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
Oh, for crying out loud.
Sorry, ctm, I was trying too hard to be an “Alarmist”.
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.)
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?
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.
Bad news! SST return to cool mode: SOI at zero and going up….preparing to welcome la Nina again:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=1&tstype2=1&year1=1960&year2=2009&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results
tallbloke (01:34:01)
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/lod-ssb.gif
In order to interpret your plot, we need to know what processing you have done to SSBz.
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?
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)
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.
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.
Scotty Miller (11:48:07) : said
“Tony B @ur momisugly 09:01:01
Steve M @ur momisugly 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OT,
World faces hi-tech crunch as China eyes ban on rare metal exports
Each Toyota Prius uses 25 pounds of rare earth elements.
Any comments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6082464/World-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html
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.
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.
I used to think we had too many lawyers in society. Now it appears we have too many “scientists”.
Mike Strong (09:51:28)
Whoa, there Mike!
Resist that ‘spewing’ lest you upset the earth’s balance with that transfer of mass.
Curiousgeorge : (13:19:47) – Sentence structure doesn’t matter . Your point was well taken . I don’t write that good anyway.
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.
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.