Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

TexasTowelie

(126,661 posts)
Sat Apr 9, 2016, 01:17 AM Apr 2016

The melting of Greenland and Antarctica is changing the Earth's rotation [View all]

Sophisticated new gravity research suggests that changes in Earth's climate may actually be having a stunning geophysical effect: slightly moving the location of the planet's spin axis, or axis of daily rotation. In other words, even as the Earth spins on its axis in a west to east direction, completing a full rotation every 24 hours, that axis itself is also moving. This, in turn, means that the physical North and South poles are actually shifting, with the North Pole now drifting towards England.

And given that much of this is related to the loss of polar ice, a changing climate would appear to be at least partly - although perhaps not wholly - responsible. "If we lose mass from the Greenland ice sheet, we are essentially putting mass elsewhere. And as we redistribute the mass, the spin axis tends to find a new direction. And that's what we mean by polar motion," said Surendra Adhikari, a researcher with Caltech and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who conducted the work with his colleague Erik Ivins. The new research appeared Friday in Science Advances.

Ivins emphasizes that the study doesn't explicitly attribute the motion of the pole to human caused climate change - noting that "the word human is not in this paper." The study wasn't aimed at attribution of the causes of mass loss – it merely observed them using NASA's twin GRACE satellites, which measure gravitational changes at the Earth's surface, and tied that to polar motion.

At the same time, however, much research has suggested that the warming of the Earth is behind considerable polar ice mass, not only in Greenland and Antarctica, but also smaller glaciers around the world. NASA research, for instance, finds that Greenland is losing 287 billion tons of ice per year, while Antarctica is losing 134 billion tons.

Read more: http://www.sunherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article70882447.html

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here we go! RobertEarl Apr 2016 #1
can it change our orbit? hollysmom Apr 2016 #3
I doubt it RobertEarl Apr 2016 #4
... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2016 #6
No. The mass of the earth does not change in this, Thor_MN Apr 2016 #14
hillary with help from kissinger will fix this SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #2
uh-h-h-h-h... Peace Patriot Apr 2016 #5
16 to 18 cm per year muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #7
Says some random guy not named Neil DeGrasse Tyson. ish of the hammer Apr 2016 #8
No, says the study muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #9
Tides and Plate tectonics come to mind immediately. ish of the hammer Apr 2016 #11
But the change in where the axis it is not about movements of plates, or tides muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #12
It's a change, it's the earth, by definition, it's earth changing. ish of the hammer Apr 2016 #13
No, it is not not "It's about the movement in space of the whole planet." Thor_MN Apr 2016 #15
Rotation is movement muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #16
Rotation is movement, but not "in space". Thor_MN Apr 2016 #17
Of course it's in space. It's in three dimensions. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #18
"in space" implies beyond the planet's atmosphere. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #19
space: muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #20
Notice the lack of "in" as in "in space" Thor_MN Apr 2016 #21
No, I didn't imply it; you infered it muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #22
You said it, not me. "movement is space" is not interpreted by most people Thor_MN Apr 2016 #23
Yes, that does help. It wasn't wrong muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #24
If one placed a ball on a table and asked people to move it in space, Thor_MN Apr 2016 #25
That doesn't mean that rotation is not movement. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #26
You were technically correct by the same percentage as the percentage of people that spin the ball. Thor_MN Apr 2016 #27
Tyson says there is a good chance this is just a simulaiton. former9thward Apr 2016 #28
It is, by definition, a world-changing amount. Scuba Apr 2016 #10
you're setting your timeline too short 0rganism Apr 2016 #29
Without GPS, how would you notice a 1.6km difference in where the pole is? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #30
so you don't think our descendants will have something like GPS? 0rganism Apr 2016 #31
No, I'm saying that a change of that amount in the pole wouldn't affect everyday life muriel_volestrangler Apr 2016 #34
As the ice melts, the water will head to the equatorial regions. roamer65 Apr 2016 #32
something to ponder yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #35
K&R and it's even worse than that... Jeffersons Ghost Apr 2016 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The melting of Greenland ...