MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399974731 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2024.20.08

Only the Greenhouse Gas, Water Vapor, Measurably Warms the Earth

2024· article· en· W4399974731 on OpenAlexaffvenue
H. Douglas Lightfoot, Gerald Ratzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater vaporGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceAstrobiologyEarth (classical element)Greenhouse effectAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologyGlobal warmingClimate changeOceanographyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data is available for the 61 greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Table 2.14 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to calculate their contribution to global warming in degrees Celsius. The procedure is described in the recently published study Reliable Physics Demand Revision of the IPCC Global Warming Potentials. In the current study, the contribution was calculated for each 61 GHG. The sum of the contributions of the 61 GHGs was 0.00833oC out of 26oC, which, for this example, is the difference in temperature between Pond Inlet and Amsterdam. This amount of temperature is too small to measure. Thus, with all other GHGs except water vapor eliminated as warming gases, water vapor is the only GHG that causes measurable warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is the exact result of the mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere developed in 1904 by Willis Carrier, i.e., the psychrometric chart, which is now a computer program, i.e., Humidair. Thus, the two methods used 120 years apart are robust and give the same result, confirming the unique role of water vapor in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and the virtually non-temperature role of the 61 GHGs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207