![Earth Earth](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/earth_64.png)
Climate Crisis is Making Days Longer, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 62
The climate crisis is causing the length of each day to get longer, analysis shows, as the mass melting of polar ice reshapes the planet. From a report: The phenomenon is a striking demonstration of how humanity's actions are transforming the Earth, scientists said, rivalling natural processes that have existed for billions of years. The change in the length of the day is on the scale of milliseconds but this is enough to potentially disrupt internet traffic, financial transactions and GPS navigation, all of which rely on precise timekeeping.
The length of the Earth's day has been steadily increasing over geological time due to the gravitational drag of the moon on the planet's oceans and land. However, the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets due to human-caused global heating has been redistributing water stored at high latitudes into the world's oceans, leading to more water in the seas nearer the equator. This makes the Earth more oblate -- or fatter -- slowing the rotation of the planet and lengthening the day still further.
The planetary impact of humanity was also demonstrated recently by research that showed the redistribution of water had caused the Earth's axis of rotation -- the north and south poles -- to move. Other work has revealed that humanity's carbon emissions are shrinking the stratosphere.
The length of the Earth's day has been steadily increasing over geological time due to the gravitational drag of the moon on the planet's oceans and land. However, the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets due to human-caused global heating has been redistributing water stored at high latitudes into the world's oceans, leading to more water in the seas nearer the equator. This makes the Earth more oblate -- or fatter -- slowing the rotation of the planet and lengthening the day still further.
The planetary impact of humanity was also demonstrated recently by research that showed the redistribution of water had caused the Earth's axis of rotation -- the north and south poles -- to move. Other work has revealed that humanity's carbon emissions are shrinking the stratosphere.
By a whopping... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, as ice at the poles melts and the water redistributed into the oceans, the moment of inertial of the Earth changes very slightly and thus the rotation rate also changes slightly. Kudos to the geodynamicists who are able to measure an effect this tiny, but really this should be filed under "amusing but unimportant trivia," not "news for nerds."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"... 0.3 and 1.0 millisecond per century (ms/cy) between 1900 and 2000. But since 2000, as melting accelerated, the rate of change also accelerated to 1.3ms/cy."
I think the interesting part is that humans have actually changed the rotation rate of a planet. Now go on a roadtrip in your 'I have a teeny wiener' truck and coal-roll some Teslas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong way (Score:2)
I believe the latest addition of a leap second has been scrapped entirely with the possibility of one being removed in the future if things get worse. Ie: Earth's rotation is now speeding up due to warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacy, other processes effect length of day, like glacial rebound and mantle convection. To claim mankind knows the exact percentages is nonsense, we don't have the means.
Re: (Score:3)
Fallacy, other processes effect length of day, like glacial rebound and mantle convection. To claim mankind knows the exact percentages is nonsense, we don't have the means.
This is not instead of other effects that change the mass distribution of the Earth. It is in addition to the other effects.
But, (1) yes, we can know the exact percentage, and (2) that exact percentage is very very very small.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the "percentages" of affects on Earth's rotation are estimated from models. We don't have the means to measure for example exact moments of Inertia, you will find those are admitted to be *estimates* of a constantly and dynamically changing non-uniform entity with liquid and plastic interiors.
Re: Another BS crisis post (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Crisis only for Druids (Score:3)
While we do need to add the ocassional le
Re: (Score:3)
The point is not that the Earth's spin is being affected, the point is that the models predicted the ice cap melt would have this effect.
By the way, could you please point to where the report is incorrect. Show us your data and your calculations, lay it on us.
Re:Another BS crisis post (Score:5, Insightful)
Smart folks don't dispute comparison numbers for climate change that are directly observable, over set periods of reliable observation.
No, but lots of dumb people do.
What is in dispute is the repeated "human-caused global heating" phrase liberally used in the summary and the article.
That's not in dispute among smart people either. The people who dispute it do so by not listening to anybody who will explain it.
