By Andy May
In post 1, I ranked fourteen climate oscillations in Table 1 by their regression statistics against the HadCRUT5 global surface mean temperature. In this regression study the AMO is number one, the Western Hemisphere Warm Pool Area is #2, and the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area is #3. The fourth in importance is the Length of Day or “LOD.” Longer periods (>10 years) of acceleration in Earth’s rotation speed (shorter LOD) correspond to years of increasing zonal (east-west) circulation and global warming, whereas periods of deceleration (longer LOD) indicate less zonal acceleration and periods of cooling (Lambeck & Cazenave, 1976).
Currently, the variations in the length of day (LOD) are determined by the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) as the current length of day minus 86,400 seconds (i.e. 24 hours). This difference is very close to zero on 1 January 1958. Annual changes in LOD are almost entirely due to seasonal changes in zonal circulation with tidal, oceanographic, and hydrological phenomena contributing less than 10% to the changes (Lambeck & Hopgood, 1981). At longer timeframes, tides and core-mantle interactions may play a large role in LOD variations. While there is an identifiable tidal influence on LOD, the core-mantle interactions and magnetic field fluctuation effects on LOD are speculative and subjects of debate (Lambeck & Cazenave, 1976).
The LOD since 1650 is shown in figure 1 in milliseconds, this value is often abbreviated as “LOD,” but is technically ΔLOD. The values plotted in figure 1 are uncorrected for changes in tides and possible mantle-core or geomagnetic influences but still correlate to major long-term climatic changes as shown in the plot. The depth of the Little Ice Age temperature minimum in the late 1600s is easily seen, as well as the late 19th century cooling, the early 20th century warming, the mid-20th century cooling, and the late 20th century warming.

The fact that the rotation speed of Earth changes with time was discovered by Simon Newcomb (Newcomb, 1882, p. 465) in 1882. He carefully measured the transits of Mercury across the face of the Sun, the Moon around the Earth, and the orbit of the largest satellite of Jupiter and observed that they were all slightly off by the same amount of time. From this he concluded that the rotation speed of the Earth must be changing.
Two very important researchers, Klyashtorin and Lyubushin of the Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries (Klyashtorin & Lyubushin, 2007), have studied the relationship between the Atmospheric Circulation Index (ACI) and climate changes. The ACI characterizes periods of the relative predominance of zonal (east-west) circulation versus periods of predominantly north-south (meridional) circulation. It is this fundamental climate phenomenon that LOD measures indirectly.
Figure 2 is from Klyashtorin and Lyubushin (page 12, figure 1.4). The thin line is the meridional wind anomaly and the thick line is the zonal wind anomaly. Periods when the zonal line is very positive are warm in the Northern Hemisphere and periods when the meridional line are very positive are cooler. Compare figures 1 and 2, notice the correspondence.

When the polar jet stream is “wavier” (Chalif, Osterberg, & Partridge, 2025) meridional circulation is stronger and cold Arctic air more easily travels to the middle latitudes. When the jet stream is smoother and tighter around the pole, zonal circulation is stronger, and the middle latitudes and the globe are warmer. The two jet stream configurations are illustrated by Thomas Keel in figure 3.

Two thirds of the 20th century cool period from the 1950s through the 1970s can be attributed to elevated jet stream waviness as shown in orange in figure 3 (Chalif, Osterberg, & Partridge, 2025). Modest waviness occurred between 2000 and 2010, associated with some cooling, but the most severe waviness periods in the 20th century were 1900-1910, the 1940s, 1960s and the late 1970s to the early 1980s (Chalif, Osterberg, & Partridge, 2025). These periods are also visible, with roughly a 12-year lag in the LOD curve as shown in figure 4.

While the relationship in figure 4 is not perfect, there is some correspondence between HadCRUT5 and LOD after accounting for a 12-year lag. Lambeck and Cazenave call it a 10-15-year lag (Lambeck & Cazenave, 1976). They used this lag to predict that the cool period in the 1970s would end 10-15 years after the downward trend began in 1972 and warming would resume, which it did. I do not think that the change in LOD directly causes the climate change 12-years later, but if the visual lag is real (it may not be real) whatever caused the change in LOD later caused the climate changes.
