NASA: Global Warming Is Now Changing How Earth Wobbles (go.com) 232
An anonymous reader writes: A new study from NASA finds global warming is shifting the way the Earth wobbles on its polar axis. Melting ice sheets are changing the distribution of weight on Earth, which has caused both the North Pole and the wobble, called polar motion, to change course. Since 1899, scientists and navigators have been accurately measuring the true pole and polar motion and for almost the entire 20th century they migrated a bit toward Canada. That migration has changed with this century -- now they're moving toward England, said study lead author Surendra Adhikari at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. "The recent shift from the 20th-century direction is very dramatic," Adhikari said. NASA scientist and the study's co-author Eirk Ivins said, Greenland has lost on average more than 600 trillion pounds of ice a year since 2003 and that affects the way the Earth wobbles in a manner similar to a figure skater lifting one leg while spinning.
Shifting masses (Score:2)
I alway felt that oil extraction would have the same affect.
Re: (Score:2)
I think oil extraction is fairly evenly spread around the world so it's probably a pretty small effect.
Re: Shifting masses (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is some ice spread around the world but the vast majority of it is located on Greenland and Antarctica. When ice there melts it leaves the vicinity and more or less spreads evenly around the globe through the global ocean.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is some ice spread around the world but the vast majority of it is located on Greenland and Antarctica. When ice there melts it leaves the vicinity and more or less spreads evenly around the globe through the global ocean.
That's pretty telling, then, since the ice in Antarctica is actually expanding. It's only melting in Greenland.
Re:Shifting masses (Score:5, Informative)
Sea ice has expanded around Antarctica (although not so much in 2015) but sea ice has no effect on gravity because it displaces an equal amount of water to its weight. And despite a recent paper about expanding ice on the East Antarctic ice sheet the GRACE satellites show that the ice sheet overall is losing mass.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a citation for the ice on Antarctica expanding? As far as I know, things are going to have to get a lot warmer before precipitation increases down there
Re: (Score:3)
Did you notice the bolded "on" in dryeo's response. Sea ice is not "on" Antarctica but rather on the sea surrounding the continent. Also your story is a bit old. Antarctic sea ice set a record in 2014 but in 2015 it was around an average level. It remains to be seen how much more expansion if any it does.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware of that study. It's probably good science but it basically contradicts nearly all other recent studies of the Antarctic ice sheet. What is particularly telling to me is the data from the GRACE satellites. They measure changes in gravity due to changes in mass in the Antarctic ice sheet. The GRACE satellites show a net loss of 92 billion tons per year from 2003 to 2014. From a study [princeton.edu] published in April 2014:
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent's two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica's unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent's much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably does, although simply extracting the oil all over the world and distributing it may have less effect because its flow isn't all from one or two places in one continuous cyclic stream like movement of a giant icepack would. I'm also not sure how the actual mass of the oil we have pulled out compares to the mass of an ice sheet.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the higher estimates is, since the 1850s, we've extracted about 125 billion tons of oil.
According to the summary, Greenland alone has lost over 600 trillion pounds - or 300 billion tons. That's *just* Greenland.
I think ice water redistribution has oil extraction beat by at least an order of magnitude, easily.
=Smidge=
Re:Shifting masses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Water movement after the Japanese earthquake may have cause a short temporary wobble but it's the change in land elevation and position that the actual subduction zone slippage that may have caused a (relatively) permanent change in the Earth's rotation.
Re: (Score:2)
That made me remember the reports for the big 8.8 down in Chile in 2010. Supposedly it was so powerful it sped up the rotation of the Earth [nationalgeographic.com]. Take a "stable" system, up the rotation, and mass imbalances become bigger effects in precession. Even if they weren't an issue before, they can start to cause wobbles at higher rotational speed. Anyone who's ever ridden a motorcycle with a wheel out of balance can attest to it - at low speed the wheel is stable, but the faster you go the more you start to wobble.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when a big subduction zone earthquake like that goes off it reduces the diameter of the Earth slightly speeding up the rotation.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not both?
