Current Events > so much polar ice melting, it's slowing down Earth's rotation

(+) Yeah! (+)

Spin Cycle
Climate change is causing so much polar ice melt that it's slowing down Earth's rotation and here's the kicker it will alter how we measure time in the future.

That's the outrageous conclusion that Duncan Agnew, geophysicist and professor at University of California, San Diego, reached by analyzing data from satellite imagery, as detailed in a new study published in the journal Nature.

Basically, as polar ice melts into the ocean, there's less mass overall at the poles and the middle of the planet becomes a little heavier, hence slowing down Earth's rotation.

"If you have a [figure] skater who starts spinning, if she lowers her arms or stretches out her legs, she will slow down," Agnew told NBC News, using ice skating as an analogy to what's happening to Earth's rotational velocity.

Topsy-Turvy
And that raises a problem for the measurement of time itself. If Earth's rotation is slowing down, that means timekeepers all over the world will have to adjust. This has impacts reaching far beyond our watches. It touches the functioning of satellites, computers, financial institutions and everywhere else where every second counts.

Institutions will likely have to adjust. The global time standard, known as Coordinated Universal Time or UTC, almost matches the Earth's rotation but because the rotation speed can be variable, this has at times necessitated timekeepers to add or subtract a leap second to the clock, Agnew explains in his paper.

After crunching numbers, Agnew concluded that if polar ice did not melt, we would have had to subtract a second from clocks all over the world by 2026. But because of ice melt slowing down Earth's rotation, this time change may come instead in 2029, he said.

"Its kind of impressive, even to me, weve done something that measurably changes how fast the Earth rotates," said Agnew to NBC News. "Things are happening that are unprecedented."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/much-polar-ice-melting-slowing-110008855.html

CEO's already excited for the extra time they can demand.

Baron_Ox posted...

it will alter how we measure time in the future.

Baron_Ox posted...

Agnew concluded that if polar ice did not melt, we would have had to subtract a second from clocks all over the world by 2026. But because of ice melt slowing down Earth's rotation, this time change may come instead in 2029, he said.

I'm having trouble processing these two things.

It seems like we already were going to have altered the way we measure time. And according to the second quote the melting ice actually pushed this time frame back from 2026 to 2029?

Is this just a theory, like the heat death of the universe theory?

R1masher posted...

Is this just a theory, like the heat death of the universe theory?

*hypothesis

And no, because it has already happened. This is discussing about it happening even more.

R1masher posted...

Is this just a theory, like the heat death of the universe theory?

You're not using that word correctly. It's a conclusion based off the research in the paper. If you disagree with the conclusion then the burden of evidence is on you to find the flaw in the underlying research.

This doesn't sound right but I don't know enough about time to be sure

bfslick50 posted...

You're not using that word correctly. It's a conclusion based off the research in the paper. If you disagree with the conclusion then the burden of evidence is on you to find the flaw in the underlying research.

what? Prove Im using it wrong then

Let's totally reverse it so we can go back in time Superman style.

R1masher posted...

what? Prove Im using it wrong then

Hypothesis: an educated guess you make before doing research to make some sort of prediction. It's a proposed explanation of what is happening or what might happen.
Scientific theory: What we know based on evidence, experiments and much data.

The heat death of the universe is a proposed hypothesis.We know enough about thermodynamics for it to not be a totally outrageous idea, but we have no way of testing or falsifying the theory, and there is still a lot about the universe we don't know and can't explain.

Climate change slowing down the orbit of the earth is something we've measured and repeated in experiment.

This sounds a bit out there. Losing the ice caps is a threat, but I dont think it alter the rotation of the planet.

The earth's inner core is slowing down causing the days to grow longer, so there's some interesting equibalance here.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/terrawatch-earth-spinning-inner-core-slowed-down

"The new finding, which is published in Nature Geoscience, is helping scientists to better understand the interaction between different layers of the Earth, and the impact that processes deep inside the Earth can have on the surface, including the gradual increase in length of day: adding a fraction of a millisecond each year since 2020."

texanfan27 posted...

