deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_We_show__.tex b/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_We_show__.tex  index cad5ed2..128a793 100644  --- a/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_We_show__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_We_show__.tex 
...
\subsection{Intensity Statistics}  We show the colorplots for all intensity statistics in Figure ???. With the exception of the Cramer statistic, we find that these statistics exhibit the strongest sensitivities to changes in stellar mass-loss rates. As seen in their colorplots, the largest distances--or, distances--given by  the darkest colors--appear when any strong wind model (W1) is compared to any weak wind model (W2), or any purely turbulent model (T). In principle, for a distance metric to be ...The (T).The  Kurtosis and Skewness statistics are our clearest examples. examples, as they capture a sensitivity hierarchy.  They yield the largest distances between strong wind models and purely turbulent ones (i.e. W1T2t0.2 pairs of W1  and T2t0), T,  followed by distances between strong wind models pairs of W1  and weaker ones (i.e. W1T2t0.2 W2. Sensitivities towards magnetic field strength (T)  and W2T2t0.2). Furthermore, they even show smaller sensitivities time evolution (t) mainly appear in pairings  between weaker wind models W2's  and turbulent ones. T's, but they are not as structured as the sensitivities involving W1.  The individual sensitivities are not as clear in the PDF, SCF and PCA. They produce similar large distances between strong wind models and weak ones as well as strong wind models and turbulent ones. The different magnetic field strengths in our clouds appear to cause this blurring. When comparing weaker wind and purely turbulent models, the PDF exhibits relatively small difference, while the SCF and PCA show even smaller ones. We find less blurring at these smaller comparisons.