Insert some quote from Edison or Ford (Score:2)
About turning the world upside down.
Simple answer shift masses. (Score:4, Funny)
Just setup massive garbage dumps and prisons on Greenland.
Move all our garbage and prisoners there. The extra mass should rebalance things.
PUTTING ALL THE POLITICS ASIDE: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How, precisely, does this change in the Earth's dynamics affect things...
Obviously we are all gonna die.
It's all part of the plan (Score:2)
You just wait and see... (Score:2)
The planet is going to lose its balance and fall over. And then you'll be sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's one of the benefits of the moon. It contributes to gyroscopic stability. There's even a school that claims any planet that's going to have successful life needs to have a large moon to prevent gyroscopic tumbling killing everything off. I don't know how good their claims are, and I've never tried to check their math, but it's not totally unreasonable.
Nothing to worry about? (Score:2, Interesting)
The article says it's nothing to worry about. Well that's what they said to Jor-El, and you know how that turned out.
The shift in mass distribution caused by melting ice will cross the boundaries of tectonic plates, changing the relative pressure on adjacent plates. This will likely lead to increased earthquake and volcanic activity. On the bright side, the ash from the volcanoes may limit global warming (maybe even trigger an ice age), and deformations of the sea floor may reduce sea level rise (or make it
Re:Nothing to worry about? (Score:4, Funny)
I can't imagine why they thought there was any point in telling Jor-El about the ice in Greenland, but it's no surprise he didn't have anything constructive to add.
Re: (Score:3)
But we'll probably just end up fighting over whatever habitable parts of the planet remain.
Wow, what sort of disaster exactly are you expecting to happen?
Re: (Score:2)
What we should be discussing is whether we know enough about how this planet works (and have the technology) to attempt some kind of active intervention, such as carbon sequestration or actually blocking sunlight from space.
How about instead of wondering if we can develop the technology to avert this we use technology we developed 70 years ago, brought to near perfection 40 years ago, and do what's left to work out the minor problems it had. I'm talking about molten salt fission reactors. We can use the plentiful thorium resources we have to produce carbon free energy. While sequestration is fine, I suppose, I do recall the first thing one should do when they find themselves in a hole. Stop digging.
Thorium fission would al
similar to a figure skater lifting one leg while s (Score:2)
Which leg and how high? Straight or bent?
This doesn't pass the laugh test (Score:2)
I mean really... That said, it would be interesting to see how this "wobble" effects the distribution of thermal energy on the planet. I suspect that we're going to get a few people saying "look at the climate change!'... ignoring that maybe the earth has tilted one way or the other slightly which could account for changes in climate in parts of the world.
Whatever... everything is climate change and everything would be improved if we just put the Marxists in power... just ask the Marxists. *rolls eyes*.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the effect on the distribution of thermal energy of the described motion would be difficult to measure. It's too small. I do expect it might result in a slightly longer day as water flowed down towards the equator. But microseconds might be too coarse a measure of time.
Re: (Score:2)
David Duke says he's not a white supremacist. Do you believe him?
Not everyone is what they say they are... and those with distasteful shameful and frankly destructive ideologies typically hide their true nature from others. They misrepresent themselves in an effort to be given a chance to do what they want to do.
If you were a marxist... would you tell people you were a marxist? In most cases, no. Its not in your interest to be honest on that point. That category of ideologies has had its name justifiably or
Re: (Score:2)
Discounting anything out of hand absent information to the contrary is prejudicial.
This is just about the most unscientific thing anyone can say.
Have you dug into the center of the moon and proved that it's not a giant dragon egg? No? Well then I guess you can't discount that it might be!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it would be entirely scientifically consistent for me to discount your position without even considering it.
And according to you that's not prejudicial.
Sweet.
I see why you like this system... its very efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
I see why you like this system... its very efficient.
