On the persistence of ‘weathering’

The term ‘weathering’ has been in use for a very long time but it has come to mean different things to different people and hence, as scientific short-hand, it no longer functions. Here we question the tenets underpinning the most common usage of the term and note that the climate-process linkage implicit to the term is often missing and amounts to misdirection. Rather than climate as the primary driver behind specific weathering processes, it is argued that rock properties constitute the dominant control. Further, a case is made for reconsideration of our present bipartite (mechanical/chemical) division of weathering processes and of the weathering processes currently deemed to be ‘those that occur’. As process studies become evermore reductionist in nature, so the functionality of the term comes more and more into question. The linkage between process and landform, the scaling-up attribute, is seen as a current weakness and one that will become more confusing as reductionist approaches continue. As a ‘way forward’ it is suggested that weathering, stripped of specific preconceived notions of specific processes, be envisaged as a function of energy transfer and be investigated in that light. Identification of new processes as well as restructuring of known processes, particularly when considering weathering on other planets, is a potential outcome of such an approach. With a process foundation rooted in energy transfer, ‘rock decay’ provides a better umbrella term and liberates researchers from the inescapable conceptual baggage implicit to the term ‘weathering’.

► We discuss the various uses of the term ‘weathering’.
► We discuss the spurious connectivity with climate.
► The mechanical–chemical bipartite weathering division is questioned.
► It is argued that rock properties are the dominant control on rock breakdown.
► ‘Energy transfer’ would be a better platform from which to consider rock breakdown.