I should note that the regression in post 1 did not incorporate the 12-year lag and when the lag is included the statistics do not improve significantly and the AMO, WHWP, and SAM (next post) still rank above LOD in the 1950 regression (see table 2, post 1). I take this to mean that LOD doesn’t add much to what is already in the top three oscillations.
As Lambeck & Cazenave explain, some have argued that atmospheric circulation changes are not strong enough to cause the observed changes in LOD, but they have calculated that latitudinal shifts of 10° between zones of maximum and minimum winds are sufficient to explain the changes. Clearly, atmospheric changes do not account for all the changes in LOD, but they can, and probably are, a very significant component.
Discussion
Clearly periods when meridional circulation (see the orange line in figure 3) dominate and the polar jet stream is very wavy, the Northern Hemisphere is cooler because more cold Arctic air spills into the middle latitudes, especially in the winter months. The global average surface temperature tends to follow the Northern Hemisphere because temperatures in the other regions of the planet don’t change much, at least over the past 12,000 years, as shown in figure 5.

The extreme waviness of the northern polar jet stream at times is partially due to the presence of most of the world’s land in the Northern Hemisphere and the fact that much of it is close to the Arctic Ocean. As we will see in the next post on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), also called the Antarctic Oscillation, the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica acts very differently. The circumpolar winds in the Southern Hemisphere are more orderly and are better at confining the cold Antarctic air.
Works Cited
Chalif, J. I., Osterberg, E. C., & Partridge, T. F. (2025). A Wavier Polar Jet Stream Contributed to the Mid-20th Century Winter Warming Hole in the United States. AGU Advances, 6(3). doi:10.1029/2024AV001399
Keel, T. (2018). Examining the link between changes in the mid-latitude jet stream in the northern hemisphere and a recent amplification of surface temperatures in the Arctic. University College London. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom-Keel/publication/349721966_Examining_the_link_between_changes_in_the_mid-latitude_jet_stream_in_the_northern_hemisphere_and_a_recent_amplification_of_surface_temperatures_in_the_Arctic/links/603e735fa6fdcc9c780c5f5
Klyashtorin, L. B., & Lyubushin, A. A. (2007). Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity. Moscow.
Lambeck, K., & Cazenave, A. (1976). Long Term Variations in the length of Day and Climate Change. Geophysical Journal International, 46(3), 555-573. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1976.tb01248.x
Lambeck, K., & Hopgood, P. (1981). The Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation from 1963 to 1973. Geophysical Journal International, 64(1), 67-89. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1981.tb02659.x
McCarthy, D. D., & Babcock, A. K. (1986). The length of day since 1656. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 44(3), 281-292. doi:10.1016/0031-9201(86)90077-4
Newcomb, S. (1882). Transits of Mercury. In S. Newcomb, Astronomical Papers – American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac (Vol. 1, p. 465). Washington: U.S. Navy.
Stephenson, F. R., & Morrison, L. V. (1984). Long-term changes in the rotation of the Earth : 700 B.C. to A.D. 1980. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 313(1524), 47-70. doi:10.1098/rsta.1984.0082
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given what Andy shows here, I figured some alarmist is probably claiming climate change is changing LOD and making it worse. Took about 1 minute of Google-fu. Sure enough, PNAS 15 July 2024, e2406930121.
According to this paper’s abstract, loss of polar ice caps means more water in the equatorial bulge, slowing rotation, lengthening days, and creating a positive warming feedback. Alarm!!!
There is just one problem. A day is still part daytime and part night time, varying by season and hemispheric latitude. Changing the average length of a day by a millisecond doesn’t alter that fundamental fact, so cannot have a positive warming feedback as claimed.
Climate alarmists remain very short on basic facts and logic.
Twisted logic = PNAS.
I write about some more PNAS junk here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2023/10/12/can-extreme-heat-make-parts-of-the-earth-too-hot-for-humans/
The first sentence:
“According to this paper’s abstract, loss of polar ice caps means more water in the equatorial bulge, slowing rotation, lengthening days, and creating a positive warming feedback. Alarm!!!”
Unless I missed it, there is no claim of a warming feed back in that paper. Could you provide a quote?
Indirectly there definitely is, in at least three places:
Title: “Increasingly dominant role of climate change on LOD variation”
Significance: “Climate induced LOD rates will continue to increase”
Conclusions: “If GHG emissions continue to rise…will lead to a much higher rate of climate induced LOD change…becoming the most important contributor to long term LOD variation. The impact of ongoing surface climate changes are far reaching.