Yes, it's efficient, and it's been proven to work very well. That's why we all do it, except for a few people with mental disorders.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about prejudice. You're putting the cart before the horse. Evidence first, then conclusion. If you do the opposite, there's no limit to what you can think is true.
Moon is no egg, Khaleesi. Moon is goddess, wife of sun. It is known.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, marxism is all about individualism and is nothing about collectivism...
are you for real?
Re: (Score:3)
It is neither.
It is about removing the power from the super rich, thats all.
Ironic Slashdot Logo Quote (Score:2)
Timing... (Score:2)
A little late for April Fools.
Measurements Won't Convince (Score:2)
NOT global warming (Score:2)
The change matches with the rise of Dubstep.
Metric (or SI units) (Score:2)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in... [wolframalpha.com]
Result:
2.722×10^14 kg (kilograms)
2.722×10^11 t (metric tons)
Volume V of water from V = m/rho_(H_2O):
| 2.722×10^14 L (liters)
| 272 km^3 (cubic kilometers)
| (assuming maximum water density ~~ 1000 kg/m^3)
Re: (Score:2)
also: from TFA, it's about 2.34 milliarcseconds per year of movement. An arcsecond at the surface is roughly 30.87 meters, so we're talking 7cm of wobble. Interesting, but not necessarily "Earth-shattering"
How to interpret scientific research papers (Score:2)
So this is just more AGW Chicken Little alarmism.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing will make the pseudo-skeptics change their minds. But it's irrelevant, when even major oil producers like Saudi Arabia are setting the stage for the post-oil world, they, like pseudo-skeptics in other areas, will just fade to background noise.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I suppose you're probably still using lead paint and lead lined cookware, because science is just a scam to get you to buy new stuff.
Re:The earth's chucking a wobbly! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers, ...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Re: (Score:2)
The Creationists have tried similar tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Well, I bet it's better than the reason you're doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers, ...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Really? What are you on? I want some...
Well, I live in Oregon where weed is legal now. ;)
But seriously denial is a perfectly good word and to try and associate it only with Holocaust denial takes away from its meaning. As Mark Twain said before there was ever a Holocaust "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it a strawman? Particularly the latter point, that climatologists are compromised because they work by and large with government grants is brought up all the time as a counter to AGW research. For chrissakes, that claim is trotted by pseudo-skeptics in fields like geology, evolution, and cancer research.
Re: (Score:3)
This went from 'dumb as fuck' to politics in .00314 seconds.
If it's not Godwins Law it's this whenever the weather is mentioned anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because this was political from the start almost. Back in the 80s when the activist wanted to warn congress, then senator Timothy Wirth (or is it Worth ) set out to find the historically hottest day in Washington D.C. and scheduled the hearing to coincide. He then had staffers flip the breakers on the AC the night before for effect when activist James Hansen and friends made their presentation.
Fast forward to the Kyoto protocol. This was in the works when there were groups like Jubilee2000 who were
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy, but the taxpayers should not serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors. It is important to create a pathway toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources and to aggressively develop alternative sources for electricity generation such as wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal energy. Partnerships between traditional energy industries and emerging renewable industries can be a central component in meeting the nation’s long-term needs. Alternative forms of energy are part of our action agenda to power the homes and workplaces of the nation.
- GOP 2012 Platform [gop.com]
Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...
As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those. Other than projection, or perhaps some left-wing whacko website?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
- GOP 2012 Platform [gop.com]
Ask and ye shall receive! From the 2008 Republican Party platform. Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...
I'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaiting , nah - no more.
Tell me, you really have to hate the Internet. It is most inconvenient for you. If you want to argue with me, I will give citations, and I check them out before I post, most of the time. Oh yeah, Here's the 2008 Republican party platform link http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... [ucsb.edu]
As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those.
ahem... this microphone on? You in the back I said the 2007 platform.
