Warming could cause tilt in Earth’s axis

As if we didn’t already have enough to worry about….

Earth’s axial tilt (or obliquity) and its relation to the rotation axis and plane of orbit. Image from Wikipedia.

Excerpts from the New Scientist

Warming oceans could cause Earth’s axis to tilt in the coming century, a new study suggests. The effect was previously thought to be negligible, but researchers now say the shift will be large enough that it should be taken into account when interpreting how the Earth wobbles.

The Earth spins on an axis that is tilted some 23.5° from the vertical. But this position is far from constant – the planet’s axis is constantly shifting in response to changes in the distribution of mass around the Earth. “The Earth is like a spinning top, and if you put more mass on one side or other, the axis of rotation is going to shift slightly,” says Felix Landerer of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

The influx of fresh water from shrinking ice sheets also causes the planet to pitch over. Landerer and colleagues estimate that the melting of Greenland’s ice is already causing Earth’s axis to tilt at an annual rate of about 2.6 centimetres – and that rate may increase significantly in the coming years.

Now, they calculate that oceans warmed by the rise in greenhouse gases can also cause the Earth to tilt – a conclusion that runs counter to older models, which suggested that ocean expansion would not create a large shift in the distribution of the Earth’s mass.

The team found that as the oceans warm and expand, more water will be pushed up and onto the Earth’s shallower ocean shelves. Over the next century, the subtle effect is expected to cause the northern pole of Earth’s spin axis to shift by roughly 1.5 centimetres per year in the direction of Alaska and Hawaii.

The effect is relatively small. “The pole’s not going to drift away in a crazy manner,” Landerer notes, adding that it shouldn’t induce any unfortunate feedback in Earth’s climate.

And climate change can also affect the Earth’s spin. Previously, Landerer and colleagues showed that global warming would cause Earth’s mass to be redistributed towards higher latitudes.

Journal reference: Geophysical Research Letters (in press)

full story here

About these ads

224 thoughts on “Warming could cause tilt in Earth’s axis

  1. “The Earth is like a spinning top, and if you put more mass on one side or other, the axis of rotation is going to shift slightly”. So if China and India keep adding more skyscapers, more cars and trucks, for their nearly 2.5 billion combined population, this will tilt the Earth’s mass towards Asia?

  2. Of course tectonics has nothing to do with this. Funny how these dramatic predictions fail to be replicated in the geologic past. In less than 100 years 6.5 billion humans can change the tilt of the planet! They conviently forget that bacteria alone out masses them on this planet by about a factor of 10.

  3. Pure alarmist HEADLINE

    THE EARTH AXIS WILL TILT!!!!!!

    but

    The effect is relatively small. “The pole’s not going to drift away in a crazy manner,” Landerer notes, adding that it shouldn’t induce any unfortunate feedback in Earth’s climate.

    All part of the pre-Copenhagen agenda

  4. What about continental drift, growing the Atlantice and shrinking the Pacific? What about tectonic plate action, shifting land masses around, for example Australia is now slightly further north than it was 150 years ago? What about the growth in the distance between the Earth and the Moon? All miniscule changes, but what effects? Who knows!

    This is all mind bogglingly silly IMO…Copenhagen is still a long way away plenty of time for more disaster “studies”.

    And when the polls shift polarity….

    Reply: Was that a really really clever pun, or just an accidental spelling Malaprop? I’m thinking the latter, but it is still brilliant. ~ charles the moderator

  5. So what movements of a similar nature, but in the opposite direction, during the Maunder and Dalton minima? Presumably there were similar type movements when the Vikings inhabited Greenland a thousand years ago. We are still here so no need to panic.

  6. Re:
    “And climate change can also affect the Earth’s spin. Previously, Landerer and colleagues showed that global warming would cause Earth’s mass to be redistributed towards higher latitudes.”

    Could some explain how, please? It seems to me that if because of global warming, the ice setting on top of the continent of Antarctica is melted and presumably equally distributed over the globe, then the total mass is distributed over the lower latitudes, that is, toward the equator. The same with the ice melting from the island of Greenland.

    What is the mechanism by which mass is distributed toward the poles instead of away from the poles?

  7. I know it is August, and summer in the (for now) Northern hemisphere, but have I missed something? When did The Fortean Times and the window-lickers take over the New Scientist?

  8. Oh goody, another ‘scientific, peer-reviewed paper’ to add to my ever growing pile of junk that I can dig out and amuse my (as yet unborn) grandkids in a few years.

    Now if we could just get everyone to only drive east we can change the length of a day…

    Cheers

    Mark

  9. So how much tilt has already been caused by the warming since the last ice age? “Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago),” (IPCC Report AR4 FAQ.5.1). And is it a problem?

  10. The shifting around of the Pacific Warm Pool also changes Earth’s length of day. Compared to the other factors which change LOD the effect is small, but measurable.

    The largest effects on LOD, and the position of the magnetic poles, is caused by shifting of the sub crustal currents which move closer to and further away from the surface and sea bed. These overturn heavy magnetic and radioactive elements which cause the earth’s rotation speed to change slightly. The usual analogy is with a spinning ice skater pulling in their arms and spinning faster as a result of the conservation of angular momentum.

    I have found an interesting correlation between changes in Earth’s length of day and the latitudinal motion of the solar system centre of mass in relation to the sun’s equatorial plane.

    This implies that the relative positions of the planets affect Earth’s rotation speed.

    Among other things.

    Reversals in the multidecadal changes in length of day seem to precede changes in the direction of the global temperature record by around 5-7 years. This has been noted by the NAO, an American govt body which plans fisheries policy, since these changes affect fish stocks. Their publications have been frequently linked on this blog recently by contributor ‘nogw’. I came across the NAO docs a year ago while researching the links between LOD, atmospheric angular momentum, and global temperature. AAM contributes around 10% to changes in LOD, the changing sub crustakl currents making up most of the rest, according to NASA’s Dr Richard Gross.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=15

    Gross has reconstructed LOD back to 1832, and it is his series I used in my graph above.

    Another interesting study is in publication by Ian WIlson of Australia, which uses a Russian reconstruction back to 1650 with which he finds a correlation to the motion of the sun relative to the solar system centre of mass in the orbital plane, perpendicular to the axis I’m studying.

    It’s all getting very interesting.

  11. I was planning on building a nice big rockery in my garden, dammit! Now I’ll have to dig a pond instead…

  12. Nice tie-in with the current 2012 hysteria turning up. One of the “theories” about the Mayan calender is that t predicts the day when the earth will flip over on it’s axis.

  13. So, what is supposed to happen when too much ice forms at the Poles?
    Earth un-tilts. And as it un-tilts, the poles get less summer and grow colder.
    Omigosh, another Ice Age cometh !
    And it’s all due to Daylight Shortening Time.

  14. Archonix (01:48:30) :

    2011 is when the Sea, chastened by the Sun, will no longer pass and the Asiatic part will change. The heat of Venus will harry all of Africa, and Saturn will no longer measure it’s reign.

    Wasn’t it Saturn’s motion in conjunction with Jupiter that tugs the Earth’s axial tilt? Fell out of popularity as warming theories explain the known universe.
    The Untilting of Earth due to too much ballast created by man in the Northern Hemisphere.
    Gotta give Hansen something to do.

  15. Sigh, yet another doomsday scenario… they keep piling up… what’s next? Earth’s orbit is changed just slightly enough by global warming that an asteroid that would have passed us by now collides with us? We’re doomed… in a billion or so years while the Sun is expanding the Earth will fry… so might as well party like it’s 9999! In 2037 the unix time clock roll over will doom us… 2012 is coming… the bus down the street has your name on it… as does the bullet in that gun over there… sigh…

    How about we focus on real pollution problems like the Giant Pacific Garbage Patch and try to improve our lives before the end comes however that is?

  16. RunFromMadness:-)

    I couldn’t agree more!

    I dare say next it will be a change in the Earth’s rate of angular momentum due to AGW that will cause it so spin off at a tangent into outer space, upshot – WAGTD if we don’t mend our evil ways! I await the next scary disaster story with eager anticipation. Anybody any guesses as to what that might be?

  17. Is this change of tilt the reason why I found it difficult to keep upright on the way home from the pub last night?

  18. Redistribution of small amounts of mass on the surface of the earth won’t change the earths’ axis enough to make any difference to clmate or anything else – just another alarmist article from the strongly pro-AGW New Scientist magazine, which I have ceased to subscribe to because of this bias.

    Looks like ‘silly season’ is here again.

  19. New Scientist is the para-military wing of GreenPeace.

    Anything that New Scientist says should be ignored immediately. They should be called New Pseudo-Scientist, and stacked in shelves alongside National Inquirer and Fortean Times.

    .

  20. Am I being thick?

    Let’s say the “shifts” take place in a 10km layer of the earth’s surface. Isn’t that a rather tiny proportion of the earth’s total mass? Can we detect wobble to that degree of accuracy? Is that enough to really make this effect? Have they compensated for upwards thrust of different areas of the globe?

