Climate scientists think that the rotation of the earth is responsible for a lot of the atmospheric and ocean effects that we see. In fact, most climate scientists think it is easy to prove. (Although not as simple as proving that radiatively-active gases affect the climate).
Now suppose the earth’s rotation speed was reducing by X% per year as a result of some important human activity (just suppose, for the sake of this mental exercise) and had been for 100 years or so.
Then atmospheric physics papers and textbooks would comment on the effect of the current speed of rotation of the planet – quantifying its effect by analyzing what climate would be like without rotation. This would be just as an introduction to the effect of rotation on climate. Let’s say that the mean annual equator-arctic temperature differential is currently 35°C (I haven’t checked the exact value) but without rotation it might be thought to be 45°C. So we will describe the rotational effect as being responsible for a 10°C arctic-equatorial temperature differential.
More specifically the rotational effect might be quantified as the number of petawatts of equatorial to polar heat transported vs the value calculated for a “no rotational” earth. But by way of introduction the temperature differential is an easier value to grasp than the change in petawatts.
Various researchers would attempt to calculate the much smaller changes likely to occur in the climate as a result of the rotational changes that might take place over the next 10-20 years. They would use GCMs and other models that would be exactly like the current ones.
And of course there would be many justifiable questions about how accurate the models are – like now.
And many from the general public, not understanding how to follow the equations of motion in rotational frames, or the thermal wind equation, or Ekman pumping, or baroclinic instability, or pretty much anything relating to atmospheric & ocean dynamics might start saying:
The rotational effect doesn’t exist
Many of these people would be skeptical about the small changes to climate that could result from an impercetible change in the rotation rate.
Many blogs would spring up with people using hand-waving arguments about the climatic effects of rotation being vastly overstated.
Other blogs would write that climate science makes massively simplistic assumptions in its calculations and uses the geostrophic balance as its complete formula for climate dynamics. Many other people unencumbered with any knowledge from climate science textbooks, or any desire to read one, would curiously label themselves as skeptics and happily repeat these “facts” without ever checking them.
People with some scientific qualifications, but without solid understanding of the complete field of oceanic or atmospheric dynamics, would write poor quality papers explaining how the rotational effect was much less than climate science calculated and produce some incomplete or incorrectly derived equations to demonstrate this.
These scientists and their new work would be lauded by many blogs as being free from the simplistic assumptions that has dogged climate science and yes, finally, accurate and high quality work has been done!
Other blogs would claim that climate science was ignoring the huge effects of absorption and emission of radiation on the climate.
Then some more serious scientists would come along and write lengthy papers to argue that the rotational effect as defined by climate science does not exist because the “no rotation” result is incorrectly defined, or is not possible to accurately calculate.
Papers of incalculable value.