Tell me, it's gonna be Trump, or Dominionist Cruz as your chosen representative. W
Re:The earth's chucking a wobbly! (Score:5, Informative)
And by "endorse", I assume you mean, "doing everything they can to kill renewable energy".
http://usuncut.com/news/solarc... [usuncut.com]
http://www.scholarsstrategynet... [scholarsst...etwork.org]
https://newrepublic.com/articl... [newrepublic.com]
http://mic.com/articles/130336... [mic.com]
Plus, both of the leading GOP candidates for president, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, are climate deniers.
https://youtu.be/J_xVWfGjk0o [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/KyulquUwi1Q [youtu.be]
Re:The earth's chucking a wobbly! (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, just as soon as we use a "market-based approach" to fossil fuels, instead of providing taxpayer subsidies that dwarf those for renewables.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In that case, stop the subsidies to oil companies in the form of production and exploration tax subsidies. That would save the USA tax payer $37.5 billion a year. The argument that it saves jobs can't be used if it can't be used with renewable energy sources.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Re: (Score:3)
taxpayers shouldn't play the role of venture capitalist
Some projects don't lend themselves to market capital funding. Take the interstate freeway system, for example. Clearly, the network offers a good profit to the economy and to the taxpayers who funded it, but it's not something that the free market can do well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you really arguing that we shouldn't pay attention to what they do, we should pay attention to what they say?
That explains a lot, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because they tell you yahoos one thing and do another for themselves. The corporations, like Exxon, who have spent the most time and money trying to discredit climate scientists are the very ones who are planning their corporate future based on climate change being real.
Face it, you're being had.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the sky still falling? Hadn't noticed. Al Gore said we'd be 4 meters under water by now.
Citation?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, it wasn't Al Gore, it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now [weathertrends360.com]. Of course, rather than the 10 foot change he predicted, we've had exactly 2.5" of sea level change. Came up a bit short on that one!
Gore whiffed the Arctic ice prediction that it would be gone by now - which is clearly not the case.
Re: (Score:3)
it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now
No, he didn't. https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount
But CO2 isn't near doubling yet. Also, we don't know what exactly was meant by that. Are we talking about a doubling near the beginning, during, or near the end of the 40 year time span ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wasn't Al Gore, it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now [weathertrends360.com].
I've been looking for the specific statement. What I do know is that the White house censored and altered what he testified to>
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05... [nytimes.com]
Regardless, the only place I've found that testimonial quote is on a denialist website. You deniers have to have the cite from a transcript don't you?
I'll search the Government transcripts later today
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what surprises you here. The amount of CO2 that is claiming to be the problem is about 120 parts per million. (The difference between current levels of 400ppm and the levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution at 280ppm) That would be 0.012% or .0012 units that make up the atmosphere. It gets even smaller if you consider the 1990 baseline used for most of the countries that had limits under the Kyoto protocol.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what surprises you here. The amount of CO2 that is claiming to be the problem is about 120 parts per million. (The difference between current levels of 400ppm and the levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution at 280ppm) That would be 0.012% or .0012 units that make up the atmosphere. It gets even smaller if you consider the 1990 baseline used for most of the countries that had limits under the Kyoto protocol.
And the amount of radiative forcing is a mere 1.6 Watts per Square meter, hardly enough to be worried about. Until you figure that is 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing. You figure the atmosher is a black hole, where all goes in, and none comes out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are not comparing the amount of Co2 to the entire atmosphere you are not comparing the same things. Granted it is more dramatic but it is not the same. You could just as easily say the amount of Co2 has increased by a third but it doesn't illustrate how small changes have big effects so other claims of big effects from small changes shouldn't be surprising.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still trying to work out if Adam and Eve had bellybuttons.
Re:So does Earth Quakes (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if he pulled together data and published a research paper, he'd get chucked in the kook bin. Welcome to climate science.
We chuck a lot of people in the kook bin, from vaccines-cause-autism whackjobs right up to those people who... well, invented vaccination. We've got a pretty bad track record for figuring out whose science is bullshit and whose is valid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this insightful? We have an excellent track record for determining the correct theories. Look at all the new technologies that have been developed since the beginning of the 20th century. That is the result of engineering based on the scientific discoveries that have been made.
