Is it a snowball effect or a slushy in disguise?

Question

Supposedly the earth has completely frozen over three times. But yeah you guessed it, scientist are in dispute. Scientist -vs- scientist what could be worse?

Answer 1

I think the "Snowball Earth" theory is a great example of how science addresses a complicated issue in terms of the give and take of evidence and hypothesis.  The "slushy" Earth comes from early coupled AOGCMs that suggested at first that the oceans couldn't freeze solid at the equator.  More recent models, I vaguely recall, suggest this is not the case and that complete ice cover is possible.  

I realize that the nuances of scientific debate are not for everyone, and that complicated topics are boring because the devil is in the details and when that happens, most of the technical stuff can go right over your head (e.g., what precisely got changed in the AOGCMs to allow the oceans to ice over entirely), but in this case, to a scientist anyway, it's a fairly interesting discussion.  However, it's not like Doom or WoW, where there is pulse-pounding action every minute.  It's more like watching slugs fight, which is a really apt metaphor if you understand how vicious slugs are and how they fight.

Edit:  Something like this will never be proven right or wrong in totality.  What will be proven right or wrong are little tidbits of evidence pointing out one thing or another.  Over time, the evidentiary trail will suggest one theory or the other is more likely to be true.  I confess to not paying particular close attention to the details of this debate (except as it pertains to being a sort of test bed for modern climate sensitivity studies) so I'm not current on which side is "winning."  Phenomenologically,  I find the snowball theory compelling and it does seem to fit all the facts.  You can also make the case that it paved the way for complex life in that it really cleared out a lot of the algae, which as we know today are quite toxic (e.g., red tides), and that allowed multicellular critters to develop.  But that last statement is a stretch and I am just spitballing, I haven't read it anywhere by anyone who really knows evolutionary biology.  But it is a great study in how the scientific debate evolves, and much of what has gone on in the Snowball Earth debate is mirrored in climate change, although the climate change debate is hopelessly corrupted now because of the vested economic and social interests bent on not doing anything.  Not that anyone gives a d**n.

Answer 2

people that actually think global warming exists.

HAHAH

Answer 3

I like slushies

Answer 4

Ya gotta give scientists credit for trying.  Police forensics typically work with data a few hour or days old, and these scientist are working with data millions of years old. Clearly, the farther back in time they try to reconstruct events, the more difficult it is to come up with indisputable agreements.  Besides, scientists are by nature very skeptical and always trying to prove each other wrong (no unwarranted group-think there).  Just look at climate science.  For almost 100 years they debated and argued about it before they came to an agreement that AGW is real and needs to be addressed.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...

Answer 5

What's worse than scientist vs scientist?  Politicians in agreement!!

And it's not so much a "snowball effect"...I was always told s__t rolls downhill (and boy is it getting deep in here)!