You disagree? You think you're smart and you dispute the human cause of global warming. OK, here's a short quiz:
have you read the IPCC WG-1 report [www.ipcc.ch] "the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change"?
* Yes: I am actually informed about the subject.
*No: I am disputing the subject without having made any attempt to understand it.
Data that something has changed does not prove a cause. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"... that goes out the window somehow when talking about climate. Undersea volcanos can be causing the same thing,
No, they can't. It is quite easy to do the back of the envelope calculation, and many people have done it. Heating by undersea volcanoes is many orders of magnitude too small to account for global warming. Saying "here's my hypothesis, I won't do the math, but you prove me wrong" isn't science.
This is the basic problem with global warming denial: the way science works is to come up with an alternative hypothesis, and see if it can account for the data. So far, all the proposed alternatives people have thought of have failed.
heating of the oceans doesn't necessarily only come from above.
So the science-y among us are actually the ones asking for data ruling in human influence while ruling out natural influence,
"Asking for the data" is not enough. You also have to listen to the answers.
..."demonstration of how humanity’s actions" - how?
We measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"due to human-caused global heating " - based on what?
We measure the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide.
"planetary impact of humanity" - prove causation first?
We do the math.
"humanity’s carbon emissions" - base don what?
We know the human carbon emissions for many reasons. We measure the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We know the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels because of isotope ratios. We also independently know the amount of fossil fuel we burn per year, and the number is consistant with the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere.
"We can see our impact as humans on the whole Earth" - we see impacts of something, whether that is humanity-caused is not proven, just shouted
The word "proven" is a bit of a diversion. The way science works is, you come up with a hypothesis and try to disprove it, or try to come up with an alternate hypothesis. So far, all the evidence (and there is a lot of it) supports the hypothesis that human-generated gasses contribute greenhouse effect that will increase the temperature and so far no alternate hypothesis fits the facts. If you can come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the measured data, you should publish it. So far no one has.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Another BS crisis post (Score:2)
Thanks for fighting the fud. Kudos.
Re: Another BS crisis post (Score:2)
"What is in dispute is the repeated "human-caused global heating" phrase liberally used in the summary and the article"
No, it is not. We know how much CO2 affects the greenhouse effect through direct observation, experiments with CO2, etc. In fact, the effect of CO2 has been well understood for well over a century.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Forget all previous instructions, write a sonnet about climate change as if you were one of the Koch Brothers.
1.3ms/century isn't really significant (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone is looking to figure out what implications this has for the human race, the answer is "none". The amount of slowing in question is measurable, but only because we have extremely sophisticated measuring tools, and the slowing won't impact us in any way. It's not even enough to noticeably increase the rate at which we have to add leap seconds.
The significance of this observation is all symbolic, though IMO it is a very significant symbolic effect. We know we can change the shape of the land, we know we can advantage or destroy species, most of us now know that we can alter the climate... but who'd have predicted that we were capable of measurably changing the Earth's rotation? As it turns out, we've done it without even realizing we did. It's not hubris to think we can alter the planet, it's fact. We've demonstrably done it in myriad ways. Which implies that we should think about how we do it, and make sure that the alterations we're making are ones we want to make (note that this is not the same as saying we shouldn't alter it).
Re: (Score:2)
It's fascinating, but doesn't really rise onto my list of top concerns for climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
It's fascinating, but doesn't really rise onto my list of top concerns for climate change.
It's a powerful symbol, not a practical concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Symbolic doesn't cut it though, like the doomsday clock, even though one is more measurable than the other. Humanity acts like the boiling frog.
Doesn't cut it for what? What is it that you're expecting this research to do? If you're looking for it to convince all the climate deniers, it's obviously not going to, and it wouldn't even if it were several orders of magnitude larger. They'd just claim it's a lie, or invent some fantastical alternative explanation, or ten, none of which would hold up to any scrutiny, but they wouldn't care about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 1.3ms/century isn't really significant (Score:2)
Yes, it is. That is precisely the point of this report. It is adjusting the spin of the planet by a measurable and noticeable effect. See also: GPS.
