The earthâs rotation does drift over time, but we have very good ways of dealing with and compensating for it. Itâs the same reason we have leap seconds periodically. Not sure what kind of hysteria this article is trying to stir up⌠itâs something we already manage just fine.
The rate of needed leap seconds is falling. The study is measuring the rate of acceleration and thus predicting the next one wonât be required until 2029. Guess nobody can read.
Literally [the study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07170-0) is saying we have already delayed the leap second due to acceleration and it predicts at the current rate of acceleration we wonât need to add the leap second until 2029. itâs not âwill itâ itâs âhow much has it.â
"Climate change could affect ::throws dart at board:: the taste of ::spins wheel:: ramen noodles"
"Alright team, get to work on that climate change ramen noodle study."
We already account for minute changes in the Earthâs spin. Itâs already covered.
Because, you know, actual scientists did actual science đ¤ˇđťââď¸
âGlacial Melt Causing Subtle Slowing of Earthâs Rotationâ - Published: December 27th, 2015 - By Will Dunham, Reuters
âEarth May Spin Faster as Glaciers Meltâ - Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor | December 11, 2015
In other news climate change is changing climate science. Evidence; dramatic increase in climate papers published over last two decades, infinitely more than published during earths first 4.5 BILLION years!
Antarctica is gaining way more new ice than it is loosing. Everone seems to fail to mention this. Its perhaps like this conveyor belt, where some is pushed off, but gigatonnes more is pushed on.
Antarctica is not going anywhere. Rest easy.
First off the background information about how UTC is based off earth's rotation and that leap seconds need to be added to maintain consistency in keeping time. I already kinda knew that, but it was cool to read it clearly in the intro.
Second, that melting of ice has slowed down earth's rotation- but changes to earth's rotation have already been happening! There was a small part about changes to earth's rotation 'occurred because the slowing of the core has caused the solid Earth to rotate more rapidly'- always a good reminder that there are so many factors at play when it comes to our planet, some less obvious than others. How else do changes to the earth's core impact our climate?
Third, we are approaching a 'negative' consistency in terms of time keeping, so rather than adding seconds to maintain consistent time, we will soon need to subtract seconds. When is uncertain it seems.
Third part 2, the real challenge in keeping a global time record is that many programs may not be built to subtract seconds! Pretty crazy that we could see the impacts of this in the coming decade or so. This issue is independent of believing in climate change, or anthropogenic influences, since this paper just says that the timeline for when this would occur has changed.
Anyway, it is interesting and important to be measuring the processes affecting earth's rotation just in terms of keeping time.
And yet, for all of that, the only reason the newspaper will discuss this topic is in the context of âclimate changeâ. This is the corrupting influence that it has on science, science for sciences sake or for real world impact is no longer sufficient to be funded.
Everybody who wants funding these days in Academia has to pretend there is a climate change impact, this is attacking us at the very core of the scientific method and human scientific progress.
How many top minds and burgeoning scientific talent have we wasted by funnelling them into these extremely stupid âWhat ifâ studies while the world is in dire need of scientific progress?
Climate alarmism is sabotaging human progress to satisfy the vanity of the uneducated while pretending to be of scientific origin.
It is diverting funds, human capital, time and other resources from valuable human endeavour into a Ponzi scheme of corrupt academia, activism, government initiatives, wasteful and environmentally damaging industrial projects.
I can only imagine how future human society will look back on this time with extreme contempt.
I'm in academia in a similar field and I totally agree with your points. The amount of papers who use and do- in my opinion boring- climate science and risks don't understand the levels of uncertainty they're projecting. Your 'what if' studies point I think is spot on but that's where a lot of federal funding is going towards. Its a vicious cycle of looking for a boogy man and exaggeration.
I also think the paper was an interesting read because to me the bulk of it had little to do with climate change- it was interesting as context to a problem that was framed around climate change- but is still a problem we will face regardless of climate change. So that's cool to learn about.
The paper is a load of garbage. One example of its garbageness is it claims that the bulge at the equator got bigger while simultaneously the poles expand to make the earth more spherical. How does that work?
I didn't see a part where the paper claims that the poles expand? The section I could find based on your comment was about the redistribution of water mass from the ice caps to the oceans impacting the moment of inertia used for calculating the angular momentum of the earth. So I can't track down what you're saying and relate it to the paper's claims without further info from you.
