Humans Are Causing the Earth To Wobble More Than It Should, NASA Finds (bgr.com) 205
A reader shares a report from BGR: When looking at the Earth from afar it appears to be a perfect sphere, but that actually isn't the case. Because Earth isn't uniform on all sides due to land masses that shift and change over time, our planet actually wobbles a bit when it spins. Now, a new study by researchers with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and several universities and science centers has pinpointed the causes of Earth's imperfect spin, called "polar motion," and they found that humans are contributing to it. The researchers used a wealth of data gathered over 100 years to build mathematical models to trace the causes of the wobble and found that three factors are at play, and mankind is responsible for one of them. Two of the three factors identified by the scientists are glacial rebound and mantle convection. Glacial rebound happens when thick ice sheets physically push down on land masses, compressing them, but then release that pressure upon melting. The land then balloons back up over time, causing Earth's spin to wobble as if slightly off-axis. The effects of the last ice age, which would have compressed a huge amount of land across many continents, is still being felt today in the form of glacial rebound.
Mantle convection, the other uncontrollable factor in Earth's wobble, relates to our planet's inner workings. The plates on Earth's surface are in constant flux due to the movement of liquid rock far beneath our feet. The researchers believe these currents also contribute to the planet's imperfect spin. The third and final factor identified by the scientists is the massive loss of ice on Greenland and other areas, which is the direct result of global warming thanks to human activities. The researchers estimate that Greenland has lost roughly 7,500 gigatons, or 7,500,000,000,000 metric tons of ice due to global warming. All that ice loss has happened in the 20th century, and greenhouse gas production has been cited as the primary culprit. Losing all that mass has caused a significant shift on the planet and has contributed to the wobble as well.
Mantle convection, the other uncontrollable factor in Earth's wobble, relates to our planet's inner workings. The plates on Earth's surface are in constant flux due to the movement of liquid rock far beneath our feet. The researchers believe these currents also contribute to the planet's imperfect spin. The third and final factor identified by the scientists is the massive loss of ice on Greenland and other areas, which is the direct result of global warming thanks to human activities. The researchers estimate that Greenland has lost roughly 7,500 gigatons, or 7,500,000,000,000 metric tons of ice due to global warming. All that ice loss has happened in the 20th century, and greenhouse gas production has been cited as the primary culprit. Losing all that mass has caused a significant shift on the planet and has contributed to the wobble as well.
Not That Far (Score:3)
The plates on Earth's surface are in constant flux due to the movement of liquid rock far beneath our feet.
In terms of the Earth's radius, the liquid rock is not that far. It's close. It's so close. So scarily, scarily close!
Crust != Mantle (Score:2)
Yeah.. We only have to dig 3000 km to arrive at liquid rock. That's like 0.0001% of Earth's ~6000 km radius. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The living proof, that a little bit of knowledge is often more dangerous than none, "Two main zones are distinguished in the upper mantle: the inner asthenosphere composed of plastic flowing rock of varying thickness, on average about 200 km thick, and the lowermost part of the lithosphere composed of rigid rock about 50 to 120 km thick. A thin crust, the upper part of the lithosphere, surrounds the mantle and is about 5 to 75 km thick." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology), I edited out the impe
Re: (Score:2)
But they don't fall down (Score:2)
Which song are you talking about?
Re: (Score:1)
Damn you, now I got two songs in my head!
Re: (Score:1)
In Australia, Weebles fall down but don't wobble.
Guam (Score:3)
Wobble? (Score:1)
Interestingly, searching for a map showing any such change to the geographic pole produces, well, not much. It seems to be all about the magnetic pole.
Have they never washed clothes, seen spin cycle? (Score:2)
I have observed that when you put a heavy solid object on a spinning object, such as a washing machine, it throws it off balance and makes it wobble.
I have also observed that if the washing machine is full of water, in the spin cycle the water self- balances. It's not off balance and doesn't wobble because the water automatically centers around the center of the spin.
Helicopter rotors use the same effect to self-balance, allowing each blade to move a bit relative to the others. When they can move, they self
Contradiction (Score:1, Insightful)
So... acknowledgment that we're still coming out of the last ice age (you know, warming), but (and in the very next breath, mind you) blaming (in its entirety) this warming solely on human activity. How fucking
Re:Contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
They are speaking of 2 different effects, both caused by the melting of ice.
