deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Statistical_Comparisons_label_comparisons__.tex b/section_Statistical_Comparisons_label_comparisons__.tex  index 0c1cd40..ad7ee0b 100644  --- a/section_Statistical_Comparisons_label_comparisons__.tex  +++ b/section_Statistical_Comparisons_label_comparisons__.tex 
...
\section{Statistical Comparisons}\label{comparisons}  {\bf for reader sanity we should change the name of W2T2t0 to just T2t0; likewise drop the Ws for the other models at t0. Unforunately this means retitling the labels in the plots. }  We calculate the statistics and distance between each pair of spectral cubes. However, since few prior statistical studies have investigated the impact of feedback, we first investigate the statistical response to feedback specifically by comparing two fiducial outputs: W1T2t0.2 and T2t0.  %[ Move above: Previous numerical studies have compared differences in Mach number, magnetic field strength, and driving scale \citep[e.g.,][]{}. \citet{burkhart??}, an observational analysis of HI, noted the possible signature of supernovae on the bispectrum. While \citet{swift08} identify a break in the power spectrum of the $^{13}$CO intensity moment map, which they attribute to the influence of protostellar outflows (the break is absent in the $^{12}$CO data). [check Adam Frank and co.; hansen et al. 2012]] %our main goal is to explore how feedback shapes cloud turbulence.   T2t0 is a simulated turbulent molecular cloud (turbulent realization T2) prior to wind launching. W1T2t0.2 begins with the same turbulence as T2t0 (T2), but we follow its evolution for another 0.2 Myr (t0.2) with wind launching model W1. %W2 does correspond to another wind model, but at the initial time, the wind model has not been introduced to the simulation.