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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

224 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
H.R.
August 24, 2009 7:59 am

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.

Dennis Wingo
August 24, 2009 8:00 am

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?

pwl
August 24, 2009 8:02 am

“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?

AnonyMoose
August 24, 2009 8:06 am

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”.

George Ellis
August 24, 2009 8:06 am

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.

David Ball
August 24, 2009 8:09 am

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, ….

paullm
August 24, 2009 8:11 am

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.

diane
August 24, 2009 8:12 am

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”

INGSOC
August 24, 2009 8:18 am

I seen Bigfoot once…

P Walker
August 24, 2009 8:32 am

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] ?

Grumbler
August 24, 2009 8:38 am

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

Jose Chupacabra
August 24, 2009 8:52 am

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

August 24, 2009 9:01 am

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

Pamela Gray
August 24, 2009 9:02 am

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…

August 24, 2009 9:08 am

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

Jeremy
August 24, 2009 9:10 am

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.

Jeff Alberts
August 24, 2009 9:10 am

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.

Warren Z
August 24, 2009 9:14 am

Does this mean I have to move my filing cabinet to the other end of the room?

P Wilson
August 24, 2009 9:15 am

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?

Steve M.
August 24, 2009 9:16 am

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.

Ron de Haan
August 24, 2009 9:20 am

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”.

August 24, 2009 9:24 am

Hmm, I wonder if this link will put a different “spin” on things.

JLawson
August 24, 2009 9:27 am

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.

August 24, 2009 9:31 am

>>>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?
.

George E. Smith
August 24, 2009 9:32 am

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 !

1 3 4 5 6 7 9