The first effect is due to how the land responds to the ice melting. This continues long after the ice has melted, because the land does not decompress instantly. This is not (really) about glaciers that are melting today, the land is rebounding from glaciers which melted millennia ago.
The second effect is due simply to the loss of the ice itself. As stated in TFS, the 7500Gtons is only over the last 100 years. That much mass loss in a fairly localized area was enough to make a significant contribution to the movement of Earth's center of mass, impacting the wobble.
Finally, it's not the direction so much as the rate. Yes, we're coming out of an ice age, so we would expect average temperatures to gradually climb. However, what we have seen is that the climb has accelerated. Specifically, it has accelerated during the time that we have become industrialized. That acceleration means that certain effects will be more extreme, and we will have less time to adapt or prepare for them.
This is not just true of the climate, but of any non-linear dynamic system (aka everything). When a system moves from one state to another, there are high frequency effects introduced. The faster the system transitions, the more pronounced those effects are.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. You don't believe that ice melting can wobble the Earth, or you don't believe that the ice melted because of humans?
Also, can you describe the mechanism by which anomalies in Earth's magnetic field impact climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that question is easily answered: you just acknowledged that you are extremely stupid.
HINT: the ice age is over since 15,000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, why do they state that the earth is still coming out of the ice age? Yeah, they say it -- it's right there in my first post, copied directly from the summary, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, why do they state that the earth is still coming out of the ice age? Yeah, they say it -- it's right there in my first post, copied directly from the summary, moron.
They don't. The sentence you quoted says that the land is still rebounding after the glaciers melted, not that the temperature would still be rising without human contribution. Glaciers don't reappear the moment that global temperature begins to drop.
Re: (Score:2)
why do they state that the earth is still coming out of the ice age?
Why didn't you respond to my reply [slashdot.org], where I explain exactly why you misunderstood what the article was saying?
Of course, you don't have to be convinced by my comment, but at least we could continue the discussion.
Unless you just comment because you like hearing the sound of your own voice (so to speak)?
Re: (Score:2)
We're still in an ice age (there's still permanent ice at the poles and on top of some mountains) and if we come out of the ice age, it will be getting significantly hotter than it has been in the last couple of million years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the "article" misused "ice age" instead of using the more appropriated term "glacier period".
Obviously, all on /. except you pedant, grasped that, and continued to use the lay man term: "ice age".
But thanx for pointing it out. I forgot to write "ice age" in quotes, as I usually do to get rid of people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The global warming scientists and politicians are not to be trusted.
In general scientists are among the most trustworthy of human beings. That's because they spend so much time and effort keeping each other honest. In order to believe that climate scientists are not being honest about their findings you would have to believe thousands of them have been involved in a decades long conspiracy that no one's been able to crack. Given the amount of opposition to them it's just not believable to me that if there were a substantial problem with their work it would not have surfa
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe we wouldn't be studying climate and that climate scientists would be out of a job if anthropogenic global warming wasn't a thing? Understanding how the climate system works is important to our modern complex civilization regardless of the reasons behind it. Besides the proposed 'solutions' are not for the most part being proposed by climate scientists. For the most part all they are doing is calling for emissions of CO2 to be reduced and eventually eliminated. How we get there is
Re: (Score:2)
So... acknowledgment that we're still coming out of the last ice age (you know, warming), but (and in the very next breath, mind you) blaming (in its entirety) this warming solely on human activity. How fucking stupid do they think we are? ...
Actually we finished coming out of the last glacial period (ice age) around 8,000 years ago and had slowly started dropping toward the next one as the temperature has been on a slight downward trend since then. But the massive increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily due to human emissions has reversed that trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Not something you ever needed to worry about in your lifetime regardless of what happened. Maybe taking CO2 levels from 270 ppm up to around 320 ppm would be a good thing. But the CO2 level is over 400 ppm now and that's going to cause changes that will cost a lot of money to adapt to over the next 50 to 100 years. It would be cheaper to prevent the changes in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Just needed to blame Al Gore for something and you would have had a full house.
