The significance of establishing the reliability and repute of sources of information cannot be overemphasised. Reputable sources of information are important for obtaining accurate information on a given topic. This paper evaluates two different selected sources of information on the connection between climate change and earthquakes. One of the sources is from a scientifically reputable resource and the other one is from a questionable resource. Following a brief summary of the articles, attention is paid to differences between the reliability of the resources, specifically highlighting why one source is more scientifically valid than the other.
The first selected source is an article in The Guardian by McGuire (2016). According to the author, global warming could be causing not only more destructive hurricanes, but also increased seismic activity. As the atmosphere is connected to other elements of the earth system, including oceans, ice glaciers, and the underground (geosphere), climate change is not just about higher temperatures – earthquakes may also be possible consequences. Theoretically, the reduced atmospheric pressure that comes with typhoons and hurricanes could cause earthquake faults deep underneath the surface of the earth to be more movable, consequently releasing the accumulated strain. This could in turn trigger more destructive earthquakes. The possible connection between climate change...
Based on empirical evidence, the article demonstrates the link between global warming and seismic activity. More specifically, the article shows that geothermal forcing has significantly influenced global temperatures since the late 1970s. Geothermal heat has the potential to augment thermobaric convection and reinforce oceanic overturning, consequently warming the oceans and the atmosphere. In essence, increased seismic activity could explain the increase in global temperatures.
The two topics focus on the same topic, but their level of scientific validity is different. Viterito’s (2016) article is more scientifically valid than McGuire’s (2016). Hence, the former is a more reputable source of information compared to the latter. First, Viterito’s article is a journal article. Journal articles are authoritative and scientifically reputable sources of information due to their peer-reviewed nature (Schultz, 2009). Before publication, the articles are extensively reviewed by other authors to ascertain their truthfulness and reliability. Most importantly, journal articles are generally based on empirical evidence. Viterito draws his conclusions not from intuition or experience, but from empirical data. This makes his…