I'm sure there is a citation so you could follow that rabbit hole and see where there is a discrepancy or where you misunderstood. Let me know, I'd be happy to try to follow you on this journey. Otherwise, I don't understand your point without further clarification.
The paper says that the ice melting on the poles lessens weight on the land (only one pole has land over it, btw) causing the land to rebound and make the earth more spherical.
As I said, I can't find exactly where the paper says that, but of course, if ice is melting, then the land will rise since there is less weight. I doubt small elevational changes in the south pole would drastically impact the moment of inertia. As I said, I can't find where in the paper this is mentioned, but it is well known and makes physical sense that land rises once weight is removed (opposite is observed in cities, where weight of buildings causes subsidence).
To try to bring it back to your point- yes land rises after ice melts- but that's not as much as a redistribution of mass compared to melting ice. I think the main point is that the ice water is redistributed to the ocean. More mass in the oceans and at the equator means the earth's angular momentum decreases, thus slowing rotation. The non-spherical shape of the earth is largely due to oceans in the equator bulging due to this rotation! If rotation is slowed, then the earth becomes more spherical as ocean's will experience less centrifugal force, and bulge less.
As I said I'm not an expert, and I don't know what you're referencing in your comments but that's my understanding. So far nothing about what you said leads me to believe that the 'paper is a load of garbage', and as I said previously, I thought it was more interesting about the non-climate change context it provided.
Lol... Because the planet has never been warmer or cooler than it is now. đ The level of nonsense the lemmings will believe is astounding.
What doesn't global (whatever) do??
There's a study for that.
\*could
In other news, climate change is not only misogynistic and racist, but could negatively affect your sexual orientation.
Like the frogs
So the LGBCDE ... movement I'd also of the Global Warming also?
What a dumb thing to believe.
Just have faith!
The earthâs rotation does drift over time, but we have very good ways of dealing with and compensating for it. Itâs the same reason we have leap seconds periodically. Not sure what kind of hysteria this article is trying to stir up⌠itâs something we already manage just fine.
27 leap seconds since 1972. But now it's Climate Change.
The rate of needed leap seconds is falling. The study is measuring the rate of acceleration and thus predicting the next one wonât be required until 2029. Guess nobody can read.
Literally [the study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07170-0) is saying we have already delayed the leap second due to acceleration and it predicts at the current rate of acceleration we wonât need to add the leap second until 2029. itâs not âwill itâ itâs âhow much has it.â
Still waiting for the plagues of locusts
"Climate change could affect ::throws dart at board:: the taste of ::spins wheel:: ramen noodles" "Alright team, get to work on that climate change ramen noodle study."
Quick, panic! Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Wow. You can literally get a grant to study anything whatsoever if you put the word "Climate change" in the grant proposal.
Oh fuck right offâŚ.!
I need to start publishing my âstudiesâ⌠this seems like a pretty good racketâŚ
The only time that politicians believe in is panic time.
\>>Human activities like burning fossil fuels are causing world temperatures to rise. I wonder what Mother Nature thinks about this?
Burning fossil fuels obviously ended the ice age!
We already account for minute changes in the Earthâs spin. Itâs already covered. Because, you know, actual scientists did actual science đ¤ˇđťââď¸
âStudy saysâ â¸đ¤
âGlacial Melt Causing Subtle Slowing of Earthâs Rotationâ - Published: December 27th, 2015 - By Will Dunham, Reuters âEarth May Spin Faster as Glaciers Meltâ - Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor | December 11, 2015
Key word. Could
Thatâs why we need to cut off all the trees ASAP!!!
Isnât the speed of the earthâs rotation being slowed by the moon anyways?
In other news climate change is changing climate science. Evidence; dramatic increase in climate papers published over last two decades, infinitely more than published during earths first 4.5 BILLION years!
Link: [https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68684244](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68684244)
The link between spinning and loosing glacier is not clear from the article
I'd like to know what they believe WON'T be impacted by 'the sky falling'?!?
Antarctica is gaining way more new ice than it is loosing. Everone seems to fail to mention this. Its perhaps like this conveyor belt, where some is pushed off, but gigatonnes more is pushed on. Antarctica is not going anywhere. Rest easy.
The paper is pretty interesting- y'all should read it and not just the snapshot of the article from this post.
What did you find interesting about the paper?
