

Study blames human activity for climate change












This study was published in the Journal of Climate.

Comments     Threshold


By geddarkstorm on 3/14/2011 5:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
No, that's speculation, no matter what they want to call that, it's pure hand waving and conjecture. There is no friggin way the surface temperature of Earth, within the range of natural variability, is going to affect rotational speed.

However, what about the other way around? What about the frictional heat generated by the core and the mantle? Might THAT affect surface temperature of the Earth? Wouldn't that not only make senses, but follow the laws of physics that the other way would likely be breaking?

What makes more sense?

By Lexda on 3/15/2011 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Tell me again why you believe "there's no friggin' way?" If you're trying to show an aura of competence regarding science, you're doing it wrong. I mean, personally, there's no friggin' way a bowling ball and a golf ball will fall at the same rates; it just doesn't make sense!

"The greatest words ever uttered by a scientist aren't 'Eureka!" but rather, 'Now that's funny...'"

Science isn't about proclaiming "But that's impossible!" It's about figuring out why something we previously thought was impossible actually occurs.

By geddarkstorm on 3/15/2011 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
They have absolutely no mechanism. Nor is there any mechanism in physics I know of. Perhaps I'm wrong, but think about heat transfer for a minute and spin dynamics between a solid and a fluid. Then look at the orders of magnitude difference between small fluctuations of 10C on the surface of the planet between the mass and temperature of the core/mantle.

Use your head for a second.

Now, what about the other direction? Could changes in the MASSIVE core of our planet rubbing against the MASSIVE mantle, affect within a few tenths of a degree C the temperature of the surface? Think for a minute, and do some empirical experiments of your own instead of of just swallowing whatever you're spoon fed.

As to your example, empirical evidence quickly showed they did fall at the same rate, nor was there no obvious violation of physics that would preclude them to do so, or any opposite, and far more likely mechanism. So don't go spouting off cliches without actually thinking about the issue.

By Lexda on 3/15/2011 6:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not trying to offer an explanation. I'm simply noting that all of my scientific training has taught me to not discard something simply because it doesn't meet my preconceptions.

By RedemptionAD on 3/16/2011 1:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
The law of probability says that nothing is impossable. It's just a matter of is it probable. No exceptions.

By geddarkstorm on 3/17/2011 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
And scientific training says outlandish speculation requires outlandish proof before it's anything more than. Or, that to be science in the first place, it must be testable. There's nothing testable about this, so it can't even be considered science. On the other hand, what we do know of physics contradicts this.

Could it be real? As the other person who replied to you said, of course; and our overarching theories get modified and changed by discoveries every year. But probable? No way. So should we freak out and start talking about this as if it were fact? NO. And that's where the danger lies, and that's where rationality needs to step in and put on the breaks.