Funny how these alarmists try to spread panic by being so indirect you need to really stare at each sentence to find the hidden meaning.
Seriously, not one of those quotes in any way suggest there is a warming feed back. They are all saying that climate change is causing a change in LOD, not the other way round.
I don’t know about the feedback, but this part is hilarious!
Look at figures 1 & 4 in this post, the current delta-LOD is near zero and has been near zero since 2020 according to IERS! Obviously their “climate induced” LOD is pretty insignificant.
The attached plot is directly from the IERS website here:
https://datacenter.iers.org/plottool/publicv2/2dLine.php?reset=true
That made me flash on the old movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. That’s what’ll happen if we don’t go back to the stone age. 🙂 /s
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/
I found a striking similarity between Nino 1.2 SST and ddt(LOD) a few years back.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/nino12_ddt_lod_w/
Correct, the LOD is greatly affected by ENSO, especially El Nino. This paper by John Gipson gets into the details. I didn’t go there since I was after the effect on global climate.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/484025912.pdf#page=349
But figure 3 also shows that warm equatorial air more easily travels above the mid latitudes during meridional circulation. Shouldn’t these two actions cancel out any overall temperature change for the northern hemisphere?
Perhaps measured cooling during meridional circulation is more a matter of the longer length of the jet stream? With a longer boundary between warm and cool air masses, the potential for severe/rainy weather increases. There is simply more areas where severe/rainy weather can occur.
Willis Eschenbach has posted on how thunderstorm activity cools the tropics. Could the same mechanism be responsible for measure cooling during meridional circulation?
Meridional energy transport does go both ways. The Arctic usually warms as the mid-latitudes cool, but the overall Northern Hemisphere temperature change is colder. This is sometimes called the “Warm Arctic/Cold Continents” weather pattern. This is a complicated subject, but you can read more about how it works here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/10/24/meridional-transport-the-most-fundamental-climate-variable/
Thanks.
I’ve wondered how the very long-term slowing of Earth’s rotation has affected the climate over time. The sun’s luminosity is greater than ever, and yet here we are, in a long icehouse glacial epoch. As the days lengthen, it would follow that on the sunlight side of Earth, more water evaporation would occur, with more convection and cloud cover. At the same time, longer nights mean that the dark side of the planet has more time to radiate away its heat. Combined, this would make the planet cooler, which would run counter to the increasingly luminous sun.
I doubt that that the changes in LOD are enough to affect the climate, except over very long periods of time. It seems to work the other way around, climate affects delta-LOD.
Climate is a statistical construct, the mathematical average of weather over a period of time. Currently in vogue is 30 years.
Words matter. There is no way a spreadsheet result can affect the rotation of the planet.
Johnesm: If you go to the Paleomap Project’s Climate History section http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm and scroll down the page, you’ll find a nifty chart of “global temperature” (whatever that is) over the past 600 million or so years. You can see there that the last time the planet was as cool as it is today was about 300 million years ago toward the end of the Carboniferous. The geologic periods 100 million years earlier (Devonian) and later (Triassic) were quite warm.
The LOD is thought to be increasing about 40 minutes every 100 million years. I can’t see any particular long term correlation between global temperature and LOD. But maybe I’m missing something. What I can see is that the current global temperature looks to be quite cool compared to times past. And that life on Earth has thrived during past warm periods. So what, exactly, is the “existential” threat posed by climate change?
Thanks for the Klyashtorin & Lyubushin (2007) reference, a lot there to consider and it does cover the more cool/cold water species which rely heavily on upwelling. They cite Cushing, but not the last one where he concluded that there was still no “science” of recruitment. (Cushing, D. H. 1996. Towards a science of recruitment in fish populations. Excellence in Ecology. Inter-Research 7. 175pp.) While it has been long recognized that nutrients in various forms sink there has been inadequate interest, at least in the US Gulf of Mexico and maybe SW North Atlantic for example, in peculiar currents and what they produce. Also we already knew some about real 18.6 year sea level effects (Denny, M. W. and R. T. Paine. 1998. Celestial mechanics, sea-level changes, and intertidal ecology. Biological Bulletin. 194:108-115. DOI: 10.2307/1543040 .)
