2016) stated: “Anthropogenic heat was considered as an essential aspect of urban heat islands (IPCC, 2007), which are important for urban climates. With the rapid increase in global urbanization, the impact of AHR on the climate is increasing.”
My paper: “… anthropogenic heat accumulation has been studied mostly on a local scale in relation to “urban heat islands” (Chen et al., 2016; Dong et al., 2017)”, L. 48-50.
- Chen et al (2016) stated: “The high-resolution global distribution of anthropogenic heat release (AHR), which is generated by human energy consumption, is estimated by means of applying satellite remote sensing. Additionally, it was considered into a global climate model and the possible climatic effect of AHR is examined in this study”
My paper: “The global effect of direct anthropogenic heat release into the atmosphere has been studied in several papers, and it has been found that the amount of anthropogenic heat flux comprises only approximately 1% of greenhouse gas forcing (Chen et al., 2016; Crutzen, 2004; Flanner, 2009)”, L. 50-52.
Therefore, Chen et al. (2016) discussed both heat islands and global temperature effect, and I cited both of them.
“To repeat one of the arguments I made in my first comment. The concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity at any given time is not valid, since the heat is constantly leaking out to space. Thus, the 2.3 degree C result cited on line 264 if no heat was leaking is invalide, since heat is constantly flowing out of the atmosphere to space. Similarly, because the concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity is wrong, Karamanev cannot rely on equation 7 on line 285 to calculate the incremental increase in the temperature of the atmoshere in any given year.
Reply: Air, as well as any other physical object having mass, has heat capacity. You are wrong saying: “the concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity is wrong”. In addition, Chen et al. (2016) shows an air temperature increase (unfortunately, greatly underestimated) as a result of human heat release. That contradicts also the statement in your previous comments: “In fact, if CO2 were not increasing in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and if only heat were released due to their combustion, there would probably be no yearly average incremental heating of the air at all, since the incremental heat would be radiated out into space very quickly, on a daily basis”.
“While I have not reviewed the Chen, et.al., paper in detail, its basic methodology seems to be correct since it models the constant flow of heat from its release in energy supply technologies out into space, implying that the Karamanev paper should not be published.”
Reply: I completely disagree with you that because my paper shows different results from these of Cheng, it should not be published.
“Note also that Karamanev also makes some very silly comments about the science of climate change, e.g. stating that "Therefore, there is still no direct proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming." So he is dismissing all the results of climate science models done since the 1970s in one short sentence.”
Reply: My paper states the following: “… the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change concluded in its latest report (Stocker et al., 2013) that the probability of global warming being caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is 95%. While this number seems high, it is still far from 100%. There have been many projected events of different nature with a higher expected probability that never actually occurred” (L. 43-47). Therefore, the “very silly” comments that there is still no 100% confidence in the cause of global warming were made by IPCC, and I have just cited them.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 10 Mar 2022
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Richard Rosen, 07 Mar 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 07 Mar 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-5', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Reviewer comments on egusphere-2022-5', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-5', Richard Rosen, 02 Mar 2022
The science underlying this article is all wrong. You cannot determine the increase in temperature of the air due to the heat released by burning fossil fuels using concepts such as the heat capacity of the air as is done on line 259. First of all, the heat released by burning fossil fuels over 100 years will disipate fairly quickly out into space during each year in the form of long-wave radiation, which the author acknowledges. Then why does he add up all the energy released over 100 years and calculate temperature changes as if the energy was all released at once (or in a short period of time). Secondly, over a long period of time the energy escapes via complex radiative transfers between the different kinds of molecules comprising the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, including CO2, and the concept of the heat capacity of the air is only appropriate for very short term effects, before the heat can escape to space. In fact, if CO2 were not increasing in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and if only heat were released due to their combustion, there would probably be no yearly average incremental heating of the air at all, since the incremental heat would be radiated out into space very quickly, on a daily basis. It is the incremental amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year that fundamentally changes the radiation balance for a very long time, as long as the CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Thus, it is the CO2 which "traps" more and more radiation on a daily basis (especially at night) that causes the long term trend towards the higher average global temperature that we clearly see.
This article has no scientific basis and must be rejected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 07 Mar 2022
Dear Dr. Rosen,
Thank you for providing your opinion on my paper. Here I would like to reply to your criticism.
“The science underlying this article is all wrong.”
Reply: I don’t agree.