    What was the wobble during the ice age?

    Please help before we all die.

    Paul

  21. >>>Did anyone read Charles Hapgood theory?
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hapgood
    >>>Thats old – very old news

    A different theory, as I understand it. Hapgood was trying to say that the Earth’s crust slipped around its core, a bit like a lady suddenly finding the back of her dress was positioned at the front. Simply, the gyroscopic effects on the asymmetric surface masses overcame the frictional forces of the crustal/lithosphere boundary – and the whole thing slipped.

    Its actually a nice idea, and first floated by Einstein, I believe. However, it is easily disproven by the straight line of the Hawaii chain of volcanoes. These have been running in a dead-straight line over a sub-terrainian hot-spot for much more than the 10,000 years that Hapgood proposed. Had the Earth’s crust really slipped, there would be a sudden and obvious disconnect in the Hawaiian island chain.

    .

  22. If these ridiculus studies keep regularly appearing even the true believers will begin to suspect they have been mislead by their high priests.

  23. So let me get this straight. warm water moves into areas in the north replacing colder heavier water and the water left behind in the tropics is what? warmer relatively. So what changes, oh the water at then poles becomes lighter. How does the salinity change?

    I am not sure why this paper was ever funded but I do hope it wasn’t my tax money!!!

  24. Re: Aileni (01:59:06) :

    These people should write fantasy scripts for the movies.

    Been done. See Clive Cussler’s Atlantis Found, where a bunch of evil deniers try to tilt the balance. I think he also did one on geomagnetic reversal, else Stel Pavlou has that in Decipher.

    I often wonder how much pop culture feeds into pop science. Bruce Schneier coined the phrase ‘security theatre’ for exploiting differences between real risk and perceived risk. IPCC, Hansen, Gore & the media do the same with climate fears and bring us climate theatre. That gets plenty of supporters because the difference between real and perceived risk is where the biggest profits lie.

    But that’s life. Geomagnetic reversal seems proven based on studying old magnetic rock, how would prior tilts during previous climatic changes be shown?

  25. I remember reading on an AGW blog 2 or 3 years ago that earthquakes will become more common as the ice melts and reduces the weight on land in the polar regions. Therefore, tsunamis will also become more common.

    This concern of course ignores the fact that the land surface is still readjusting since the last ice age. Scotland rising and southern England sinking.

  26. What this paper conclusivly confirms is that ANY research, when tied to how bad man is, will be funded, without question….

  27. Hypothesis:
    As the Earth warms, there is more hot air. Hot air is less dense – ergo the Earth becomes more buoyant, rises up in the sea of ether and is therefore blown by the solar wind further away from Sol, thus reducing temperatures and the balance of nature is restored.

    Now, to find the funding…

  28. Earth’s circumference approx 40,000 km, so in very rough terms 1degree of tilt requires a 100km shift of the pole, so 2.6 cm represents about 1/4,000,000 degree if my maths is right.

    New Scientist must be scraping the barrel for AGW news to publish this!

  29. >Landerer and colleagues estimate that the melting of Greenland’s ice is already causing Earth’s axis to tilt at an annual rate of about 2.6 centimetres <
    The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° , with a 42,000 year period, and at present, the tilt is decreasing. In addition to this steady decrease, there are also much smaller short term (18.6 years) variations, that is also affected by Sun's gravitation in its depleting angle relative to Earth's, known as nutation. so I'm told!

    The Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.44° decreasing apparently there has been a drift of 20m westward since 1900 or about 18cm per year
    given the natural variability the 2.6 cm is hardly going to be noticed.

    but then which pole are we talking of the Geographical pole, the cartographical poles or the difference between them, and what allowance has been made for tectonic shifts.

    http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/img/northpoledrift.gif
    '

  30. The warming affect on Earth’s “tilt” and “spin” is relatively small.

    However, the amplified “tilt” and “spin” in the media shows a clear “forcing” which may reach a ‘tipping point’ as we approach Copenhagen.

  31. It is time to make an inventory of to determine the capacity of an Enclosed Mental Institution for those suffering from Delusional Climatic Phobia and Obsessive Compulsive Climate Related Disorders.

    Obligatory straitjackets, steel doors, rooms without windows and Co2 levels of 1500 ppm and are essential for a successful treatment as is an obligatory daily read of WUWT, Climate Depot and Icecap.us

    The heavy guarded department will be reserved for the hard cases who believe they have the ability to control earth’s temperature by 2 degrees Celsius and those who believe human kind can’t survive without Global Governance.

    Location, preferably Siberia.

  32. take an obscure fact; cross it with the popular worry, and you have a story for a slow news day.

  33. Goes to show what I’ve been saying for a while, that New Scientist is an ideological publication before anything else, and that ideology is left wing, anti religious and (or therefore?) pro-anthropogenic climate change, the original sin of the new religion.

  34. The Earth is spinning out of control!!

    This is yet another editorial highlight of a once good magazine.

  35. Its great to know that more and more things are a direct effect of Anthropogenic climate change and global warming. Perhaps magnetic poles are a by product of this amazing c02 gas. In fact, it looks like the whole balance of life as we understand it, from the beginning of time to the end of physics are caused by the properties of this greenhouse gas. Its the new Big Bang theory. It simplifies cosmology. Forget all the Newtonian and post newtonian physics.

    It was c02 all the time.

  36. Wow is all I have to say.

    Do want to talk moving masses ??? – let’s talk plate tectonics. Plates move any where from 2.5 to 15 cm per year. So what moves more mass – the entire continent of North America moving 5 cm/yr or a miniscule amount of ice melting on one small part of that continent (Greenland) ?? It’s a literal drop in the bucket.

    Yes, in theory, it will all have some effect on mass distribution, which yes in theory will change the axis of rotation, but this is such a minor effect compared to tectonic mass redistributions & yet it is written up as if it is a big deal and something we should worry about. Unbelievable !

    Alarmist hype at it is worst !! (and abuse of geophysics – which I take personally offense with as a practicing geophysicist)

  37. Breaking news. Latest research suggests that its not the sun’s gravitational pull, but the respective concentrations of c02 on planets orbiting it that causes their respective trajectories around the sun. Researchers suggest that the sun itself is a massive c02 bomb just waiting to explode, throwing fire from the skies.

    To speak seriously, its amazing how NASA can say that greenhouse gases can heat the oceans. Do they provide in the public domain a model of how this happens? It defied the basic physical laws. (Longwave radiation isn’t trapped by oceans). If a source of radiation heats to an optimum temperature – say 25C, then how could a 3rd power (re-radiated longwave heat – a fraction of which is temporarily suspended by ghg’s at a greatly reduced temperature from the optimum) possibly send it above 25C?

    Its as though they think that if you add water at 20C to the equivalent volume of water at 22C, you’ll have a body of water at 42C.

  38. The Earth spins on an axis that is tilted some 23.5° from the vertical. But this position is far from constant – the planet’s axis is constantly shifting in response to changes in the distribution of mass around the Earth.

    If I had just picked up a newspaper & started reading this, I would have sworn it was going to be a study on obesity.

  39. The most significant danger facing this planet is from the proliferation of wind-farms.

    These enormous turbines, all facing into the wind, will effectively slow the planet’s rotation, albeit by an infinitesmal amount, somewhat akin to putting one’s hand into the airstream of a speeding Prius.

    If you have enough of these turbines, a tipping point is reached, the Earth’s rotation slows, and there are MORE daylight hours, and hence, greater Global Warming.

  40. I suppose if we lived 1000 years + we might be able to record/experience some “climate change” but then it would still go up and down. Remember the universe started 15 billion years ago (big bang) and it is expected to fade away in 15 billion years. Good luck warmistas I hope you keep your jobs for at least the next 3 years!

  41. So, to summarise: “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!… erm, just not very much, and you probably won’t even notice. Sorry. Carry on. We’re just justifying our grant money here, even though we can’t prove a thing.”

    Great. This is the same level of tat as “an ice-free arctic”.

  42. And climate change can also affect the Earth’s spin. Previously, Landerer and colleagues showed that global warming would cause Earth’s mass to be redistributed towards higher latitudes. Since that pulls mass closer to the planet’s spin axis, it causes the planet to rotate faster – just as an ice skater spins faster when she pulls her arms towards her body.

    Then Mars will become jealous and have one of her moons kneecap us.

  43. For those who may be mathematically inclined, you may find the papers archived on this site to be of interest: http://ba.stat.cmu.edu/ . This is the ISBA Journal maintained at Carnegie Mellon. Search on key words such as “Climate” to retrieve those which discuss the modeling methods used in climate research. Many are quite critical of those methods.

  44. Perhaps this New Scientist is really a spin off of the Daily Onion?
    We are now at the point similar to that of early paleontology, when the workers started mixing in the forged fossils, and to show they were authentic, signed ‘YHWH’ to the, And their sponsor thought it was proof of his theory.