This sounds a bit out there. Losing the ice caps is a threat, but I dont think it alter the rotation of the planet.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00932-w

texanfan27 posted...

This sounds a bit out there. Losing the ice caps is a threat, but I dont think it alter the rotation of the planet.

You walking alters the rotation of the planet.

pinky0926 posted...

*hypothesis

And no, because it has already happened. This is discussing about it happening even more.

Thank you.

I am happy you immediately corrected the other poster that confused the colloquial use of theory with the rigorous methodology to which a scientific peer review process is applied in order to establish a scientific theory which is the intermediary step between forming a hypothesis and establishing a law.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but this is the sort of word game that grifters and religious people use to confuse the general public on matters of science and how we come to understand the universe.

I would bet the person you replied to genuinely thinks a scientific theory is "just an educated guess" like a detective's hunch... and that's because there are moneyed and entrenched interests that benefit from this scientific illiteracy and the outrage to be generated by politicizing science.

Shut the fuck up

We are looking at a BOE (blue ocean event) within the coming decade in the Arctic.

Maybe some of the confusion is also about thinking time will slow down. The paper isnt saying time itself will pass more slowly, but that a slower rotation means longer days and nights.

The rotation of the earth and gravity of the moon cause an equatorial bulge, while the melting ice raises sea level (extra heat also expands the water, contributing to sea level rise.)

texanfan27 posted...

This sounds a bit out there. Losing the ice caps is a threat, but I dont think it alter the rotation of the planet.

Well if you don't think so...

bfslick50 posted...

You're not using that word correctly. It's a conclusion based off the research in the paper. If you disagree with the conclusion then the burden of evidence is on you to find the flaw in the underlying research.

Its really not. Its just a theory. The scientist has to prove their research correct after multiple trials and over time. Its not just right because they said so.

Melting ice contracts and not expands for more fun actual science facts.

CreekCo posted...

Melting ice contracts and not expands for more fun actual science facts.

The melting ice expands the sea levels because much of the melting ice comes from glaciers. Ice shelves and other bergs are already in the water and don't contribute much to sea level rise when they melt, though.

Also, sea water is more dense than fresh water. The melting glaciers contain fresh water.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c1e44473.jpg

Here we see ice can raise the water level like from fresh water glaciers on the land. Once its in the water its not much change.

The heavier, denser sea water drops down and moves the water circulation. This is part of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.)

When the fresh water glacier melts into the sea water, it lowers the salinity and slows down the AMOC because the water is not so dense anymore.

Previously, the Greenland ice cap was losing about 30 million tonnes of ice melt every day. Recently, scientists have observed the ice cap is losing an alarming average of 30 million tonnes of floating ice per hour.

CreekCo posted...

Its really not. Its just a theory. The scientist has to prove their research correct after multiple trials and over time. Its not just right because they said so.

OK there's a bit in there that I need to correct...

First, if the paper had nothing proving their research then it wouldn't pass peer-reviewed. Yes, scientists must prove their research, which they did to publish the paper. You are welcome to read the paper and find a flaw with their methodology, but you can't assume their research is wrong because you don't like the topic title describing a news story describing the paper.

Second, it's not a scientific theory, it's way less than that. This is just the conclusions of one paper that doesn't have nearly enough support to qualify as a scientific theory.

Third, theories don't graduate to be facts. If you pick something up, let go, and it falls to the ground... what happened is the fact, but the theory is the best scientific explanation for why it happened. The theory for why it happens will always be a theory and always subject to refinement and improvement.

Melting ice contracts and not expands for more fun actual science facts.

You know all the ice sitting on land at the south pole? That's not going to stay there as a water column when it melts. Water flows better than ice, it'll spread out seeking to have an even sea level altitude (equilibrium) which will disperse mass away from the polls and and more evenly spread it across the whole surface. The researches calculated that is enough mass to affect the spin of the Earth by a measurable amount. Now we've become quite good at measuring things so a measurable amount can still be a small change.

If you see a flaw in their calculations, by all means share, but science is supposed to be data driven conclusions not your gut rejecting something that feels wrong. They brought proof, it stood up to peer-review, now burden is on you to say something more than "I don't like it" to reject it.