As if we didn’t already have enough to worry about….
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Indeed, I used to read it regularly. I haven’t purchased a copy for around four years now.
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.
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!
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?
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?
” 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.
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.
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”.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
another item for the warmlist
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
(A complete list of things caused by global warming)
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.
Here is another “scare”: World destroyed in conflagration every 10.800 years
http://www.evolutionaryleaps.com/World_destroyed_in_conflagration_every_10800_years.htm
This mental institution must be huge..!
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.
>>>addendum:
>>> http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
Interesting paper on historic CO2 levels, demonstrating historic levels (1940s) far in excess of what we have now.
Any further comments on this from readers?
.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
…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?
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.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK88JDM4m98&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]
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.