  45. The axial tilt is already changing due to the Milankovitch cycles.

    The tilt will move from its current 23.44 degrees to 22.1 degrees in about 8,000 years.

    This is the equivalent of 176 kms or 2.2 metres per year for the next 8,000 years.

    This little 2.6 cms per year estimate will change the 176.0 km by 0.2 kms (nothing really).

    Going by the Milankovitch cycles, the ice will start building up on Ellesmere Island, Baffin Island and the Torngut mountains in northern Quebec in about 5,000 years so the ice-albedo feedback will start slipping us back into the next ice age around that time anyway and the 2.6 cms will go the other way.

  46. so its not runaway global warming alone we should be worried about. Its runaway spin, tilt and wobble too. We’ll all be hot and dizzy and disoriented in years to come. Life will be a non stop dance floor. There’s a business opportunity in gyroscope offsetting there.

  47. Thanks for posting that link NofW.

    So is this real

    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

    there are some 90,000 scientifically valid measurements of c02 from 1810 to 1957 that frequently surpass 400ppm occasionally at 600ppm throughout the northern hemisphere. These measurements are censored by the IPCC, who rely on proxies from ice cores. Yet they’re scientifically valid.

  48. Hmm, the usual trolls seem to be absent for this post.

    Maybe even they’re embarrassed by this tripe.

    Still, given some of the indefensible things they defend, I’m mildly surprised. :-)

  49. which I have ceased to subscribe to because of this bias.

    Indeed, I used to read it regularly. I haven’t purchased a copy for around four years now.

  50. Ah yes – “New Scientist” magazine. Where it’s important to be New, the Science part? Not so much.

    This pap is the scientific equivalent of the National Enquirer.

  51. Oh my, I see an upcoming debate over this problem up here in Scandinavia.
    Will Scandinavia move closer to the equator, or will the equator move closer to Scandinavia? I think we’ll need to iron that problem out before it’s irreversible!

  52. If you were doing a comprehensive study on “climate change” (and NOT on ‘global warming”), wouldn’t you also consider cooling oceans and growing ice sheets? And wouldn’t you preface your report on the state of “climate change” as to the current trends in ocean warming and shrinking ice sheets?

  53. I think the New Scientist needs to be more selective about their science. I suggest they interview all prospective authors and ask them three questions, such as;

    “What is your name?”

    What is the color of you eyes?”

    “What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  54. ” Mark Fawcett (04:02:27) :

    Hypothesis:
    As the Earth warms, there is more hot air. Hot air is less dense – ergo the Earth becomes more buoyant, rises up in the sea of ether and is therefore blown by the solar wind further away from Sol, thus reducing temperatures and the balance of nature is restored.

    Now, to find the funding…”

    No human culpability proposed, funding denied.

  55. They’ve rediscovered Chandler Wobble! However, because the oceans’ mass is so small compared to that of the Earth’s core, the effect to sea level rise will be miniscule.

    Somehow, the planet managed to survive sea level fall and rise of 120 m during the last galcial cycle and mankind managed to propagate with the warmth of the current interglacial.

  56. So Greenland losing ice mass at a rate of .004% per annum, will eventually shift the Earth’s tilt by a few centimeters. This is worth talking about why?

    Oh right. Because crazy Global Warming stories sell headlines. That’s just the way things go in the Climate of Extremes.

    R Ed Neck (06:24:57) : Among those who take science at least a bit more seriously than the general public, New Scientist is considered beneath a tabloid rag. Lubos Motl calls them “Nude Socialist”.

  57. Robinson (06:13:31) :

    which I have ceased to subscribe to because of this bias.

    It would be good to have science magazines from non-polluted or uninfected countries by the global warming/climate change virus or by “tipping points”.
    Do you know where can we get these magazines (in english)?

  58. As a matter of fact the obliquity varies from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees in a quasi-periodical 41,000 year cycle. At the moment we are at 23,45 degrees and decreasing, which means that the polar circles (and tropic circles) are moving about 40 feet per year polewards and equatorwards respectively.
    Noticed any catastrophic effects? No?
    Until about a million years ago the ice ages followed this 41,000 year obliquity cycle, but then they changed over to tracking the 100,000 year orbital excentricity cycle instead. Nobody is certain why, but since all climate change is supposed to be due to greenhouse gases, my hypothesis is that the CO2 molecules decided that they wanted to spend more leisure time bathing in the oceans and less time working away as greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

  59. Fear not! World governments will be happy to rebalance the earth by transferring that toxic paper representation of actual value (money) from your wallet to their coffers. Be a good worldwide citizen and freely give when the thugs (ahem) collectors come to your door.

    Kaboom (05:13:23) :
    “speeding Prius” ???

    Obviously, you have never seen one climbing to the 11,000 ft elevation Eisenhower Tunnel here in Colorado.

  60. Silliness. We just came out of an glacial period w/multi-terratons of unbalancing polar ice created, redistributed, and melted. That would change the tilt far more than any slightly warmer water.

    Jeesh.

  61. The effect was previously thought to be negligible, but researchers soon realized they could get more grant money if they changed “negligible” to “significant.”

    There, fixed it for them.

  62. Jeremy (06:40:31) :

    “What is your name?”
    Arthur, king of Britain

    What is the color of you eyes?”
    Brown
    “What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
    African or European….
    Goodbye!

  63. Forrest Gump calls these people stupid. If it wasn’t published already, I would think whoever came up with this was high on drugs. They are now just making up stuff now. They are making up stuff to blame on our lifestyle.

    You know what is very sad? The fact that this study is based on something that is not proven and very much in doubt by reputable scientists. If the foundation is unsure, the house will fall down. Science should build on facts, not assumptions. Pretty soon, there will be a study stating global warming affects the orbit of the moon. Don’t laugh, just cry.

  64. Nogw (05:51:59) :

    “Ron de Haan (04:43:10) :
    rooms without windows and Co2 levels of 1500 ppm
    For those who don´t know it, this is real:
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/426/52

    CO2 is not the culprit, it’s innocent.

    Sorry for advising the wrong therapy.

    Journal of Mental Science (1956) 102: 52-59. doi: 10.1192/bjp.102.426.52
    © 1956 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

    Carbon Dioxide Inhalation Therapy in Neurosis
    A Controlled Clinical Trial
    J. R. Hawkings, M.B., D.P.M. and R. W. Tibbetts, Ma., B.M., D.P.M.

    Midland Hospital for Nervous Diseases, United Birmingham Hospitals

    ABSTRACT

    1. The literature discussing the use of Carbon Dioxide treatment for psychiatric conditions is reviewed.
    2. The design of a controlled study to test the efficacy of this method of treatment in the neuroses is described.
    3. Results of treatment in 79 cases are reported.
    4. Evidence that 2 groups of 25 cases are comparable, is presented.
    5. Results of the treatment of one of these groups with a Carbon Dioxide–Oxygen mixture and the other with compressed air under identical conditions are reported.
    6. On the evidence that almost identical results were obtained in the two groups and the results in the control group compare with those previously obtained by the authors and others, it is suggested that Carbon Dioxide has no specific therapeutic effect in the treatment of neurosis.

  65. As the axis of rotation moves closer to parallel to the plane of the ecliptic, the permanent ice could move closer to the equator.
    if I recall, this may have happened in the far distant past.

  66. “The effect is relatively small. “The pole’s not going to drift away in a crazy manner,” Landerer notes, adding that it shouldn’t induce any unfortunate feedback in Earth’s climate.”

    Isn’t this a contradiction?

  67. When one allows one’s subscription to NS to lapse, someone writes and asks why. I forget who it was and I’ve lost the reply-paid envelope. So, on the offchance that whoever it was reads this blog….

    New Scientist used to be my means of keeping up-to-date with scientific theories, advances and mistakes. Now it is a propaganda sheet for one view — a pernicious view — of science, where research is a way of confirming prejudice not of checking for error, where every article has a global warming reference until you dread turning the page, where politics is more important than truth and to question the approved line is not just error but heresy. I don’t know who is right about AGW and I follow the debate with interest, but you give me no confidence that you are reporting anything other than a skewed view of the research.

    I’ve read NS for fifty years and my subscription was free to me — a present from my daughter. This year I forbade her to buy me this gift.

    If you ever get to read this, editors and reporters of that once greatly-valued contribution to lay scientific understanding, change your ways. Defend science, resist the drift to Lysenkoism, fight for Enlightenment values, report both sides of scientific disputes and don’t just parrot the Greenpeace and global warming line. By failing to attack sloppy research, by sheeplike chanting of the GW mantra, by failing to investigate the flaws in theories which never ever make a prediction which can be falsified, you devalue science. One day, when something really dangerous is discovered, people will mock you and say ‘yeah, yeah, we’ve heard it all before, end of the world, they said that about global warming’ in the same way they now remember the ’70s global cooling scare. The latter, though, was small beer compared to the current hoo-hah, and the backlash will be bigger.

    When science fails it will be your fault. And you wonder why I won’t take your magazine even for free?