Re: (Score:2)
True, it was named Greenland because the original settlers wanted to convince more Vikings to come join them.
because of obesity? (Score:1)
Yo Mamma (Score:2, Insightful)
We all know that's the real cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Yo mamma so fat, she makes the earth wobble more than it should.
That's nothing, your mom is so fat she has smaller fat women orbiting her.
Weasel Words (Score:2)
Be wary of weasel words like 'contributes to' because they can be misleading yet technically correct (not always the best kind). In particular, if a contributor is responsible for a negligible portion.
Easy to fix (Score:2)
Just have like everyone in China jump up and down at the same time for a while. If the wobble gets worse, have everyone in North America jump up and down for a longer period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Nooo you have just invent the Jumping Jack Attack, and we have a Jumping Jack Gap. This will require a large increase in the defense budget to fix.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Losing all that mass??? (Score:2, Informative)
What, did it escape into space or something?
Because otherwise, regardless of its form, all of that mass is still here, on earth.
Seriously.... the principles of conservation of matter and energy is like grade 5 or 6 science class stuff.
Strange (Score:3)
That affecting the "wobbling" is possible. But the loss of ice - melting and going into oceans - should make earth wobble less, as oceans are more equally distributed on earth than blocks of ice.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a rotating mass.
You distribute some mass from some point to another.
Obviously this causes wobbling, until the "system has settled".
The fact that the mass is now more even distributed, does not change the fact that it takes quite a time until the wobbling ceases.
The real culprit (Score:1)
Popcorn time! (Score:2, Insightful)
Get out your bag of popcorn folks and grab a soda, the astroturfers are on stage again! What are they gonna give us today? "It's not man made"? "It doensn't happen"? Or are we going to be entertained by a new conspiracy theory around the evil scientist that gets rich from wanting to change our way of life?
Anyhow, we know it's gonna be a blast! Let the show begin!
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I was an astroturfer. I'd love to get paid by the DNC or GOP to post on forums.
But no, I'm just an ordinary guy, who gets paid Nothing for being on /. forum. TRIVIAL: There have been 5 ice ages on the earth, including the one we are experiencing now.
- The earth has spent the majority of its time (90% of its life) with NO ice on the poles. This is called a Tropical Age.
Re: (Score:3)
- The earth has spent the majority of its time (90% of its life) with NO ice on the poles. This is called a Tropical Age.
True. You know what else the Earth didn't have during those times? Humans.
Re: (Score:1)
Easy fix (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened before the ice??? (Score:3)
Did the Earth wobble more before the ice age compacted the surface? What's the correct amount of wobble? What's the best temperature for the planet? Who gets to decide all of this?
Re: (Score:2)
Did the Earth wobble more before the ice age compacted the surface?
We don't know.
What's the correct amount of wobble?
We don't know.
What's the best temperature for the planet?
We don't know.
Who gets to decide all of this?
We'll require more grants to study these questions, and get back with you on that.
Re: (Score:1)
The ideal state of the universe was the span from August 12, 1970 to July 3, 1972. Don't ask why, you wouldn't understand.
Does it have something to do with the release of the Planet of the Apes sequels?
Because a pre-Star Wars universe sounds pretty far from ideal.
This was actually good news (Score:2)
Glacial rebound means the Crust is rising, as a result land will rebound higher than current sea level leaving plenty of room for all the melted ice. Such immaculate design!
Joke aside, have the Global Warming "scientists" taken into account glacial rebound with relation to their flood models?
Really? (Score:2)
"...The third and final factor identified by the scientists is the massive loss of ice on Greenland and other areas, which is the direct result of global warming thanks to human activities...."
Yes, no begged questions there at ALL.
Perhaps the title could have been better formed as "Since we're all believing that THIS spike in temps - comparable in frequency and size to the last 20 times this has happened over the previous 3 million years - happens to be caused by humans, we're going to blame everything on h
Global Wobble Danger (Score:1)
Al Gore reported yesterday that the dangers of global wobble were now dire, with the danger of Earth whirling out of its orbit and falling in to the sun becoming more and more likely. Human activity is entirely responsible for this situation and the only cure for it is enormous taxes on the developed nations, who move around more than the rest of the world and, of course, have lots of money. Gore has formed a wobble bank that will be selling wobble credits to rich people so that they can assuage their con
Of course this has been pointed out. (Score:2)
"Glacial rebound"...
