CreekCo posted...
Its really not. Its just a theory. The scientist has to prove their research correct after multiple trials and over time. Its not just right because they said so.
OK there's a bit in there that I need to correct...
First, if the paper had nothing proving their research then it wouldn't pass peer-reviewed. Yes, scientists must prove their research, which they did to publish the paper. You are welcome to read the paper and find a flaw with their methodology, but you can't assume their research is wrong because you don't like the topic title describing a news story describing the paper.
Second, it's not a scientific theory, it's way less than that. This is just the conclusions of one paper that doesn't have nearly enough support to qualify as a scientific theory.
Third, theories don't graduate to be facts. If you pick something up, let go, and it falls to the ground... what happened is the fact, but the theory is the best scientific explanation for why it happened. The theory for why it happens will always be a theory and always subject to refinement and improvement.
Melting ice contracts and not expands for more fun actual science facts.
You know all the ice sitting on land at the south pole? That's not going to stay there as a water column when it melts. Water flows better than ice, it'll spread out seeking to have an even sea level altitude (equilibrium) which will disperse mass away from the polls and and more evenly spread it across the whole surface. The researches calculated that is enough mass to affect the spin of the Earth by a measurable amount. Now we've become quite good at measuring things so a measurable amount can still be a small change.
If you see a flaw in their calculations, by all means share, but science is supposed to be data driven conclusions not your gut rejecting something that feels wrong. They brought proof, it stood up to peer-review, now burden is on you to say something more than "I don't like it" to reject it.