    JF
    Sorry, O moderator, but the way the science is reported by mainstream media really worries me. Rant over.

  68. …it shouldn’t induce any unfortunate feedback in Earth’s climate.

    What about fortunate (negative) feedback? Did they think of that? Or is all feedback in AGW assumed to be positive unless proven otherwise?

  69. Look for an axial tilt tax to come out of this.

    This MST3K science documentary explains (in the limited context of its time) the fundamental concepts of the earth’s core composition, dynamics, and mechanisms for continental drift and axial tilt. Felix Landerer’s posit is not nearly so eloquent or complete.

  70. Once more the computer games: The researchers modelled the changes that would occur if moderate projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a doubling of carbon dioxide levels between 2000 and 2100 – were to become reality.

  71. My hypothesis is that all of the earthworms on the panet get woozy from the wobble and they all burrow over a few feet at the same time and in the sam direction to put the earth back in balance.

    Since the earth has never shaken itself apart from a severe imbalance, I believe my hypothesis of earthworm wobble correction is the one and only truth. The science is settled. (Also note that since the appearance of earthworms on this planet, vulcanism has subsided. Their little tunnels can relieve a lot of pressure.)

    The only thing we have to fear is if the earthworms decide to take over the planet by sending suicide squads out to coat the highways, thus causing unimaginable simultaneous death from skidding, crashing vehicles.

    It’s all true, you know. I think I recall reading it in the New Scientist.

  72. The team found that as the oceans warm and expand, more water will be pushed up and onto the Earth’s shallower ocean shelves. Over the next century, the subtle effect is expected to cause the northern pole of Earth’s spin axis to shift by roughly 1.5 centimetres per year in the direction of Alaska and Hawaii.

    Considering that the oceans were 430-450 feet lower during the height of the last glaciation, with a great deal of that water locked up in a two mile high icecap over canada, why did that not shift the poles?

  73. “Had the Earth’s crust really slipped, there would be a sudden and obvious disconnect in the Hawaiian island chain.”

    Ah, I don’t know if you noticed there are gaps between the various Hawaiian islands which is why they are called islands… that could be caused by such slipping of the Earths crust… ahhhhh…… just kidding….

    This site is always informative… some of these stories are just too funny… believers in AGW sure come up with some wacky stuff.

    My heads still spinning trying to grasp that we’re on a tiny blue dot spinning in space revolving around a hot ball of fusioning destruction traveling through space orbiting a black hole at the center of the galaxy every ~220 million years or so in a seemingly ever expanding universe awaiting instant death from the next large rock on a random walk with gravity assist … let alone the fine points of how our rock spinning with flip and flop…. Yikes there is so much detail to our tiny existence here on Earth… Lakes as Heat Islands… melting ice as planet destabilizes crashing us out of orbit… Al Gore’s spreading AGW FCD (fear certainty and destruction doomsaying without actual facts)… ok take a deep breath… oh wait can’t do that I’m polluting the atmosphere with C02! Ahhh…. When does the planet knock Sol off course and we all head into the black hole at the center of the Milky Way?

  74. An Old Scientist would describe what happens if oceans warm and if oceans cool, rather than using that phrasing. I’ll be generous to the scientist and assume the phrasing is the fault of a “New Journalist” at “New Scientist”.

  75. I am far more worried about folks saving their National Geographic magazines.

    /at least 20 years ago or more, there was a sceptical science study that ‘showed’ that the earth’s orbit could change assuming that no one threw away NG magazines and they would make the earth wobble. Bing search did not find it for reference.

  76. My problem is that New Scientist will print unadulterated crap like this and yet never print anything that raises serious question regarding the validity of global warming, and the inconsequential effect of Co2. Flanagan, bill, Phil., Mary Hinge, Joel Shore, what have you to say about that? Isn’t it obvious why so few papers questioning the doctrine are “peer-reviewed” or published. When this BS (bad science ) gets a pass, and Beck’s work isn’t even allowed a chance (among countless others). New Scientist is actually hurting themselves. Think of the controversy (and units sold) if they printed an article that provides balance. The old argument of consensus is made moot once again. Oh, I forgot, it’s a conspiracy, ….

  77. What’s this negativism concerning the National Enquirer, grouping it with the New Scientist? While it exploits patronizing the bored NE’s reporting does occasionally scoop some significant news stories (ie John Edwards) – hey, I’ve never bought a copy, but as with others it grabs at me as I take my place in the grocery line!

    The New Scientist? As a mouthpiece for Greenpeace it seems significant that a couple of it’s Greenpeace leaders have defected to “skeptic” notoriety?

    As the warmists grab for straws this opportunity does encourage greater discussion concerning solar/interplanetary influences on oceanic oscillations.

  78. What about Chinese exports? All those DVD players that we import must be shifting the mass of the Earth.

    “Free trade affects Earth’s spin”

  79. Nogw : (04:43:10) and P Wilson : (06:02:53) – Thanks for the links . Interesting indeed . I realize that this a rhetorical question , but why does the IPCC rely on proxy data when there are actual observations available ? Furthermore , why don’t these things get out – or does the IPCC just ignore them ? Or have these measurements been “debunked” in some “peer reviewed ” literature somewhere ?
    I’m sorry – I have been following this debate for only the past several months and am not a scientist . However , I find the “science” employed by the AGW crowd questionable and their ethics even more so .
    Why are people so willing to swallow this [self snip] ?

  80. I think you’ll find the turtles will just readjust to keep us tilting the right way.
    cheers David

  81. Oh the horror! The drift will screw up the polar alignments of all the worlds telescopes. Over the next 1000 years it will add up to nearly an arc second of error. We have destroyed our planet and will never clearly see the stars again.

    /sarc

  82. Scotty Miller (06:44:52) :

    ” Mark Fawcett (04:02:27) :

    Hypothesis:
    As the Earth warms, there is more hot air. Hot air is less dense – ergo the Earth becomes more buoyant, rises up in the sea of ether and is therefore blown by the solar wind further away from Sol, thus reducing temperatures and the balance of nature is restored.

    Now, to find the funding…”

    No human culpability proposed, funding denied.

    ***********************

    My version inserts the phrase

    As the earth warms… due to man made co2 emissions…there is more hot air…

    Please reconsider the funding request and send the funds urgently.

    tonyb

  83. When the moon is in the Seventh House
    And Jupiter aligns with Mars
    Then peace will guide the planets
    And love will steer the stars

    This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
    Age of Aquarius
    Aquarius! Aquarius!

    Harmony and understanding
    Sympathy and trust abounding
    No more falsehoods or derisions
    Golden living dreams of visions
    Mystic crystal revelation
    And the mind’s true liberation
    Aquarius! Aquarius!

    When the moon is in the Seventh House
    And Jupiter aligns with Mars
    Then peace will guide the planets
    And love will steer the stars

    This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
    Age of Aquarius
    Aquarius! Aquarius!

    Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
    The sun shine in
    Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
    The sun shine in…

    Come-on! Sing it with me!

    Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in
    The Sun…Shine in, Let the…

  84. P Wilson (06:01:53) : said

    “Thanks for posting that link NofW.

    So is this real

    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

    there are some 90,000 scientifically valid measurements of c02 from 1810 to 1957 that frequently surpass 400ppm occasionally at 600ppm throughout the northern hemisphere. These measurements are censored by the IPCC, who rely on proxies from ice cores. Yet they’re scientifically valid.”

    *****

    This has been dealt with many times on this blog and I think Ernst Beck himself ran a thread here.

    Over the last year, having corresponded with Ernst Beck, examined the methodology, the scientists involved and the end results I would say many of the readings are perfectly valid. Co2 measurements ogf increasing acuracy have been taken since 1830. However they conflict with the results from the extremely complex new science of ice cores so have been discounted by the IPCC.

    There has been developments recently and it would be interesting to see another thread on the subject.

    Tonyb

  85. The effect is relatively small. “The pole’s not going to drift away in a crazy manner,” Landerer notes, adding that it shouldn’t induce any unfortunate feedback in Earth’s climate.

    The miniscule effect that climate change will have on the Earth’s pole is very similar to the miniscule effect of atmospheric CO2 on climate change.

    Since AGW researchers are trying to get people scared enough to worry about these kind of miniscule effecrts then perhaps Governments should fund research as to how one butterfly flapping its wings in Japan might effect the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico.

  86. Archonix (01:48:30) :

    Nice tie-in with the current 2012 hysteria turning up. One of the “theories” about the Mayan calender is that t predicts the day when the earth will flip over on it’s axis.

    The Mayans didn’t predict any such thing. Their calendar simply ends in 2012… Opportunists, on the other hand, make all kinds of wild, irrelevant predictions.

  87. I might have known it was the new Scientist. Anyway, the cause of climate change is changes in tilt, precession (the most important factor in this case) and other such variations in the earth’s orbit in relation to the sun, as the solar change tends to slow or speed axial spin.