The public's opinion is vulnerable to greedy assholes with huge media corporations pushing their agenda to the detriment of every person on earth and especially to those not even yet born. It is sad that such large swaths o
Re: So does Earth Quakes (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think some pseudoskeptics think that if they type any kind of a response, somehow, that invalidates the science. Yesterday, I had a guy somehow asserting that because plate tectonic theory was developed, that this meant AGW was on uncertain footing; as in "hey, they developed this new theory, so any day now, AGW is going to be falsified!" My retort, as it ever is these days, is to ask "Where the hell is all that energy that the growing concentrations of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is trapping going?" At t
Re: (Score:2)
They've been clinging to the lack of cloud data, but new research is now taking that away from them, so I'm not sure what's left.
It's the god of the gaps.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they can always go back to mumbling about "chaotic systems".
Re: (Score:2)
Even chaotic systems don't make energy disappear. They will create an inherent degree of randomness and unpredictability, but even in really chaotic systems, as physicists deal with in Quantum Mechanics, you can still apply statistical methods and come up with models that resemble reality well enough. Essentially, pseudo-skeptics invoke "chaotic systems" as a gaps argument, but they never really describe what they think a chaotic system is supposed to do in the case of trapping heat. Vortexes dumping heat i
Re: (Score:2)
Your description of the pseudo-skeptic nattering on about chaotic systems is bewildering, but I guess that they don't really know what a chaotic system actually is. Are they really using it to say "you can't predict the future" or some such nonsense?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bzzzzzzt.
The Sun dumps visible light on Earth, which is absorbed, and re-radiated at a lower wavelength. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light, and CO2 does squat to it. The atmosphere is opaque to IR pretty much to the edge of space; the "top of atmosphere" is where a given photon has a higher chance of being released to space instead of being captured and re-radiated. The effect of CO2 is not to increase the opacity of the lower atmosphere, which is already saturated with H2O and CO2, but
Re: (Score:2)
But the point is that it is an objection. It doesn't matter that it's ludicrous and essentially denies physics All that matters is that it sounds like a scientific objection. Of course is a load of shit, and maybe even the poster knows that (but I doubt it), but it's part of the "CO2 is totally harmless" counterargument which has been around for decades now. Like Creationists, psuedo-skeptics just keep repeating the same lies over and over and over again, no matter how many times they have been falsified.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are a crackpot. Every argument you've made has been based on a faulty understanding of basic science.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there were only roughly 400 million people on Earth in the 1500's, up to over 7 billion now. At roughly 140 pounds a piece (a lot more in western countries), well, we've added a huge amount of weight to the planet. We would have spun the Earth out of control either way.
I'm not sure whether you're serious or not, but I hope not.
The total mass of all humans on earth is somewhere between 300 and 400 megatons. The amount of ice that is melting off of Antarctica every year is something like 150 gigatons. (Note that much of this is replaced by increased snow and thickening of portions of the Antarctic ice sheets -- the exact amount is debated. But this gives a rough sense of scale -- the annual melting ice from Antarctica is perhaps 500 times the total mass of all humans.)
Re: (Score:2)
> The total mass of all humans on earth is somewhere between 300 and 400 megatons.
With >200 megatons being us Americans, thanks to McDonalds, etc. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, water is denser than ice.
Re:Is there nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on what you're measuring. If you're measuring rainfall, it's climate change. If you're measuring temperature it's global warming. And, of course, newspapers are notorious for abusing the language. Consider the term "hacker".
Actually, it could always be climate change, but calling it global warming when you're talking about rainfall is just confusing.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait....isn't it climate change now?
It's been climate change for a while now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
By highlighting the symptoms, they may spur more people into doing something to 'cure the desease'.
Otherwise the masses will do nothing and the issue will continue to escalate.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you just can't fix stupid.