deletions | additions       diff --git a/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_PDF_Skewness__.tex b/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_PDF_Skewness__.tex  index 7723558..f0fc60a 100644  --- a/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_PDF_Skewness__.tex  +++ b/subsection_Intensity_Statistics_PDF_Skewness__.tex 
...
\subsubsection{Probability Distribution Function}  We calculate the probability distribution function (PDF) of the standardized normalized  integrated intensity maps, weighted by their respective errors. Figure 1 shows our two PDFs. Both runs exhibit similar log-normal behaviors. At standardized integrated intensities larger than 1 (unit), the PDF of run T2t0 falls off at a faster rate than the PDF of W1T2t0.2. This is because the winds create shells with CO-brightened rims that exhibit intensities higher than those created by the strongest shocks in the case of pure turbulence. The width of the density and column density PDFs increase with Mach number \citep[e.g.,][]{nordlund99,ostriker01}. In the strong wind case, the effective Mach number is about 10\% higher (OA15), however, this is not sufficient to explain the difference in Figure 1. The intensity distribution of the case with winds is broadened by the combination of increased densities and temperatures (the shells are warmer than the ambient turbulent gas), which enhance the CO excitation.  %Add column density citation?  {\bf to be clarified: (1) as plotted this is not a log-normal. (2) what is the z-score and can we rename it to something more intuitive, e.g. $I/\bar I$ ? (3) Is What are the ``weighted errors"-some assumed noise? and is  the minimum around 5d-2 set by this  added noise? (4) the plot lines have linear spacing such that most of the points are concentrated > 1. Logarithmic spacing might would  make more sense.} sense or some linear range between .01 and 10 with smaller spacing.}