    New Science means putting the cart before the horses and reversing the cause and effect contiguity. saying that warming causes axis tilt is tantamount to saying that eggs fry the pan, or that putting potatoes in the freezer will cause them to cook.

    What interests me is: How do they get away with it?

  88. Scotty Miller
    No human culpability proposed, funding denied.

    Modified Hypothesis:

    As the Earth warms, more AGWers spout hot air. Hot air is less dense – ergo the Earth becomes more buoyant, rises up in the sea of ether and is therefore blown by the solar wind further away from Sol, thus reducing temperatures and the balance of nature is restored.

  89. Sam (06:35:29) :

    “If you were doing a comprehensive study on “climate change” (and NOT on ‘global warming”), wouldn’t you also consider cooling oceans and growing ice sheets? And wouldn’t you preface your report on the state of “climate change” as to the current trends in ocean warming and shrinking ice sheets?”

    Sam, the answer is simply “No”.

  90. I’m starting to think that just because you can measure something doesn’t mean that it’s important. In fact, the smaller the variation in the measurements over time, the less likely I am to panic.

    Humans have shown themselves to be an adaptable species – found from the equator to the Arctic Circle. It boggles me at times to think that we’re being told that we’ve got to FUBAR our technological civilization for a POSSIBLE warming scenario, which may or may not be happening.

  91. >>>Somehow, the planet managed to survive sea level fall and
    >>>rise of 120 m during the last galcial cycle and mankind
    >>>>managed to propagate with the warmth of the current interglacial.

    And managed to survive the huge great weight of the Ice Age ice-caps, which must have weighed a colossal amount. Anyone like to estimate the weight of the Arctic icecap some 20,000 years ago?

    .

  92. Don’t forget the effect of increased wind drag. With the expansion of the oceans up on to the land, that reduces the space betweent he surface and the sky so the wind speeds up by Bernoulli’s principle, and that will produce increased wind drag.

    When I was in high school, we had to calculate how much the day would change if the entire Royal Navy set off around the equator at 20 knots. Well that was back in the days, when there was a Royal Navy.

    Lemme see now; when water expands it is the volume that changes right not the mass. What about the rebound of the land when it is freed of all that ice?

    You know I bet that as soon as these unemployed mathematicians have calculated the axis shift correctly, we will have an interloper asteroid come whizzing by near the earth; and it will goose the earth (which is assymmetrical), and change the axis tilt agaon and all that brilliant mathematics will be for naught. If everybody in china flushed their toilets at the same time, how much would that shift the earth’s axis ?

    Just when I thought we were winning; and it all goes phfft !

  93. Next up, Aliens who visited Earth at Area 51 warned us about C02 and all the Global Warming dangers. They even brought the religion with them passed down from planet to planet. The Ancient civilizations of Earth had it all wrong, and fire is the evil force and the forbidden fruit. We will now return to the age of Apes, and the Warmists will provide the indoctrination.

  94. Addendum: It is the eccentricities and changes in orbit, velocity and axis which cause changes in the distribution of earth’s mass

  95. Shame on the New Science article author, Rachel Courtland. And even more shame on Felix Landerer at JPL. This is more ficticious global warming-tie-in tripe. EVERYTHING these days is tied to global warming theories: the frog population dwindling, honey bees dying off, reefs getting bleached, million starving. GEEZ! Enough is enough! Plate tectonics, gravity of the moon interplay with Earth and the natural cycles of the universe are what change the planet and it has since the beginning of the solar system. If I hear one more so-called scientist or writer tie some natural occurance of Earth aging and its cycles to man-made fear-mongered fake global warming, I am gonna just spew on their shoes with a half-digested burrito. Get a life. I wish I could yank JPL’s tax dollars right from under them for junk like this, and I worked there for a time.

  96. Pamela Gray (09:02:33) :
    The trouble is that poem refers to the past, but now we have the Uranus-Saturn opposition :-)

  97. RE:

    ” Alan the Brit (02:26:13) :

    I await the next scary disaster story with eager anticipation. Anybody any guesses as to what that might be?”

    Just as soon as the enviro-conscious world puts up enough windmills to (ha! ha!) provide all our electricity needs, some enterprising young scientist will present, in a peer-reviewed paper, that wind is not renewable after all and the mills are creating a drag on the earth’s rotation.

  98. BEDEMIR: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
    she is a witch.
    CROWD: Are there? What are they?
    BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
    VILLAGER #2: Burn!
    CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
    BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
    VILLAGER #1: More witches!
    VILLAGER #2: Wood!
    BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
    [pause]
    VILLAGER #3: B–… ’cause they’re made of wood…?
    BEDEMIR: Good!
    CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah…
    BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
    VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
    BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
    VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
    BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
    VILLAGER #1: No, no.
    VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
    VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
    CROWD: The pond!
    BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
    VILLAGER #1: Bread!
    VILLAGER #2: Apples!
    VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
    VILLAGER #1: Cider!
    VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
    VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
    VILLAGER #2: Mud!
    VILLAGER #3: Churches — churches!
    VILLAGER #2: Lead — lead!
    ARTHUR: A duck.
    CROWD: Oooh.
    BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically…,
    VILLAGER #1: If… she.. weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood.
    BEDEMIR: And therefore–?
    VILLAGER #1: A witch!
    CROWD: A witch!
    BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
    [yelling]
    BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
    [whop]
    [creak]
    CROWD: A witch! A witch!
    WITCH: It’s a fair cop.
    CROWD: Burn her! Burn! [yelling]
    BEDEMIR: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

  99. Now here’s a prediction that has actually come true: African nations want $67 billion in “reparations” for damage to them caused by gumball warming, which of course is the fault of “developed” nations (read USA ) and will be presenting that argument at Copenhagen (this is all over the news, so won’t bother to post url ).

    Now here’s the problem I have with that: Current theory posits that homo sapiens (us’ns ) originated in Africa and spread around the world over the past few hundred thousand years. Since gumball warming has also been “proven” to be the fault of people. Since the folks in other parts of the planet came from Africa, it would seem to me that the African Nations are the root cause of gumball warming and therefore should pay the folks who were smart enough to get the hell out that armpit.

  100. And as the ice melts & flows to the equator conservation of angular momentum will mean the day lengthens!!!

    By a small fraction of a second. So much of this hysteria depends on journalists not knowing the difference between thousandths & thousands.

  101. I recommend New Scientist date all future issues April 1. That way, their publishers can argue: “We were only kidding”.

  102. Coriousgeorge : (10:19:19) – Of all the crackpot ideas floating around these days , that is one of the better ones .

  103. ralph ellis (09:31:02) :

    “Anyone like to estimate the weight of the Arctic icecap some 20,000 years ago?”

    That is very simple since it is exactly equal to the weight of the meltwater plus the weight of the remaining icecaps:

    Area of Oceans: c. 350 000 000 km¨2
    Sea Level Rise: c. 120 m
    Density of water: c. 1

    Thus 350 x 10^6 x 10^3 x 10^3 x 120 x 1 = approx 4 x 10^16 tons

    The remaining icecaps are probably about equal to 70 meters of sea-level rise, say 2.5 x 10^16 tons

    So the total weight of the icecaps at the Last Glacial Maximum c. 20,000 years ago was something like 0,6 x 10^17 ( 65,000,000,000,000,000) tons.

  104. Anthony;

    I think you should see if you can get in contact with Mr Landerer and ask him to doa guest post. He obviously has developed predictive capabilities for the precise future disposition of oceanic mass that are orders of magnitude beyond those of other more mundane scientists. We could not help but benefit from exposure to the thoughts of such a towering intellect. I couldn’t locate this current paper at GRL, but they do have a couple of previous papers which seem to be his, although indication is that he was was working at the Max Planck Institute in Germany the last few years. Given that the New Scientist article says he’s now at JPL, that would indicate that our own scientific establishment may actually have recruited this deep thinker, which is a real scary thought. I didn’t invest in access for his previous papers , but judging from the abstracts, this new work will not be a large departure from his former level of “excellence”.

  105. I’m worried that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at the rate of 4cm a year!
    What is this going to do to the tides? No tides will cause an ecological disaster in the intertidal zone which is a nursery for many key sea creatures. The sea’s delicate and intricate food web will collapse and it’s all our fault!

    It is clearly a result of Global Warming- as the Earth’s atmosphere warms it expands and so pushes the Moon further away.

    [snip. I get the joke and the facetiousness, but I am really starting to crack down on that word ~ ctm]

  106. Mike Strong (09:51:28) : Actually the more ridiculous these stories become the less the people believe in AGW apparently… maybe its a good thing long term (these types of stories etc..)

  107. After they will agree to not let the temperature rise for more than 2 Celsius, the question is now… how many Earth Axis Degrees will we agree for?

  108. I forgot to include links to the abstracts for Mr. Landerer’s previous papers, obviously his penchant for comedy is not a recent development

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL029106.shtml

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JC004767.shtml

    BTW, If your ribs aren’t hurting to bad after reading the New scientist piece, you should venture into the comments section, some of the contributions from the congregation of AGW devotees make Bill Murray look like Herbert Hoover.