"Mantle convection"...
"massive loss of ice on Greenland and other areas"...
That's two causes. Two.
HUMANS! (Score:2)
Is there anything they can't or didn't do?
I Blame... (Score:2)
Kim Kardashian's ass for the wobble.
But wait, there's more... (Score:1)
T. Herman Zweibel called it (Score:1)
Dams and Reservoirs (Score:2)
Why doesn't this ice loss show up on a graph? (Score:2)
http://rs79.vrx.palo-alto.ca.u... [palo-alto.ca.us]
Huh? Why? Where is it?
How much ice in relation to total ice on Greenland (Score:2)
The ice sheet on Greenland is, on average 7,005 ft thick. Greenland's ice sheet is 660,000 sq miles. Ice weighs 57.3 lbs/ft^3. A back of the envelope calculation shows that the 1.5 X 10^16 lbs of ice mentioned in the article amounts to about 2.62 X 10^14 cubic feet of ice, or a cube 63,970 feet on a side. Or, 4,092,160,900 sq ft X 9.13 = 37,369,811,959 sq ft, or 1,340 sq mi.
0.20% of the total ice covering Greenland.
WWII fighter aircraft crash landing on Iceland were found 46 years later buried 260
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Global warming (Score:4, Funny)
Global production of concrete is 10 billions per year. Every year, just from concrete production, the earth gets 10 billion tons heavier. And what about the hundreds of millions of cars, trucks and busses that didn't exist a hundred years ago. That's a lot of weight that has been added. And it's not evenly distributed either.
Did you hear that? (Score:2)
Whoooooooooosh!
Re: Global warming (Score:1)
You mean when I'm not assaulting women and lynching black people? I'm a pro-science former-Democrat.
Which means I probably raped someone back in the eighties at a party somewhere.
Keep calling everyone who disagrees with you names though. Seems to be working.... For the other team, that is.
Re: Global warming (Score:4, Informative)
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, nice quotes.
An environmentalist, who worked in advising on carbon credits, told me basically the same thing, that it doesn't matter if the CO2 issue isn't really a problem, because by cutting CO2 you will force everyone to cut production and so you force everyone to cut consumption, and she added with emphasis, "it's about reducing greed".
That was a good ten years ago. It shapes my opinion that people are here using "science" as a narrative, to wrap their entical and moral ideas in a science theory so a
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, the definition is simple in words. In practice though, to decide what a human needs, one has to bring to mind an image of what a human is and what the potential of a human is. Does a human have potential to live a healthy life to 140? If that's the vision then all health preserving methods are a rational need. Is a human's value in life simply to make a contribution to society in knowledge and standards of living? Then a human has ZERO needs as soon as they stop being able to work productively. Does a h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to some reports it's shrinking, so you might be right. In more ways than one.
Lame model (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, climate scientists build all these models and collect all this data, and you don't even quote a single fact to support your argument, or even float a hypothesis as to how your family's house is representative of the worlds climate.... so if its all the same, I'll trust the scientists. Because their mechanisms stand up to basic fact checking, and yours don't even quote facts to check.
There are significant concerns about HOW they built those models and "collected" all their data.
In the 2009 FOIA zip files were 1,072 emails which were dated from 1999 to Nov of 2009, two weeks before the whistle blower released the zip file. In it is HARRY_README.TXT, which describes the horrible state of the data used to generate the hockey stick graph. They dropped all the thermometer temperature data between 1960 to the date prior to the release of the graph and replaced it with "synthetic" data (i.e
Re: (Score:2)
Text of email: 1255523796.txt from FOIA-2009.zip
"Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters." forced me to remove some email reply addresses and reduce boundary markers.
From: Kevin Trenberth ,...
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:36:36 -0600
Cc: Tom Wigley
Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes?
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon dioxide has strong absorption bands in the near infrared (namely 2.7 micrometer, 4.2 micrometer and 15 micrometer). That means, that infrared radiation with those wavelengths will not penetrate a layer of carbon dioxide very well, but instead heat the carbon dioxide (which in turn then radiates itself, but in all directions, thus reflecting 50% of the radiation back to Earth).
We also have carbon dioxide data for the atmosphere since about 250 years, when Joseph Priestle
Re: (Score:3)
No. But we have some facts.
But they have alternative facts.
Carbon dioxide has strong absorption bands in the near infrared (namely 2.7 micrometer, 4.2 micrometer and 15 micrometer). That means, that infrared radiation with those wavelengths will not penetrate a layer of carbon dioxide very well, but instead heat the carbon dioxide (which in turn then radiates itself, but in all directions, thus reflecting 50% of the radiation back to Earth).
I have attempted to get the idea of the concept of the greenhouse gas effect through some folks by the concept of energy retention. Different gases and water vapor have the effect of energy retention. A few, like Sulfur Dioxide function in reverse of that.
I have no expectation that I will actually convince any person who denies this energy retention for political reasons. I only put it out there as an example of politics trying to trump physics, and hopefully others might s
Re: (Score:2)
Something important to point out here. Over this long timeline, nothing has changed except the accuracy of the measurements. The first mention of the global effect was made in the late 1890's by Svante Arrhenius.
And even if the measurements are more exact now, we are talking one hundred ppm here, the ten thousandth part. In 1900, chemical analysis was good enough to separate Praseodymium and Neodymium (1879 Cleve, 1885 Auer von Welsbach), two Rare Earth elements which basically are identical in all chemical properties. Carl Auer von Welsbach repeated his separation method (fractioned crystallization) several hundred times(!) to actually split Didymium (supposed to be an element) into Praseodymium and Neodymium. 15
Re: (Score:2)
Models are NOT evidence of anything except the hypothesis, which has to be tested using the null hypothesis. Experiments are not designed to prove something right. They are designed to prove an hypothesis wrong.
Classic case: Einstein's prediction of the bending of light from a star on a certain date during a solar eclipse. He didn't need the support of a newspaper blasting his opponents, or of a radio host denigrating anyone who didn't believe he was right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You need to keep updated with the latest propaganda.
I have seen the latest update: Climate change is now a "Chinese hoax".
Hard to fake (Score:2)
It's a pretty convincing hoax too. China has invested trillions into renewables and cleaner tech.
Well that's virtue signalling [wikipedia.org] in its most literal, technical (signalling theory) meaning then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew global warming had to be in there somewhere. By the way, it is "climate change" not "global warming". You need to keep updated with the latest propaganda. Meanwhile, your local drinking water is polluted, but go ahead and worry about the Earth wobbling.
Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things. Global Warming refers to the observed surface temperature change. Climate Change is broader, and encompasses many effects that may be induced by increased greenhouse gasses and the resulting change in climates.
Politicians and media personalities have tried to push the use of one over the other for their own purposes. For example, Republicans have (largely successfully) pushed for "Climate Change" over "Global Warming" in public discourse, in an att
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I knew global warming had to be in there somewhere. By the way, it is "climate change" not "global warming". You need to keep updated with the latest propaganda. Meanwhile, your local drinking water is polluted, but go ahead and worry about the Earth wobbling.
Global warming is one cause of climate change. Both terms are useful in the proper context.
Re: (Score:2)
No way dude!
This is Anthropogenic Global Wobbling!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Local" pollution has been significantly reduced within my lifetime, so, yes, we can have both.
Re: (Score:2)
Uses Wikipedia as the source for science type things...
If the wiki page is wrong feel free to correct it.
Re:humans make the earth wobble? wtf (Score:5, Informative)
Also the same "scientists" that claim the earth is round!
Re: (Score:2)
Any "wobble" is just turtle farts.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you explain volcanoes then?
Turtles that ate too much mexican food?
Re:humans make the earth wobble? wtf (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
These are the same "scientists" who tell us global warming is real and that evolution is a "fact". And then they wonder why no one beleves them.
It's not "no-one". It's just the credulous morons at your Church.
Also, learn to spell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)