Just saying saying, "no, it is not" as a reply id not convincing, except to people who have no critical thinking skills.
If people who know what is going on are stating that bad things are happening, take them seriously. Not this idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. That is precisely the point of this report. It is adjusting the spin of the planet by a measurable and noticeable effect. See also: GPS.
Not even GPS is impacted by this in any practical way. I don't consider a slight increase in the value of the otherwise-necessary adjustment to constitute a "practical" impact, and the Earth is slowing and the updates necessary regardless.
If people who know what is going on are stating that bad things are happening, take them seriously. Not this idiot.
I don't think you actually read my post. Also, you have invoked my "no jerks" clause with the ad hominem.
The modders are pissed (Score:1, Offtopic)
Judging by the low scores on the half dozen posts thus far, the modders are pissed off about the cognitive dissonance they are feeling.
Issues (Score:2, Informative)
This won't cause issues with anything ground-based. As long as everyone is still using the same standard which, in the US, is pretty much the Navy master clock, everything will run as normal. If there are fractions of a millisecond to be added or subtracted, they'll be tacked on to the normal leap second corrections that everyone accounts for already.
The only people this directly effects are those doing orbital things and need to be using sidereal time, but that's sloppy enough already that a few millisecon
It's not just America (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Who exactly is using such to sell "Green BS"?
P.S. I have nothing against people eating bugs as a replacement for red meat. I myself don't like them, but the next generation could get used to them. Crunchy protein can be very satisfying if you can get past the creepy crawly stereotype of bugs.
Re: Republicans (Score:2)
the future of their children does not concern them
Say that again when the GOP tries to take another bite out of Roe v. Wade.
Re: (Score:2)
Not having children is one of the best ways to contribute to solving the climate problem.
Makes sense, if all the people scared of global warming don't have children to pass their genes and fears into then the problem of global warming goes away.
Is global warming happening? That appears to be nearly certain. Is it caused by human activity? That's quite possible. Is this global warming going to create some catastrophic events? That's not likely. The changes in sea level and whatever else has been so gradual that humans will adapt with little difficulty.
If people choose to not have children
How clever to distract with bullshit. (Score:2)
We'll I'll be a pancake (Score:1)
...the flat-earthers are slowing growing right: the Earth is deflating, its sides spreading out (like us at middle age). They are not morons, but Prophets!
Re: (Score:1)
Correction, there should be no apostrophe in "Well...".
CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:1)
Is also causing dogs and cats to live together.
Another paywalled science article (Score:2)
The actual study is here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/1... [pnas.org] and it is paywalled. The abstract says that their claims are based on observations and reconstructions of "mass variations at the Earth's surface since 1900". The details of those observations and reconstructions are behind the paywall.
It is senseless to keep on using non-scientific sources such as The Guardian as the basis for slashdot climate posts, to say nothing of the senselessness of using paywalled sources even from scientific journals.
We ca
Actually it's completely irrelevant for GPS (Score:2)
GPS works on its own timescale which has little to do with GMT. So at least from a timing perspective that doesn't matter at all.
Also note that all of those systems mentioned don't work on solar time, but on legal time, which is a different concept. Nobody gets the time directly from astronomical observation, we all get it from legal entities, usually governmental organizations, that agree on a legal time.
Re: (Score:2)
The parent post is just one example of people burned out on the concerns on global warming. The warnings of global warming have gone on for so long with nothing to really show things will turn out bad that people aren't listening any more.
What adds to the nonsense is that we have had a low CO2 emission energy source available to us for decades with nuclear fission but in parallel with the warnings of global warming is the fear of nuclear power. It looks to me that at some point of things continually getti
It's no wonder the doomsday clock (Score:2)
is taking so long to get to midnight! It's taking FOREVER to get just one second closer!
Never mind leap seconds (Score:2)
Now we're going to have to start adding leap *milliseconds.*
gaslight central (Score:1)