  109. A better (more honest) title would be something like “Global warming will NOT cause tilt of Earths axis.”

    If you look at small enough numbers, the conclusion is that almost anything can cause tilt of the earths axis. This is non research of the highest order, because even before the first parameters were fed into the computer it would have been obvious that the results would be infintessimal. Two centimeters per year is absolutely swarmped by perturbations caused by the other planets, by nutation and Chandler wobble. It is swamped by isostatic rebound and compared to the Milankovich change in obliquity it is not even a pimple on a mountain.

    Two centimeters works out to 64 * 10^-5 arc seconds or 0.00064 arc seconds. Consider that the anomoly of Mercury’s perihelion was a whopping 0.1 arc seconds by comparison. At that time observational astronomers claimed measurement uncertainties were only 0.01 arc seconds – still gargantuan compared to 0.00064 arc seconds.

    At best it is a scientific curio – like the idea that if you fly in an aeroplane you will age 10^-5 seconds less than if you had remained on the ground. At worst it is a clumsy attempt to alarm.

  110. Tony B @ 09:01:01
    Steve M @ 09:16:54

    Funding approved!

    Bank draft for block one funding remitted via USPS.

    Block two funds will be forthcoming contingent upon inclusion of catastrophic scenario.

  111. @ H.R.
    “My hypothesis is that all of the earthworms on the panet get woozy from the wobble and they all burrow over a few feet at the same time and in the sam direction to put the earth back in balance.

    “Since the earth has never shaken itself apart from a severe imbalance, I believe my hypothesis of earthworm wobble correction is the one and only truth. The science is settled. (Also note that since the appearance of earthworms on this planet, vulcanism has subsided. Their little tunnels can relieve a lot of pressure.)”

    On the basis of this hypothesis, I submit the following:

    Vulcanism is ameliorated by DRILLING FOR OIL.

    Therefore, we’d better get back to work drilling everywhere we can–otherwise mankind is doomed!

  112. Could global warming increase the tilt in the Earth’s axis enough to cause more worries over “climate change”? Now let’s see — a shift of 2.6 cm/yr X 1 inch/2.54 cm = 1.02 ” /yr. In 100 years, this will be 102 inches. So in feet, this will be an additional tilt of 102 inches X 1 ft/12 inches = 8.5 ft.

    NASA puts the Earth’s diameter, pole to pole, as 7899.83 miles. So its radius, pole to center, is 1/2 X 7899.83 mi = 3949.915 mi. That radius in feet is 3949.915 mi X 5280 ft/mi = 20,855,551.2 ft.

    Next, to find the additional angle of tilt for the Earth’s axis caused by a shift of 8.5 feet over the next 100 years, let’s examine the right angle subtended by 8.5 feet in 20,855,551.2 feet, or arctan 8.5 ft divided by 20,855,551 ft = arctan 0.000,000,408 = 0.000,023,352 degrees if my calculator is working OK.

    Then in 100 years, HORRORS!!! The earth’s tilt, instead of being just the current 23.5 degrees, it will become 23.500023352 degrees, or ONLY 2.3 TEN-THOUSANTHS OF A DEGREE GREATER. Tilt?

    Now, is there something wrong with my calculations, or is this, like everything else about AGW, a new horror to get hysterical about?

    Bob Paglee, Sr., P.E. (Ret.)

  113. tallbloke (01:34:01) “The largest effects on LOD [...] is caused by shifting of the sub crustal currents which move closer to and further away from the surface and sea bed.”

    Can you provide references &/or links to materials that are influencing your thinking here?

  114. I just poured 2.5 yards of concrete to construct a base for my steel telescope pier and I’m at 55 degrees North latitude. What have I done?

    This study by Felix Landerer is truly amazing. There is just no end to the expertise in all fields afforded to those born with the Rachel Carson gene.

  115. tallbloke (01:34:01)


    In order to interpret your plot, we need to know what processing you have done to SSBz.

  116. Wow this is even more ridiculous as the news from last years, where somewhere in Germany a lot of snails begun to cross some country road and obstacles had to be set up to stop the snail mass slaughter by cars. Their sudden migration through the road was, of course, related to global warming. I bet they were going south, but, who cares?

  117. This is off topic, but there is a very interesting blog on real climate developing, commenting on the argument between Ian Plimer(I am not familiar with his reputation), and with George Monbiot(somewhat familiar)

  118. Warming could cause tilt in Earth’s axis? and spin? Absolutely it can. When humans migrate northwards due to global warming they will shift the mass of the earth northwards much more so than the Greenland ice sheet’s loss. This will pale in comparison to the mass that will accumulate at the Copenhagen conference. A concentrated mass like that will cause a distinct wobble.

  119. I’m not a scientist but I do know that the grass on the north side of my house did not get enough sun to grow over bare spots ten years ago. This summer however, not a single bare spot and I now have to cover the pool pump to prevent over heating. The sun sets at a more northly lattitude so that I no longer have to cover the west windows like I did ten years ago.

  120. Scotty Miller (11:48:07) : said

    “Tony B @ 09:01:01
    Steve M @ 09:16:54

    Funding approved!

    Bank draft for block one funding remitted via USPS.

    Block two funds will be forthcoming contingent upon inclusion of catastrophic scenario.”

    I’ll just write the catostrophic scenario then, before I start the research.

    Tonyb

  121. augdra (12:33:09) :

    I’m not a scientist but I do know that the grass on the north side of my house did not get enough sun to grow over bare spots ten years ago. This summer however, not a single bare spot and I now have to cover the pool pump to prevent over heating. The sun sets at a more northly lattitude so that I no longer have to cover the west windows like I did ten years ago.

    Er, uhm, … How do I politely phrase this? No.

    There has been NO change in the earth’s rotation in the past ten years.

    At your location – which you did not specify to allow checking nor analysis nor comparision to comparable longitudes, latitudes, elevations, or rainfall changes! – there may be trees cut, rainfall changes, insect or pollination changes, INCREASED growth due to greater CO2, better grass foliage and roots, less children’s traffic and running around, natural re-growth of the grass – which happened to me in CA a few years ago, local diseases eliminated, local insects eliminated, etc.

    There has been 1/4 of ONE degree change in temperatures globally since 1975. That’s not enough to change either rotation of the earth, nor your grass.

    I’d be more correct to blame the increase in price it takes to drive to your grocery store since 1973 on continental drift than on the price of gas going up, more stoplights, and a bigger car you’re driving now.

  122. augdra (12:33:09) : ..the grass on the north side of my house did not get enough sun to grow over bare spots ten years ago. This summer however, not a single bare spot and I now have to cover the pool pump to prevent over heating. The sun sets at a more northly lattitude so that I no longer have to cover the west windows like I did ten years ago. I’ll take a shot at this since I have been computing the planetary position of the Earth recently (as a hobby). The tilt of the Earth is getting less presently 23.44 but by 10,000 AD it will be 22.1 degrees, so we are getting more sun, but 10 years? Cant say. Also The seasons shift along the ellipse – though dont know if this will have an added effect.

  123. P Walker (08:32:45) :

    Nogw : (04:43:10) and P Wilson : (06:02:53) – Thanks for the links . Interesting indeed . I realize that this a rhetorical question , but why does the IPCC rely on proxy data when there are actual observations available ? Furthermore , why don’t these things get out – or does the IPCC just ignore them ? Or have these measurements been “debunked” in some “peer reviewed ” literature somewhere ?

    Neither the IPCC nor the AGW-fundamentalist ecotheists can explain why any or all of these measured CO2 levels deviate from their orthodoxy.

    The measured data do not fit their theory of “man’s CO2 has caused overall CO2 levels to increased (rapidly, radically, extremely, tremendously, disastrously, etc.) the past few years since 1975, and so the measured CO2 concentrations are ignored in the literature and not published nor publicized in their press releases. The AGW ecotheists (nor others!) cannot explain why CO2 (prior to the mid 20th century) went up and down by that amount, therefore the whole matter is ignored.

  124. P Walker (10:40:20) :

    ” Coriousgeorge : (10:19:19) – Of all the crackpot ideas floating around these days , that is one of the better ones .

    Thank you. I thought it was pretty good, myself (ignoring the sloppy sentence structure). ;) Btw, that’s $67billion annually, and there is no doubt it will go up. I wonder if we can deduct the billions in foreign aid and NGO freebies we currently give them? Time for a little tough love, imho.

  125. It could happen. Almost anything could happen and the precautionary principle demands we do whatever it takes to prevent something from happing that could happen, correct?

    And just like all the other alarmist disasters that AGW could cause, it’s never happened in the past and the likelyhood of it happening in the future is zip, but it could happen.

