Unsettling the settled: simple musings on the complex climatic system

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

It's Not a Greenhouse, It's Water Vapor (But Is It Settled Yet?)

This study challenges the conventional understanding of the greenhouse effect, arguing that the Earth's atmosphere doesn't function like a greenhouse and that water vapor is the primary driver of atmospheric warming, not carbon dioxide. The authors propose replacing "greenhouse gas" with "radiatively active gas" and "greenhouse effect" with "atmospheric radiative effect." However, they rely on theoretical arguments and reinterpretation of existing data, without presenting new empirical findings to support their claims. They also assume isothermal atmosphere at equilibrium, contradicting observed atmospheric conditions.

Possible Conflicts of Interest

None identified.

Identified Weaknesses

Lack of new empirical evidence

The authors base their dismissal of the greenhouse gas effect primarily on theoretical calculations and reinterpretation of existing data, rather than presenting new empirical evidence. This approach makes their conclusions less convincing.

Oversimplification of CO2's role

While emphasizing the role of water vapor, the authors downplay the significance of CO2, despite its well-established radiative properties. They attribute the observed temperature increase mainly to changes in temperature gradient which doesn't consider the feedback effects of the increased CO2 concentration.

Unrealistic isothermal assumption

The authors' claim of an isothermal atmosphere in equilibrium contradicts empirical observations and established atmospheric physics. It is unclear what relevance their theoretical model has to atmospheric reality given the large amount of real-world data which contradicts it.

Biased presentation

The paper's focus on discrediting established climate science, rather than presenting a balanced view, makes the paper seem more agenda-driven.

Rating Explanation

While the paper raises some interesting points about the role of water vapor, its flawed methodology, oversimplifications, unrealistic assumptions, and biased presentation significantly undermine its scientific validity. The lack of new empirical evidence and dismissal of established climate science without strong justification lower its rating.

Good to know

This is our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →