If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   Global Warming shifts Earth's poles, spawning twelve new movies   (news.slashdot.org) divider line 49
    More: Interesting, Greenland Ice Sheet, global warming, Earth, North Pole, polar shift, University of Texas  
•       •       •

2352 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 May 2013 at 11:18 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-15 11:17:59 AM
That is pretty cool! No wait.
That is HOT!
 
2013-05-15 11:21:42 AM
Ray, the sponges poles migrated about a foot and a half.
 
2013-05-15 11:23:27 AM
But wait, I've been told that global warming is a myth perpetuated by the collusion of thousands of climate "scientists" just looking for a free paycheck from the government?
 
2013-05-15 11:28:19 AM

make me some tea: But wait, I've been told that global warming is a myth perpetuated by the collusion of thousands of climate "scientists" just looking for a free paycheck from the government?


Yep, the weight of all those massive paychecks accumulating in the climate scientists' mansion has shifted the distribution of mass on Earth, causing the poles to move.
 
2013-05-15 11:32:37 AM
The Day After Tomorrow was on tv last night.  I made the realization that if there ever is a global disaster I am going to make myself a coat out of live dogs.  I'm guaranteed to survive.
 
2013-05-15 11:39:11 AM
I thought the shifting of the magnetic poles had more to do with the fluctuations within the Earth's spinning iron core.  That's the polar shift we really need to worry about.

Shifting of the geographic poles (as I finally read the article), oh, well, that happens naturally as well.  I'm open to the idea that changing the distribution of mass can change the Earth's wobble, but still, what about all that crust beneath our feet (and magma and such) that is also constantly rearranging itself?
 
2013-05-15 11:41:06 AM

Kraftwerk Orange: I thought the shifting of the magnetic poles had more to do with the fluctuations within the Earth's spinning iron core.  That's the polar shift we really need to worry about.

Shifting of the geographic poles (as I finally read the article), oh, well, that happens naturally as well.  I'm open to the idea that changing the distribution of mass can change the Earth's wobble, but still, what about all that crust beneath our feet (and magma and such) that is also constantly rearranging itself?


Can we just put some massive strippers on poles on the other side to shift it back?
 
2013-05-15 11:48:20 AM

Pinner: Can we just put some massive strippers on poles on the other side to shift it back?


Must not GIS...Must not GIS... Must not GIS...
 
2013-05-15 11:50:32 AM

Kraftwerk Orange: I thought the shifting of the magnetic poles had more to do with the fluctuations within the Earth's spinning iron core.  That's the polar shift we really need to worry about.

Shifting of the geographic poles (as I finally read the article), oh, well, that happens naturally as well.  I'm open to the idea that changing the distribution of mass can change the Earth's wobble, but still, what about all that crust beneath our feet (and magma and such) that is also constantly rearranging itself?


Pole reversal would be a troubling thing to live through, I would think.  While it happens in a cosmic instant, the process is thought to actually take thousands of years.  It weakens to the point of barely existing before strengthening in reverse.  I can't imagine that would be in any way good for humans or our electronic infrastructure.
 
2013-05-15 11:53:43 AM
While accelerated by global warming the POLES ARE ALWAYS in flux! They have been moving for millennia and always will be for centuries to come.
 
2013-05-15 11:58:09 AM
Can I make money off it, like the Y2K crisis???
 
2013-05-15 11:59:59 AM
Global warming raped my kitten.
 
2013-05-15 12:02:27 PM
Better call Rocky and Bullwinkle.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:37 PM
This may-may-makes him happy!

i218.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-15 12:08:00 PM
Mmmmm, yeah.
Right.
 
2013-05-15 12:11:45 PM

LoneDoggie: The Day After Tomorrow was on tv last night.  I made the realization that if there ever is a global disaster I am going to make myself a coat out of live dogs.  I'm guaranteed to survive.


Or an alien invasion.  The best "narrowly missed a city destroying explosion by jumping slightly out of the way" scene in Independence Day was by a dog.
 
2013-05-15 12:18:54 PM
Lies. Hollywood is completely out of ideas.
 
2013-05-15 12:22:41 PM
This is just getting pathetic. There is no way in hell 'global warming' is to blame for the geomagnetic poles wandering.

If we were in fact losing a significant amount of ice which could affect the rotating sphere of Earth, it would have to affect the planet's rotation before it did anything to the poles. I'm not even sure if the weight of ice at the top and bottom of the Earth is relevant at all, because there is no up or down in space. Ice might just naturally gather on the poles because it's colder, and it has nothing to do with the planets rotation, or the poles for that matter.
 
2013-05-15 12:24:51 PM

J. Frank Parnell: I'm not even sure if the weight of ice at the top and bottom of the Earth is relevant at all, because there is no up or down in space. Ice might just naturally gather on the poles because it's colder, and it has nothing to do with the planets rotation, or the poles for that matter.


Also, if it has something to do with the planet orbiting the sun, then you'd see the area with the most mass facing the sun.
 
2013-05-15 12:30:08 PM

J. Frank Parnell: This is just getting pathetic. There is no way in hell 'global warming' is to blame for the geomagnetic poles wandering.


Well then it's a good thing that the article is about the geographic poles...

J. Frank Parnell: I'm not even sure if the weight of ice at the top and bottom of the Earth is relevant at all, because there is no up or down in space.


... and the Greenland ice sheet, which is off-axis.
 
2013-05-15 12:37:50 PM

Ivo Shandor: Well then it's a good thing that the article is about the geographic poles...


Ahh, yes. Thought they were talking about both. More coffee is needed. But i still addressed that.

Can any physicist explain how this is supposed to work? Pretty sure objects in a vacuum rotate or move based on force exerted on them, and distribution of their mass is irrelevant.
 
2013-05-15 12:41:10 PM

J. Frank Parnell: distribution of their mass is irrelevant.


In what universe is distribution of mass irrelevant?
 
2013-05-15 12:43:51 PM

make me some tea: In what universe is distribution of mass irrelevant?


You're missing the point, just like the last guy. Is anyone going to actually address what i'm talking about in relation to the article?

Probably shouldn't have said it was irrelevant, but if anything i'd expect the area with more mass to move to the outside edge of the rotation, not the top and bottom.
 
2013-05-15 12:44:17 PM
Axial precession probably isn't smooth process and there are no records of the precise movement of the pole older then 100yrs..if at all, and 100 years out of a 26,000yr cycle isn't a lot of data.

Anyway shifting a few tones of weight on a 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg planet isn't really going to monkey with the axial precession.  I'm sure mining has shifted more mass then melting glaciers.
 
2013-05-15 12:47:03 PM

J. Frank Parnell: This is just getting pathetic. There is no way in hell 'global warming' is to blame for the geomagnetic poles wandering.


Read the first sentence of TFA:

Global warming is changing the location of Earth's geographic poles [...]

Even better, follow the links and read the actual paper.


J. Frank Parnell: If we were in fact losing a significant amount of ice which could affect the rotating sphere of Earth, it would have to affect the planet's rotation before it did anything to the poles. I'm not even sure if the weight of ice at the top and bottom of the Earth is relevant at all, because there is no up or down in space. Ice might just naturally gather on the poles because it's colder, and it has nothing to do with the planets rotation, or the poles for that matter.


The rest of this isn't making much sense. Maybe what would help would be to note that affecting the planet's rotation would change the geographic poles by definition, and that the research isn't claiming that that ice gathers at the poles because of Earth's rotation.
 
2013-05-15 12:52:04 PM

Damnhippyfreak: the research isn't claiming that that ice gathers at the poles because of Earth's rotation.


I never said it did. It's claiming that the distribution of ice affects the Earth's rotation, which is what i was addressing.
 
2013-05-15 12:55:53 PM

J. Frank Parnell: make me some tea: In what universe is distribution of mass irrelevant?

You're missing the point, just like the last guy. Is anyone going to actually address what i'm talking about in relation to the article?

Probably shouldn't have said it was irrelevant, but if anything i'd expect the area with more mass to move to the outside edge of the rotation, not the top and bottom.



I see what you're getting at. There's two things to note. First is that the poles don't have more mass - what is being talked about is change of mass occurring near the poles. As for the area with more mass moving to the outside edge of the rotation, this is exactly what is happening - where that 'more mass' is relatively speaking changed due to loss of ice mass, leading to a change in the geographic pole.
 
2013-05-15 12:57:55 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Damnhippyfreak: the research isn't claiming that that ice gathers at the poles because of Earth's rotation.

I never said it did. It's claiming that the distribution of ice affects the Earth's rotation, which is what i was addressing.



Sorry. That's what it seemed like from this bit:

J. Frank Parnell: Ice might just naturally gather on the poles because it's colder, and it has nothing to do with the planets rotation, or the poles for that matter.


Maybe you can rephrase this if my previous comment didn't cover what you were looking for.
 
2013-05-15 12:59:55 PM

nekom: Kraftwerk Orange: I thought the shifting of the magnetic poles had more to do with the fluctuations within the Earth's spinning iron core.  That's the polar shift we really need to worry about.

Shifting of the geographic poles (as I finally read the article), oh, well, that happens naturally as well.  I'm open to the idea that changing the distribution of mass can change the Earth's wobble, but still, what about all that crust beneath our feet (and magma and such) that is also constantly rearranging itself?

Pole reversal would be a troubling thing to live through, I would think.  While it happens in a cosmic instant, the process is thought to actually take thousands of years.  It weakens to the point of barely existing before strengthening in reverse.  I can't imagine that would be in any way good for humans or our electronic infrastructure.


Gamma Radiation to hasten the formation of the X-Men! We should welcome our new found mutations! I for one am hoping to be able to have a single super power. 24 hour Glimpse into the future. I shall them retire after a sucesssful 8 month career of sports betting and Lottery playing. Woot! Go GO POLE REVERSAL!!!!!
 
2013-05-15 01:09:41 PM

dennysgod: Axial precession probably isn't smooth process and there are no records of the precise movement of the pole older then 100yrs..if at all, and 100 years out of a 26,000yr cycle isn't a lot of data.

Anyway shifting a few tones of weight on a 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg planet isn't really going to monkey with the axial precession.  I'm sure mining has shifted more mass then melting glaciers.


I think the process being talked about is on the order of smaller changes - polar motion instead of axial precession:

i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-15 01:15:27 PM

J. Frank Parnell: If we were in fact losing a significant amount of ice which could affect the rotating sphere of Earth, it would have to affect the planet's rotation before it did anything to the poles


Recent trends in the two primary anomalies in the rotational state of the planet are analyzed in detail, namely those associated with the speed and direction of polar wander and with the non-tidal acceleration of the rate of axial rotation (via the measurement of the changing oblateness of the Earth's shape). It is demonstrated that a significant change in the secular trends in both of these independent parameters became evident subsequent to approximately 1992. It is suggested that both parameters might have come to be substantially influenced by mass loss from both the great polar ice sheets, and from the very large number of small ice-sheets and glaciers that are also being influenced by the global warming phenomenon. The modern values for the secular drifts in those parameters that we estimate are appropriate to the period during which measurements have been made by the satellites of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). These changes in secular rates might greatly assist in understanding why the GRACE-inferred values of the time derivatives of the degree two and order one Stokes coefficients differ so significantly from those associated with Late Quaternary ice-age influence.

Roy, K., and W. R. Peltier (2011), GRACE era secular trends in Earth rotation parameters: A global scale impact of the global warming process?, Geophysical Research Letters, 38(10), n/a-n/a, doi:10.1029/2011GL047282.
 
2013-05-15 02:12:07 PM
Global Warming:  Is there anything it can't do?
 
2013-05-15 02:48:37 PM

moanerific: Global Warming:  Is there anything it can't do?


Convince partisans.
 
2013-05-15 03:15:40 PM

J. Frank Parnell: This is just getting pathetic. There is no way in hell 'global warming' is to blame for the geomagnetic poles wandering.

If we were in fact losing a significant amount of ice which could affect the rotating sphere of Earth, it would have to affect the planet's rotation before it did anything to the poles. I'm not even sure if the weight of ice at the top and bottom of the Earth is relevant at all, because there is no up or down in space. Ice might just naturally gather on the poles because it's colder, and it has nothing to do with the planets rotation, or the poles for that matter.


Redistribution of mass will change the moment of inertia.  Conservation of angular momentum takes over from there.  The Earth wobbles slightly as it rotates, and moving the mass around dictates the magnitude and direction of said wobble.

As an aside, Geophysical Research Letters isn't exactly a fringe journal.  Their review process is pretty rough.
 
2013-05-15 03:24:37 PM

chimp_ninja: Geophysical Research Letters isn't exactly a fringe journal.


If it ain't in the Bible, it's just devil-talk.
 
2013-05-15 03:30:17 PM
It's pretty simple, actually.
Warmth melts the ice, which turns to water, which alters the location of mass on the planet, which alters the axis of spin.

/Herpaderp, I'm a timber rattler.
//Herpaderp.
 
2013-05-15 03:32:19 PM
GEOGRAPHIC POLE != MAGNETIC POLE
 
2013-05-15 03:33:11 PM
 
2013-05-15 03:41:26 PM

nekom: Pole reversal would be a troubling thing to live through, I would think. While it happens in a cosmic instant, the process is thought to actually take thousands of years. It weakens to the point of barely existing before strengthening in reverse. I can't imagine that would be in any way good for humans or our electronic infrastructure.


Especially when life on the surface starts to get fried by solar radiation, solar flares, and cosmic rays.
 
2013-05-15 03:46:36 PM

quantum_csc: nekom: Pole reversal would be a troubling thing to live through, I would think. While it happens in a cosmic instant, the process is thought to actually take thousands of years. It weakens to the point of barely existing before strengthening in reverse. I can't imagine that would be in any way good for humans or our electronic infrastructure.

Especially when life on the surface starts to get fried by solar radiation, solar flares, and cosmic rays.


We can look at times of past pole reversals and see that there is no biodiversity loss signal, so at least the "life on the surface starts to get fried" part of that fear is almost certainly unfounded. I don't know what the impact on electronics would be, however...
 
2013-05-15 04:13:55 PM
Or people could just watch a national geographic program from almost a decade ago that said axis shift is why different areas warm. It was also explained that's how pyramids were built in the desert, and showed there were lake beds which were larger than all the great lakes combined.

But people want to blame someone so they ignore the fact we may not be in control of everything, which is scarier than saying "hold on to your butts folks, its gonna get messy" and we can't do shiat about it.
 
2013-05-15 04:32:15 PM

steamingpile: Or people could just watch a national geographic program from almost a decade ago that said axis shift is why different areas warm. It was also explained that's how pyramids were built in the desert, and showed there were lake beds which were larger than all the great lakes combined.

But people want to blame someone so they ignore the fact we may not be in control of everything, which is scarier than saying "hold on to your butts folks, its gonna get messy" and we can't do shiat about it.


Not the same thing.  You're talking about Milankovich cycles, which cause climate change, while this is talking about changes in the earth's rotation due to changing climate.
 
2013-05-15 05:03:46 PM

Erix: steamingpile: Or people could just watch a national geographic program from almost a decade ago that said axis shift is why different areas warm. It was also explained that's how pyramids were built in the desert, and showed there were lake beds which were larger than all the great lakes combined.

But people want to blame someone so they ignore the fact we may not be in control of everything, which is scarier than saying "hold on to your butts folks, its gonna get messy" and we can't do shiat about it.

Not the same thing.  You're talking about Milankovich cycles, which cause climate change, while this is talking about changes in the earth's rotation due to changing climate.


Yes I know that, we are currently in a decreasing cycle which would explain a whole lot of shiat happening if it were to be more closely looked at but people just want to say man is so evil we are killing the planet. We are a flea speck and when the earth is done with us or just tired of the bullshiat it will flick us off.

I won't believe anyone is serious on climate issues until they pass blanket regulations instead of letting the worst offenders out because they are "developing". Barring that let's just find better solutions for our garbage and recycle as much as we can.
 
2013-05-15 06:18:42 PM
What global warming?

www.woodfortrees.org


That's the last 15+ years according to the "scientists" own data.

Just imagine how bad the warming will change things once, you know, it exists.
 
2013-05-15 07:00:31 PM

chimp_ninja: Redistribution of mass will change the moment of inertia.  Conservation of angular momentum takes over from there.  The Earth wobbles slightly as it rotates, and moving the mass around dictates the magnitude and direction of said wobble.


I once goofed around with some simple assumptions and calculated the resulting change in the earths rotational speed (increased duration of a "day") if the polar icecap's water mass was redistributed
evenly over the globe. I got about a half second.
Just now I found this, which is basically what I did... I'm a sucker for calculations like this! cheers
 
2013-05-15 07:33:46 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

That's the last 15+ years according to the "scientists" own data.

Just imagine how bad the warming will change things once, you know, it exists.


Hey, look.  It's the same cherry-picking by the same human garbage.  Nice touch putting the word 'scientists' in "scare quotes" to underscore your ignorance.  Well, that and not knowing about the possessive.

www.skepticalscience.com
www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-05-15 07:59:13 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

That's the last 15+ years according to the "scientists" own outdated data.

Just imagine how bad the warming will change things once, you know, it exists.


FTFY

/are you by chance a masochist? You seem to want to post stupid things that people jump all over you for.
 
2013-05-16 12:43:35 AM

dennysgod: Axial precession probably isn't smooth process and there are no records of the precise movement of the pole older then 100yrs..if at all, and 100 years out of a 26,000yr cycle isn't a lot of data.

Anyway shifting a few tones of weight on a 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg planet isn't really going to monkey with the axial precession.  I'm sure mining has shifted more mass then melting glaciers.


That's what I'm thinking.  And volcanoes spewing metric farktons of rock.   They think this was cause by removing ice?
 
2013-05-16 01:34:34 AM

SevenizGud: What global warming?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

That's the last 15+ years according to the "scientists" own data.

Just imagine how bad the warming will change things once, you know, it exists.



This song and dance again? Might as well get all the responses out of the way, and in a fashion that is easily reproducible.

1. You're cherry-picking - over 15 years you're still going to capture predominantly shorter-term variability due to shorter-term processes.

www.skepticalscience.net

2. You're using an outdated data set -HadCRUT4 has more spatial coverage (although high variability means that this trend is probably not statistically significant):

img.fark.net


3. Regression to the mean - 1997/1998 was a very strong El Nino year, with very high temperatures (see below). By choosing to ignore data prior to that relatively extreme period, and choosing a relatively short period of time, you risk finding a spurious trend as over time, variability returns to something similar to longer-term averages.

img.fark.net

4. Such 'pauses' of similar or longer length have occurred in the past.Such 'pauses', due to shorter-term processes are not uncommon (see graphs for point 1 and 3) therefore they are not necessarily indicative of climate change slowing or stopping.

5. If you don't accept any of the above, you can be proven wrong by your own methods. Why would just using 5 years then be just as good as 15?

img.fark.net


6. You're aware of the problems, and are simply arguing dishonestly:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic] Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes? [/socratic] Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation. I urge you once again to stand by your own words.

7. Plotting linear trends on graphs says very little. Probably the most important point of all. Just looking at graphs without teasing apart any of the multiple underlying processes that are working simultaneously to affect temperature says very little. One cannot claim that a specific process has stopped by just using a variable that is affected by many others at the same time.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report