Warming and Slowing the World

chrisleonard writes "We all know that global warming is supposed to heat the planet up, but did you know that it might also slow it down? According to a report from Belgium's Royal Observatory (as reported here by astronomy.com), if the days seem a little longer to you than they used to, it might not be just old age catching up with you. Would it be wrong to call the interaction of the world's warming temperatures and its slowing rotation ... a snowball effect?"

Comments

Of course...

[1010011010]

when the poles shift in 15,000 -20,000 years, killing most life, shifting the Earth's plates, and plunging the planet into an ice age, it won't matter much to us.

11 microseconds per decade?

[glitch!]

Wow, this hypothesis suggests that global warming may result in the Earth slowing down its rotation by 11 microseconds per decade. I had better make sure my earthquake insurance is paid up.

What they don't mention is how much NORMAL slowdown we can expect from other causes, such as the transfer of angular momentum from the Earth to the moon. I don't recall the numbers, but I am sure the moon will be a much larger factor than the variation in air currents.

The study

[macdaddy]

I heard about a study that was talked about on Discovery about two common myths, global warming and deforestation. I haven't seen it on Discovery though. What it boiled down to was some time back a bunch of scientists and other *ologists (thousands) signed a paper saying that both were real and major problems. Supposedly it got press coverage out the ass. This Discovery special was about about another paper that came out right after the first (because of the first) from many many more thousands of scientists and other *ologists that said that both were a crock of shit, media and political propoganda. Oddly enough the media didn't give the 2nd paper much billing (I wonder why...). The 2nd paper and the people that signed it proved that deforestation was not a problem and that their research showed that our planet's tree population was far greater than it was in the 1920's and increasing rapidly. They of course did say that chopping down unexplored rain forests could very likely wipe out plant and animal life that had never been recorded. Of course that's no deforestation. They also proved that the Earth is not getting warmer. They proved that in fact the Earth is really getting colder. In the short term were are reaching the peak of some loop that I can't recall the name of. It's supposed to be some variation in the distance from the Sun we typically follow. It's not a round path we follow. It's more oval. Elyptical (sp?). And it varies over time and repeats itself. We're reaching the hotter part of that peak. We are however in the long run starting another Ice Age. Yes, it's true. All these record highs recorded this winter do not mean that the Earth is really warming. They don't support global warming in the least. We are actually cooling in the long run. We will have another ice age before the Sun starts growing to the point that it will cause Earth to heat up. The short time period has us getting warmer. The medium time period has us starting and ice age. The long term time period has the Sun frying our asses.

All these scientists that signed the 2nd paper discounted what the 1st guys said and they did it with an overwhelming number of people. Of course the media didn't cover that. The media never wants to cover something like that. Blood and guts sells. Death and destruction sells. Conspiracy sells. Telling the public that violence in schools is actually decreasing and is lower now than it was in the troubled 70s doesn't sell. Plastering a blood-splattered babbling kid on the evening news that "saw it all" sells.

Enough of my rambling. You've heard it all before. My question is, has anyone seen this Discovery episode? Does anyone know where more information can be had? I'd love to see the episode. It sounds like a good one. I still like the one that proved that something like 600 million years ago we had a Snow Ball Earth and the one that proved all human life as we know it today originated from deep within Africa. Both of those were good shows.

Re:the big question

[macdaddy]

The warming we think we're seeing is actually very short term (term as in hundreds of years). The Earth doesn't travel around the Sun in a perfect circle. It's an oval of sorts. Elyptical (sp?). That isn't constant either. Over time the cycle changes. At one point it gets warm (now). At the other end of the cycle it gets colder than shit (read: ice age). Supposedly we're reaching the peak. We're actually starting an ice age. Not that you I, or your kids' grandkids' will ever see it but it is beginning. Sure we're putting crap in the air that wasn't as prevalent without us. Then again, CO2 is required to keep Earth warm. Without it, we'd be cold as hell, even this close to the Sun.

One of Asimov's essays...

[devphil]

...talked about this. The name of the essay was IIRC "The Inconstant Moon" and I first read it in The Sun Shines Bright, a collection of his science essays.

All I vaguely remember from the essay is that, once everything slows down enough, the moon should start spiralling inward. Friction with the atmosphere will destroy it, giving us a nice little ring system like Saturn's. However, that's supposed to take 7 billion years, while Sol will go red-giant in 5 billion years, so it's one of those "this would be really cool, but we'll all be dead by other means before we get to see it" events.

I hope I'm remembering the essay correctly. If you disagree, okay -- go read the essay and tell me what I forgot.

Re:One of Asimov's essays...

[Bill Currie]

The only problem I have with this is the moon is currently getting further from the earth as it slows down the earth's rotation (due to tidal forces) and gets sped up in the process.

That said, I suspect that we're both right in that eventually the earth will have a day of 1 month, slow down some more due to the sun, then start pulling the moon back in.

No matter what, that's going to take a bloocy long time.

+1 Rational on the MQR standard

[MarkusQ]

While I don't rate "Discovery" very high as a source for information about science, this raises my estimation of their credibility.

I also applaud you for posting this. The pettition you refer to has not received enough attention (see also). But even more important is to look at the data.

-- MarkusQ

another thing to watch out for...

[supernova87a]

The Reversal is coming!!! Well, in about 300,000 years, that is.

For those who aren't familiar with this physical phenomenon, the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself (changes polarity) every 300,000 years or so. Rather quick on a planetary time scale, huh?

There are lots of geophysicists interested in this field (paleomagnetism) because it requires some sophisticated modeling of how geodynamos work. Take a look: here for supercomputer modeling of the reversal

I'm not sure which to place my bets on first -- a) the Moon flying away from the Earth, b) the magnetic field reversing, or c) the Earth stopping its spin... Well, ok. It's b). But between a) and c)? I'm not so sure.

a system may be very chaotic

[Edmund Blackadder]

But it doesnt mean it wont react relatively predictably to a relatively large input.

And all this carbon dioxide we are sending up is a pretty large input.