“You cannot determine the increase in temperature of the air due to the heat released by burning fossil fuels using concepts such as the heat capacity of the air as is done on line 259. First of all, the heat released by burning fossil fuels over 100 years will disipate fairly quickly out into space during each year in the form of long-wave radiation, which the author acknowledges.”
Reply: While the paper shows all the input data in numerical form, plus clear equations for the treatment of the numerical data, your comments lack any specificity such as numbers, models or references.
“Then why does he add up all the energy released over 100 years and calculate temperature changes as if the energy was all released at once (or in a short period of time).”
Reply: Both heat released to the atmosphere and long-wave radiation take place simultaneously. During any period of time a certain amount of sensible heat (dQin in Eq. 8) is released to the atmosphere. Both dQin and dT are based on an annual change. The only way to convert Qin to radiation is by increasing the air temperature above that of the previous year due to the heat capacity of air. Therefore, it is impossible to avoid the effect of temperature increase due to sensible heat transfer; the big question here is by how much, and I believe my paper answers that question. In my view, so far it was not possible to determine correctly the effect of anthropogenic heat on temperature change, because no data was available on the heat emitted by human society directly to the atmosphere. The latter was determined in my paper. The process of temperature decrease due to the outgoing radiation by anthropogenic heat input is asymptotic, and therefore, theoretically never reaches zero over time. At the end of any given year the amount of anthropogenic heat remaining in the form of sensible heat will “overflow” to the next year. Thus, there will be an accumulation of sensible heat in the atmosphere over time. Eq. 10 is obtained by the integration of Eq. 9 (the annual data), and therefore, it does not assume all 170 years worth of energy emissions to be released at once.
“Secondly, over a long period of time the energy escapes via complex radiative transfers between the different kinds of molecules comprising the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, including CO2, and the concept of the heat capacity of the air is only appropriate for very short term effects, before the heat can escape to space.”
Reply: In the paper it is assumed that heat transfer to land and ocean is not affected by anthropogenic emissions to the atmosphere and the only loss is due to radiation to space. That is the main postulate behind Eqs. 3 and 4.
“In fact, if CO2 were not increasing in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and if only heat were released due to their combustion, there would probably be no yearly average incremental heating of the air at all, since the incremental heat would be radiated out into space very quickly, on a daily basis.”
Reply: I believe I answered that point above.
“It is the incremental amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere each year that fundamentally changes the radiation balance for a very long time, as long as the CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Thus, it is the CO2 which "traps" more and more radiation on a daily basis (especially at night) that causes the long term trend towards the higher average global temperature that we clearly see.”
Reply: The greenhouse effect of CO2 will actually amplify the air warming effect of anthropogenic heat emission by blocking some of its long-wave radiation to space.
“This article has no scientific basis and must be rejected.”
Reply: I don’t agree on the basis of the above discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Richard Rosen, 07 Mar 2022
Note that the author's own reference from 2016 by Bing Chen, et.al., completely contradicts this paper and the author's claims where Chen, el.al, used a sophisticated climate model. They find that the total increase in the global average temperature is only about 0.032 degrees C by 2012 due to the heat inputs to the atmosphere by human beings. As they say, so far that is fairly small compared to the overall increase by 2012 of about 1.0 degrees C as one might expect. In fact, Karamanev completely mis-characterizes the scope of the Chen paper as being limited to local heat island effects, which it is not, which might explain why he did not realize that it contradicted his own methodology.
To repeat one of the arguments I made in my first comment. The concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity at any given time is not valid, since the heat is constantly leaking out to space. Thus, the 2.3 degree C result cited on line 264 if no heat was leaking is invalide, since heat is constantly flowing out of the atmosphere to space. Similarly, because the concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity is wrong, Karamanev cannot rely on equation 7 on line 285 to calculate the incremental increase in the temperature of the atmoshere in any given year.
While I have not reviewed the Chen, et.al., paper in detail, its basic methodology seems to be correct since it models the constant flow of heat from its release in energy supply technologies out into space, implying that the Karamanev paper should not be published. Note also that Karamanev also makes some very silly comments about the science of climate change, e.g. stating that "Therefore, there is still no direct proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming." So he is dismissing all the results of climate science models done since the 1970s in one short sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 10 Mar 2022
“Note that the author's own reference from 2016 by Bing Chen, et.al., completely contradicts this paper and the author's claims where Chen, el.al, used a sophisticated climate model.”