  126. Lindsay H. (04:07:38) :

    >Landerer and colleagues estimate that the melting of Greenland’s ice is already causing Earth’s axis to tilt at an annual rate of about 2.6 centimetres <
    The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° , with a 42,000 year period, and at present, the tilt is decreasing. In addition to this steady decrease, there are also much smaller short term (18.6 years) variations, that is also affected by Sun's gravitation in its depleting angle relative to Earth's, known as nutation. so I'm told!

    The Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.44° decreasing apparently there has been a drift of 20m westward since 1900 or about 18cm per year
    given the natural variability the 2.6 cm is hardly going to be noticed.

    but then which pole are we talking of the Geographical pole, the cartographical poles or the difference between them, and what allowance has been made for tectonic shifts.

    Has to be "rotational center" – the physical axis between the north and south "poles" with respect to the earth's orbital plane – since that is what a change in rotation affects.

    The geophysical pole – the "plotted north pole position" on a piece of (hemispherically-curved!) paper compared to the earth's continental edges isn't correct: That position defines the north pole according to surface land masses drifting around on the mantle.

    Note that there is a double feedback involved. The world will keep spinning regardless of where the continents go back and forth, but the changing "balance" of the earth – as others have written about above – will tilt the axis sightly (a few meters) over tens of thousands of years. By definition, the earth WILL always rotate about its "true axis" – its just that the floating continents will move around this (invisible) axis. Since the earth isn't si[pported by an axle like globes are, this independent position has to be "suspended i space" above the earth:in other words independent of both the continental drift and the polar movement. A plot of magnetic movement – as you found out on the other hand – displays massive changes (many thousand of kilometers) over very short periods of time (a few tens of years) so it can be easily displayed against a "fixed continental positions" of for example – Hudson's Bay, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia, and (eventually) Moscow. Over this short a time, the continents and their ocean-beach boundaries don't change much, so magnetic drift can be plotted on conventional maps.

    But you'd have to get some truly independent reference in space to show the north polar axis and the continents both moving.

  127. Douglas Taylor (12:26:50) :
    This is off topic, but there is a very interesting blog on real climate developing, commenting on the argument between Ian Plimer(I am not familiar with his reputation), and with George Monbiot(somewhat familiar}

    I don’t venture into real climate land much any more, life’s to short, but having read Mr. Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth-global warming the missing science” and a small selection of Mr. Monbiot’s output, I’d have to put my money on Plimer, though probably not with the habitues of RC. There was talk a while back about the two of them having a heads up debate and if if it ever comes off, I’d expect the resulting video to closely resemble a Vegamatic infomercial.

  128. I used to think we had too many lawyers in society. Now it appears we have too many “scientists”.

  129. Mike Strong (09:51:28)

    Whoa, there Mike!

    Resist that ‘spewing’ lest you upset the earth’s balance with that transfer of mass.

  130. Curiousgeorge : (13:19:47) – Sentence structure doesn’t matter . Your point was well taken . I don’t write that good anyway.

  131. I suggest a huge chuffing mercury tilt switch, then if the world goes too far over everything will switch off. Oh, no, that’s no good, is it? Mercury is bad for the environment.

  132. John Luft (13:55:41) :

    I used to think we had too many lawyers in society. Now it appears we have too many “scientists”
    I would say, instead, too many “new age, post modern, post “woodstock”, “stoned”, “tipped”, scientists.

  133. augdra (12:33:09) :I’m not a scientist but I do know that the grass on the north side of my house did not get enough sun to grow over bare spots ten years ago. This summer however, not a single bare spot and I now have to cover the pool pump to prevent over heating. The sun sets at a more northly lattitude so that I no longer have to cover the west windows like I did ten years ago.

    augdra your post intrigued me. I am not a scientist either just a lowly engineer. I did a little calculation. I assumed you were at a northerly location 60 degrees North and that your house was double storied about 7 metres high. Then I calculated the lengths of the shadows on the North side of your house in 1999 and 2009. At the solstices, the 21st of June and December there would be no difference in the shadows. The max sun you had in 1999 would be the same as 2009, and the min in December. However at the equinoxes you would get less and more shadows between 2009 and 1999. From 21st June the shadows would decrease in comparison to 1999. Assuming those above figures, you would get 0.15 metres less shadow on 21/09/2009 than 21/09/1999 on the north side.

    But this has got to do with the movement of the Earth, its slight change of axis and its relative position to the sun and nothing to do with Global warming.

  134. Forgot to mention, my best friend caught his wife in bed with Felix Landerer’s brother, Phil, ………….. 8^]

  135. Plot the function for the annual increase in the Earth’s rate of rotation due to the annual tons of terrestrial debre accreting to it since the dawn of time. Extrapolate out 5 billion more years. What is the length of an earth day?

  136. We must immediately stop all rockets, jets, airplanes, helicopter, ships, cars trucks, locomotives, washing machines, factories, farm tractors, etc.
    . The nuclear tests from the 50s and 60s took the Earth to the tipping point.
    We are now shoving the Earth out of it’s orbit (tree) and we will end up in that Twilight Zone episode. The one where Earth swung towards the sun, and the lady woke up after passing out from the heat, asking is it nightime? No, it’s noon, said the nurse, we are moving away from the Sun now, and it’s snowing in Summertime.

  137. noaaprogrammer (15:43:43) :

    In 5 billion years the Sun will have radiacally altered it’s state. So we have what? A billion years to exit stage Solar System and find a new home. One way to do this is to send some primordial ooze on satellites to nearby stars with proto-planets. In 5 billion years, the ooze will bring forth intelligent life which will a.) escape once more or 2.) perish.

  138. Barry Foster (14:28:13) : I suggest a huge chuffing mercury tilt switch, then if the world goes too far over everything will switch off. Oh, no, that’s no good, is it? Mercury is bad for the environment.

    The warmists will love it in principle, it fits with the whole “tipping point” narrative. I think what we need to sell it is double bunding. I smell massive grants….

  139. So I suppose the Earth must have tilted big time when the asteroid hit which wiped the dinosaurs out and superheated the oceans and sky for that matter? Thats ridiculous and is just more fantasy speculation coming from the environmental Nazis! They can’t prove this absurdity just like they cannot prove AGW! Keep writing those books and giving the lectures, the acolytes of the new religion of the Left need to be fed!

  140. and meanwhile, it’s the 400th anniversary today of Galileo’s telescope. He would turn in his grave at the people today who refuse to look at the basic evidence properly – but now call themselves “scientists”.

  141. I will huff and puff and blow your house down! Thats how relevent the threat of AGW is! It is nonexistent and this nonsense about warming oceans causing a polar shift is just more fodder for a Hollyweird disaster movie and thats about it!

  142. Look at this nice little cool patch. You’d think a Hurricane just came through.

    Oh, . . . wait . .

  143. Ah, the wobbleheads getting press (attention). Good for their academic standing (paycheck). Want to have some fun. Draw the earth to scale (2D). Include only the highest mountains and the deepest seas, otherwise it might take years to complete. When you get to the earth’s crust make sure you have a very finely sharpened pencil–you will need it. The earth’s crust compared to the mantle and core is minute. The crust includes the oceans and all the ice. Imagine the seas and the ice moving. Think it will shift the tilt of the entire planet? A fly moving on a locomotive will not knock it off the track. Not enough mass. Even if the locomotive is spinning in place at an outrageous speed the moving fly still will not knock the locomotive off the tracks. Ah, but it makes wonderful party conversation for the greenies, between bites from the crackers and sips from the wine.

  144. Kum, thanks for the link. Those SST’s are showing a pronounced cooling bias in that area, I suppose NOAA will stop using them now.

  145. TG (16:57:37) : Ah, but it makes wonderful party conversation for the greenies, between bites from the crackers and sips from the wine.

    …and puffs from the “pointy” cigarettes.

  146. Now, do you suppose 15, or 20 of those storms, worldwide, any given year would make a difference?

  147. jeremiel (16:20:29) :

    So I suppose the Earth must have tilted big time when the asteroid hit which wiped the dinosaurs out and superheated the oceans and sky for that matter?

    Nope. Plugin the numbers and see what the impact effects would be from a space rock of your own design. – http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/ .

    Here’s the estimated effect from the Chixalub impact.

    Inputs:
    Distance from Impact: 1000.00 km = 621.00 miles
    Projectile Diameter: 17000.00 m = 55760.00 ft = 10.56 miles
    Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3
    Impact Velocity: 20.00 km/s = 12.42 miles/s
    Impact Angle: 45 degrees
    Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
    Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

    Energy:
    Energy before atmospheric entry: 4.12 x 10^24 Joules = 9.83 x 10^8 MegaTons TNT
    The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth during the last 4 billion years is 9.2 x 10^8years

    Major Global Changes:
    The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
    The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth’s rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
    The impact does not shift the Earth’s orbit noticeably.

  148. See also the novel “The HAB Theory” by Allen Eckert

    A group of scientist are bravely convincing the world that the ice caps and the magic of MHD cause the crust to capsize around the mantle periodically.
    Of course, just as the UN meets to create a plan to deal with this, it happens.

    The UN, always just a bit late.