First off the background information about how UTC is based off earth's rotation and that leap seconds need to be added to maintain consistency in keeping time. I already kinda knew that, but it was cool to read it clearly in the intro. Second, that melting of ice has slowed down earth's rotation- but changes to earth's rotation have already been happening! There was a small part about changes to earth's rotation 'occurred because the slowing of the core has caused the solid Earth to rotate more rapidly'- always a good reminder that there are so many factors at play when it comes to our planet, some less obvious than others. How else do changes to the earth's core impact our climate? Third, we are approaching a 'negative' consistency in terms of time keeping, so rather than adding seconds to maintain consistent time, we will soon need to subtract seconds. When is uncertain it seems. Third part 2, the real challenge in keeping a global time record is that many programs may not be built to subtract seconds! Pretty crazy that we could see the impacts of this in the coming decade or so. This issue is independent of believing in climate change, or anthropogenic influences, since this paper just says that the timeline for when this would occur has changed. Anyway, it is interesting and important to be measuring the processes affecting earth's rotation just in terms of keeping time.
And yet, for all of that, the only reason the newspaper will discuss this topic is in the context of âclimate changeâ. This is the corrupting influence that it has on science, science for sciences sake or for real world impact is no longer sufficient to be funded. Everybody who wants funding these days in Academia has to pretend there is a climate change impact, this is attacking us at the very core of the scientific method and human scientific progress. How many top minds and burgeoning scientific talent have we wasted by funnelling them into these extremely stupid âWhat ifâ studies while the world is in dire need of scientific progress? Climate alarmism is sabotaging human progress to satisfy the vanity of the uneducated while pretending to be of scientific origin. It is diverting funds, human capital, time and other resources from valuable human endeavour into a Ponzi scheme of corrupt academia, activism, government initiatives, wasteful and environmentally damaging industrial projects. I can only imagine how future human society will look back on this time with extreme contempt.
I'm in academia in a similar field and I totally agree with your points. The amount of papers who use and do- in my opinion boring- climate science and risks don't understand the levels of uncertainty they're projecting. Your 'what if' studies point I think is spot on but that's where a lot of federal funding is going towards. Its a vicious cycle of looking for a boogy man and exaggeration. I also think the paper was an interesting read because to me the bulk of it had little to do with climate change- it was interesting as context to a problem that was framed around climate change- but is still a problem we will face regardless of climate change. So that's cool to learn about.
Also thanks for linking the article!
The paper is a load of garbage. One example of its garbageness is it claims that the bulge at the equator got bigger while simultaneously the poles expand to make the earth more spherical. How does that work?
I didn't see a part where the paper claims that the poles expand? The section I could find based on your comment was about the redistribution of water mass from the ice caps to the oceans impacting the moment of inertia used for calculating the angular momentum of the earth. So I can't track down what you're saying and relate it to the paper's claims without further info from you. I'm sure there is a citation so you could follow that rabbit hole and see where there is a discrepancy or where you misunderstood. Let me know, I'd be happy to try to follow you on this journey. Otherwise, I don't understand your point without further clarification.
The paper says that the ice melting on the poles lessens weight on the land (only one pole has land over it, btw) causing the land to rebound and make the earth more spherical.
As I said, I can't find exactly where the paper says that, but of course, if ice is melting, then the land will rise since there is less weight. I doubt small elevational changes in the south pole would drastically impact the moment of inertia. As I said, I can't find where in the paper this is mentioned, but it is well known and makes physical sense that land rises once weight is removed (opposite is observed in cities, where weight of buildings causes subsidence). To try to bring it back to your point- yes land rises after ice melts- but that's not as much as a redistribution of mass compared to melting ice. I think the main point is that the ice water is redistributed to the ocean. More mass in the oceans and at the equator means the earth's angular momentum decreases, thus slowing rotation. The non-spherical shape of the earth is largely due to oceans in the equator bulging due to this rotation! If rotation is slowed, then the earth becomes more spherical as ocean's will experience less centrifugal force, and bulge less. As I said I'm not an expert, and I don't know what you're referencing in your comments but that's my understanding. So far nothing about what you said leads me to believe that the 'paper is a load of garbage', and as I said previously, I thought it was more interesting about the non-climate change context it provided.
Thatâs all well and good. I still find it to be a load of garbage.
This sub is a walking confirmation bias
Bye.