Reply: That is correct, my paper contradicts the methodology and findings in the paper of Chen et al. (2016). The reasons are shown in lines 70-89 of my manuscript.
“They find that the total increase in the global average temperature is only about 0.032 degrees C by 2012 due to the heat inputs to the atmosphere by human beings. As they say, so far that is fairly small compared to the overall increase by 2012 of about 1.0 degrees C as one might expect.”
Please see my responce above.
“In fact, Karamanev completely mis-characterizes the scope of the Chen paper as being limited to local heat island effects, which it is not, which might explain why he did not realize that it contradicted his own methodology.”
Reply:
- Chen et al (2016) stated: “Anthropogenic heat was considered as an essential aspect of urban heat islands (IPCC, 2007), which are important for urban climates. With the rapid increase in global urbanization, the impact of AHR on the climate is increasing.”
My paper: “… anthropogenic heat accumulation has been studied mostly on a local scale in relation to “urban heat islands” (Chen et al., 2016; Dong et al., 2017)”, L. 48-50.
- Chen et al (2016) stated: “The high-resolution global distribution of anthropogenic heat release (AHR), which is generated by human energy consumption, is estimated by means of applying satellite remote sensing. Additionally, it was considered into a global climate model and the possible climatic effect of AHR is examined in this study”
My paper: “The global effect of direct anthropogenic heat release into the atmosphere has been studied in several papers, and it has been found that the amount of anthropogenic heat flux comprises only approximately 1% of greenhouse gas forcing (Chen et al., 2016; Crutzen, 2004; Flanner, 2009)”, L. 50-52.
Therefore, Chen et al. (2016) discussed both heat islands and global temperature effect, and I cited both of them.
“To repeat one of the arguments I made in my first comment. The concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity at any given time is not valid, since the heat is constantly leaking out to space. Thus, the 2.3 degree C result cited on line 264 if no heat was leaking is invalide, since heat is constantly flowing out of the atmosphere to space. Similarly, because the concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity is wrong, Karamanev cannot rely on equation 7 on line 285 to calculate the incremental increase in the temperature of the atmoshere in any given year.
Reply: Air, as well as any other physical object having mass, has heat capacity. You are wrong saying: “the concept of the atmosphere having a heat capacity is wrong”. In addition, Chen et al. (2016) shows an air temperature increase (unfortunately, greatly underestimated) as a result of human heat release. That contradicts also the statement in your previous comments: “In fact, if CO2 were not increasing in the atmosphere due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and if only heat were released due to their combustion, there would probably be no yearly average incremental heating of the air at all, since the incremental heat would be radiated out into space very quickly, on a daily basis”.
“While I have not reviewed the Chen, et.al., paper in detail, its basic methodology seems to be correct since it models the constant flow of heat from its release in energy supply technologies out into space, implying that the Karamanev paper should not be published.”
Reply: I completely disagree with you that because my paper shows different results from these of Cheng, it should not be published.
“Note also that Karamanev also makes some very silly comments about the science of climate change, e.g. stating that "Therefore, there is still no direct proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming." So he is dismissing all the results of climate science models done since the 1970s in one short sentence.”
Reply: My paper states the following: “… the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change concluded in its latest report (Stocker et al., 2013) that the probability of global warming being caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is 95%. While this number seems high, it is still far from 100%. There have been many projected events of different nature with a higher expected probability that never actually occurred” (L. 43-47). Therefore, the “very silly” comments that there is still no 100% confidence in the cause of global warming were made by IPCC, and I have just cited them.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-5-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 10 Mar 2022
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Richard Rosen, 07 Mar 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 07 Mar 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-5', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC1', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
-
RC2: 'Reviewer comments on egusphere-2022-5', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-5/egusphere-2022-5-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Dimitre Karamanev, 29 Jun 2022
ESD chief editors
ESD chief editors
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,247 | 1,198 | 64 | 2,509 | 40 | 42 |
- HTML: 1,247
- PDF: 1,198
- XML: 64
- Total: 2,509
- BibTeX: 40
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 880 | 36 |
| Germany | 2 | 295 | 12 |
| Canada | 3 | 156 | 6 |
| China | 4 | 115 | 4 |
| France | 5 | 110 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 880
Cited
Please read the editorial note first before accessing the preprint.
- Preprint
(548 KB) - Metadata XML