  149. Obvioulsy there an urgent need for funding and scientific work to study all of these.

    We got AGW from CO2 emissions,
    we have the acidification of our oceans from AGW,
    We have a tilting earth,
    and Jane Lubchenco says climate models are robust enough to predict wind patterns 100 years from now and help municipalities locate wind farm.

    Good thing we have such ethical experts looking into these things.

  150. *** THIS JUST IN ***

    New NASA computer has calculated that the Earth’s axis is tilting much faster than previously believed!

    Film at Eleven.

  151. David Ball (08:09:28) :”My problem is that New Scientist will print unadulterated crap like this and yet never print anything that raises serious question regarding the validity of global warming, and the inconsequential effect of Co2. Flanagan, bill, Phil., Mary Hinge, Joel Shore, what have you to say about that? Isn’t it obvious why so few papers questioning the doctrine are “peer-reviewed” or published. When this BS (bad science ) gets a pass, and Beck’s work isn’t even allowed a chance (among countless others). New Scientist is actually hurting themselves. Think of the controversy (and units sold) if they printed an article that provides balance. The old argument of consensus is made moot once again. Oh, I forgot, it’s a conspiracy, ….”

    All damn very good points!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  152. Robert A Cook PE (13:31:45) :

    Thanks for this. Very enlightening post.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  153. hmm. New Scientist sure aint nuffin like da Old Scientist. When so, just imagine how little progress we would have had!

  154. Check this out, especially No 59

  155. “Patrick Davis (00:23:17) :

    What about continental drift, growing the Atlantice and shrinking the Pacific? What about tectonic plate action, shifting land masses around, for example Australia is now slightly further north than it was 150 years ago? What about the growth in the distance between the Earth and the Moon? All miniscule changes, but what effects? Who knows!

    This is all mind bogglingly silly IMO…Copenhagen is still a long way away plenty of time for more disaster “studies”.

    And when the polls shift polarity….

    Reply: Was that a really really clever pun, or just an accidental spelling Malaprop? I’m thinking the latter, but it is still brilliant. ~ charles the moderator”

    You are right, accidental spelling. I often don’t have much time to respond to articles, a quick blast on the keys and then submit and I am not that clever with words *sigh* though, I am glad it worked.

  156. You guys think this is a big joke, but look at that North Pole Cam! Clearly, the Pole is tipping, and will soon slide off the edge of the earth. Something Must Be Done. (send money)

    Best,
    Frank

  157. Re: a new wobble to our planet, it was but one year and one day ago I pondered the very idea and asked the following question, as recorded at: http://derspatz.blogspot.com/2008/08/burbles-and-wobbles.html

    “Anyone got any kind of idea as to how much ice has to turn to water (with accompanying changes in water temperature and current directions, etc) in the far North in comparison to how much water has to turn to ice in the far South before this spinning mis-shappen ball we live upon must naturally see a change to its axis wobble due to weight redistribution ?”

    Looks like I’m about to get my answer at long last !

    regarDS

  158. to: P Walker (08:32:45)

    the series of c02 measurements from 1810-1961 haven’t been debunked. They are scientifically valid real-time measurements from that period – more accurate as a measure of atmospheric c02 than ice core proxies. Ice core proxies show trends between c02 and temperature, the latter leading the former by quite a few hundred years, although they don’t represent exact c02 measurements.

    I’d imagine they’re discounted by the IPCC as they directly contradict the popular thesis which states c02 has soared dramatically since the Industrial period. What we in fact find is regular c02 measurements of 450ppm in the northern hemisphere before the 20th century, which often appear greater than contemporary measurements of aerial c02. However, Ernst Beck’s isn’t the only review of this data…..

  159. Why oh why do people get it so wrong?

    I mean, anybody knows that the earth doesn’t wobble. My bicycle wobbles, and I feel that easily enough. So I am sure that if something as big as the earth was wobbling, we would all feel it.

  160. Richard (15:08:05) : Re: augdra (12:33:09) : – oops the shadow would be 0.11 metres less if you were 60 N, 0.15 m less if you were 75 N, and less less, if further south, on 21st September, from 1999. Not a great deal really and the sun would be 0.05 degrees further to the west, not noticeable.

    I would say that your grass is probably better because of better watering and fertiliser.

  161. What a joke !

    Global warming has been created to Tax the population – the earth is actually cooling and has been since the temp peak 10 years ago……….funny how that is published!

    Water finds it’s own natural level so come on think about – how the hell could one side of the earth have more weight than the other due to excessive water!

  162. Barry Foster (14:28:13) :

    “Mercury is bad for the environment.”

    But now they’re making us use mercury vapour light bulbs.
    But they’d really rather that we didn’t use any at all.

  163. these ‘scientists’ should have their computers and climate models taken away from them, it might force them to go outside and see the real world.

  164. If you visit the New Scientist article from which this post originated, there are about 150+ comments…of which almost half have been deleted as violations. That is “This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed”.

    It got real mean in that blog the past two days until the moderators finally looked at the AGWers going at it with the skeptics. It was fun !! Who spoiled it?

  165. Mike Strong (08:53:41) :I have just seen your web page. You are losing money!, you are the right person to make “Global Warming-The End of the world”, “the greatest and most terrific entertainment for you and your family”, or whatever you imagine, after Gordo Al fantasies.

  166. John Galt (13:24:37) :

    It could happen. Almost anything could happen and the precautionary principle demands we do whatever it takes to prevent something from happing that could happen, correct?

    Runaway global warming could happen.
    Runaway global cooling could happen.

    Preventing one could cause the other!! I’m so confusticated!

  167. Nogw (11:43:11).
    About Gordo Al Fantasies. We ex-Imagineers thought we would make one of our attactions about global warming and maybe add in a new thrill ride where you sit on top of a big globe of the earth (like the subject of this posting so I am not OT)….where you wobble and spin (sort of like one of those bull ride things at country-western bars…and you whirl around until you fall off onto a nearly melted mock Arctic iceberg…with starving polar bears on it waiting to feed. Only to be rescued by another Catlin expedition…who were even hungier than the polar bears…with steak knives in hand.

    The writers rejected the idea as being too Gorey.

    Get it? Gorey.

    (I just made myself chuckle… oh stop….hehehehe…)

  168. >>>New Scientist is actually hurting themselves.
    >>>Think of the controversy (and units sold) if they
    >>>printed an article that provides balance.

    Damn, damn good point. They are not only supporting a non-scientific agenda, but committing commercial suicide too.

    But then there are many organisations who are doing likewise.

    The UK Met Office has recently lost their Tesco (big supermarket) forecasting contract, due to their inability to predict cooling.

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/retailing/article6806373.ece

    And what about most governments? Most have tied their flag to the AGW mast – so what happens when we get frost fairs on the Thames, for instance. Do entire governments topple too??

    ..

  169. I raised the idea that during the LIA when the Earth appeared to have passed through a meteor swarm, as recorded in the Korean Choson Annals, that it’s axial orientation might have been changed slightly causing the observed cessation of the MWP from Greenland and other European countries suddenly finding themselves in higher latitudes than previously.

    In terms of the Plasma Model, the forces to do this are available.

    Tim Lambert however, decided it was the worst global warming argument ever.

    :-)

  170. “”” Steve M. (12:31:44) :

    John Galt (13:24:37) :

    It could happen. Almost anything could happen and the precautionary principle demands we do whatever it takes to prevent something from happing that could happen, correct?

    Runaway global warming could happen.
    Runaway global cooling could happen.

    Preventing one could cause the other!! I’m so confusticated! “””

    If we had religiously followed the precautionary principle; we would still be clambering around in fig trees; trying to beat the monkeys to the tastiest free green renewable energy source; and probably the termites or cockroaches would be debating global warming.

    George

  171. So AGW over-rides the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum now? Granted redistribution of a little mass on a rotating body will change the angular velocity, I see no physical reason that the orientation of the total angular momentum pseudovector should change. This can ONLY occur as a result of an applied EXTERNAL force such as the gravitation of the Sun, Moon, or other planets. Such forces are already well characterized and affect the orbital eccentricity and obliquity as well as the rotational axis and precession. There is no known physical mechanism short of directed energy outputs that can allow an _internal change_ of a body to have such an effect.

  172. Wuddyamean “could” cause a tilt? Anyone with eyes to see with can tell that we’re wobbling pretty good and have been since 2006!

    Google “sun too far north”

    Check out divulgence.net

    check out eh2r dot com

    check out:

    http://www.isuma.tv/lo/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change-project/earth-has-shifted

    Many of us have seen a very noticeable change in sun rise/set location as well as lunar orbit variance for awhile now. And come Dec. 21st of this year, MANY more will pry their lids open to the issue. The sun isn’t supposed to come up THAT far south is it? And don’t bother responding with the old:

    “Who you gonna believe, ME or those under educated lying eyes of yours?”

    Soon, the emperor’s moth ridden clothes will be donated to the Good Will….if they’ll have them.

Comments are closed.