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

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

1. Here we go!

Reply to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Sat Apr 9, 2016, 01:24 AM

Apr 2016

Out of balance and one day it will re-balance. This could be a bad thing, no?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The melting of Greenland and Antarctica is changing the Earth's rotation [View all] TexasTowelie Apr 2016 OP

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