In the more warm water fisheries (i.e. croakers, penaeid shrimps) there is some evidence of recruitment being tied to nutrients from inland sources such as from floods and wet hurricanes. The obvious super-fertility of the Mississippi River has been known for centuries since discovery but doesn’t seem to get much stroke although there is some rediscovery. Also the misuse of “eutrophication” as being harmful as if it is a ‘pig-sty’ hasn’t helped. The correct use of over-fertilization is with the prefix ‘hyper’ which a few have recognized. There are some reasonable model attempts such as Hilborn ( “It is of course not credible that recruitment is independent of stock size for all stock sizes (no eggs, no recruits)….” but apparently not enough with Cushing’s insights.
Connecting the magnitudes of the downstair-steps from the huge numbers of ova produced, immobile yolk-sac prolarva , active postlarval predators (menhaden larvae “…capture their prey by flexing and striking like a snake..”) juveniles and adults various, even changing diets, as to species is difficult and dominated by the usual models which give conflicting results. Some, including managers, stay entirely with the spawning stock size relationship, often blaming all on fishing, despite obvious effects from cold, especially when that polar air comes down which happened in 2021. I guess Russians are more cold experts than us southerners, especially more than our formerly well-respected journals.
The Russians certainly have more experience with cold!
I don’t understand, how does CO2 cause the earth’s rotation to slowdown.?
I have no idea!
Wait for it. Someone will post something about conservation of matter.
CO2 has more mass than O2 or H2O. Therefore it causes the same effect as a figure skater arm extensions.
/sarc
This is just nonsense. Somehow we are meant to believe that a change in the length of the day by one part in 84 million will change the earth’s average temperature 12 years later and that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will do nothing at all.
On top of which people here seem to be in the Willis’ ideas about emergent phenomena acting as negative feedback. Yet these feedbacks are apparently so weak that they can’t stop an effect caused by a change as small as altering the length of the day by a millisecond.
I think what Lambeck and Cazenave are proposing is that whatever causes major long-term changes in LOD, such as occurred in 1972, 12-years later causes climate change. They don’t think the change in LOD causes the climate change. I’m skeptical of both ideas. I’m convinced that atmospheric circulation patterns change LOD and that atmospheric circulation patterns cause climate change, but changes in LOD do not cause climate change. Also, given my regression results I doubt the 12-year lag as well.
I added a clarifying sentence after figure 4 to make my conclusions about the proposed 12-year lag more clear. LOD and its relationship to climate change is very poorly understood. Most (including me) think that it is a reaction to something that causes climate change, probably periodic changes to global wind circulation, not that LOD itself affects climate change. As such, it may provide some sort of early warning that climate change will occur in the future, but only because LOD reacts to the real change first and climate later. Personally, I’m a little skeptical of the lag since the statistics of the relationship are the same with and without the lag, although the relationship looks better visually with the lag.
Joseph Fournier quantified how albedo dominates over CO2 – extracts.
“Clouds, Not CO2, Drive Climate: How Orbital Dynamics and Albedo Outshine Greenhouse Gas Myths. Part III of III – Introducing the Orbitally Modulated Planetary Albebo Effect hypothesis.
Joseph Fournier, Ph.D. Jun 30, 2025
https://josephfournier.substack.com/p/clouds-not-co2-drive-climate-how
“In conclusion, this series challenges the dominant narrative that CO2 drives climate change, emphasizing the Orbitally Modulated Planetary Albedo Effect as a primary climate forcing mechanism. Clouds, modulated by Pacific Walker Circulation and orbital dynamics, exert a far greater influence on global temperatures than CO2, with albedo reductions since 2000 surpassing CO2’s radiative impact since the 18th century.
Ned Nikolov’s 2024 study, supported by CERES data, demonstrates that solar-driven albedo variations account for nearly all recent warming. These findings demand a reevaluation of anthropogenic forcing, highlighting clouds and orbital cycles as critical drivers of Earth’s climate system.”
“Digging into the literature reveals that the Earth’s atmospheric albedo lags the March (Vernal) and September (Autumnal) Equinox (below), which again emphasizes the relationship between changing orbital dynamics and changes in atmospheric albedo. Again, as with the figures above, changes in cloud coverage over the Seasonal Cycle function as a negative feedback to increasing solar insolation and surface temperatures.”
This confirms my speculations over the years that the speed of rotation, which varies, was a factor.