This theory is in contradiction of the more traditional view that surface winds are solely a direct product of differences in surface heating and heat released from condensation. The creators of the theory argue that phase changes in water play a greater role in atmospheric dynamics than currently acknowledged. Controversy The theory of a biotic pump is very controversial with the majority of climate scientists rejecting it. The paper took a long time to get published and Isaac Held one of the papers reviewers, recommended rejection. “This is not a mysterious effect,” he said. “It is small and included in some atmospheric models.” The other reviewer was Judith Curry, who at the time was an atmospheric physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, she had concerns about the atmospheric dynamics at the core of climate models. She felt it was important to publish the paper and says the standoff was “very bad for climate science, which badly needs an infusion from hard-core physicists.” There were 3 years of debate after which the journal’s editor overruled Held’s rejection recommendation and published the paper, though they said “not as an endorsement” but “to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory that%DIFDELCMD < ] %%% may lead to disproof or validation. ”
This theory is in contradiction of the more traditional view that surface winds are solely a direct product of differences in surface heating and heat released from condensation. The creators of the theory argue that phase changes in water play a greater role in atmospheric dynamics than currently acknowledged. %DIFDELCMD < ] %%% Publication of the paper was preceded by an extended editorial debate at the publishing journal, based on highly critical peer reviews.
D
Controversy The theory of a biotic pump is very controversial with the majority of climate scientists rejecting it. The paper took a long time to get published and Isaac Held one of the papers reviewers, recommended rejection. “This is not a mysterious effect,” he said. “It is small and included in some atmospheric models.” The other reviewer was Judith Curry, who at the time was an atmospheric physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, she had concerns about the atmospheric dynamics at the core of climate models. She felt it was important to publish the paper and says the standoff was “very bad for climate science, which badly needs an infusion from hard-core physicists.” There were 3 years of debate after which the journal’s editor overruled Held’s rejection recommendation and published the paper, though they said “not as an endorsement” but “to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory
D
that
R
may lead to disproof or validation. ”
Publication of the paper was preceded by an extended editorial debate at the publishing journal, based on highly critical peer reviews.