> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump I don't think that Wikipedia page makes a good job in communicating how c

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump I don't think that Wikipedia page makes a good job in communicating how controversial and outside of mainstream that theory is. Here is a 2020 Science article which – while very sympathetic to the possibility of the theory being correct – makes a better job in describing how controversial it is. https://www.science.org/content/article/controversial-russian-theory-claims-forests-don-t-just-make-rain-they-make-wind https://www.science.org/content/article/controversial-russia... The mainstream view can probably be described with some quotes from the review process of one their early (submitted 2010, published 2013) papers: NOAA's Isaac Held: "The authors make an extraordinary claim that a term that is traditionally considered to be small, to the point that it is sometimes neglected in atmospheric models and, even when not neglected, rarely commented on, is in fact dominant in driving atmospheric circulations. The effect concerned is that of the mass sink associated with condensation. This term is of first-order importance in some planetary atmospheres, such as Mars, where the total mass of the atmosphere has a substantial seasonal cycle, but for Earth the standard perspective is that the heat release associated with condensation dominates over the effect of the mass loss." Editor's decision: "The authors have presented an entirely new view of what may be driving dynamics in the atmosphere. This new theory has been subject to considerable criticism which any reader can see in the public review and interactive discussion of the manuscript in ACPD. Normally, the negative reviewer comments would not lead to final acceptance and publication of a manuscript in ACP. After extensive deliberation however, the editor concluded that the revised manuscript still should be published – despite the strong criticism from the esteemed reviewers – to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory." https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013-discussion.html https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039...