Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Earth Growing Due to Melting Glaciers 179

Posted by michael from the spare-tire dept.
Dr. Shim writes "Some interesting (and rather frightening) news over at Space.com tells that the Earth is growing around the equator due to the fact that ice in the Antarctic (and other areas) is melting at an alarming rate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earth Growing Due to Melting Glaciers More

Earth Growing Due to Melting Glaciers

Comments Filter:

  • not growing, changing shape (Score:4, Interesting)

    by real_smiff ( 611054 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:14AM (#8188707)
    there's a difference, ya know! :)

    (i read TFA)

    • there's a difference, ya know! :)

      Yes, but a shift in mass alters the moment of inertia, so, for a given amount of rotational kinetic energy, the length of our day can change. The effect is probably small, but I'm sure there would be a handful of scientists out there who really care about such things (studying whether a 0.01% change in the day/night cycle affects plants or whatever).

    • The most salient question regarding any redistribution of water to areas near the equator would involve low lying land (coral atolls) in that area. Folks living in places like that could be very concerned indeed, since a small rise in the water translates directly into a large decrease in the land area upon which they're living.

  • Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stjobe ( 78285 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:15AM (#8188717) Homepage
    Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that this is a sensationalistic, alarmist write-up of a marginally interesting phenomena?

    So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".

    Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course, but let's not press the big red panic button just yet, ok?

    Scientists -- or as the case may be, reporters -- out for a quick 15 minutes of fame is my take on this "rather frightening" story.

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smoondog ( 85133 )
      I totally agree. I'm not sure why every time a scientist reports an observed change whether it be climate, ecological, etc., the sensationalist media immediately raises the alarm that it is a cause for concern. There is no law of nature that says change is going to be detrimental.

      -Sean

      • Re:Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:36AM (#8188916)
        "There is no law of nature that says change is going to be detrimental."

        You occupy a niche that is admittedly quite wide-ranging, but don't make the mistake of assuming that the planet might become uninhabitable by members of your niche within short order at some point. The natural history museums are full of species whose niche disappeared.

        Oh, and any change away from the conditions that are viable for life can be considered detrimental.

        • Re:Alarmists... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by b-baggins ( 610215 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @11:40AM (#8189699) Journal
          Oh, please. None of those species were intelligent, technological and industrialized. Good grief.

          Human beings live successfully in EVERY climate on the globe. Our environmental niche is the entire planet, for crying out loud.

          • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hackus ( 159037 )
            Well, not so fast.

            The Dinosaurs survived quite well, with no brains, or very little brains for a time scale that makes our existence fairly insignificant by comparison.

            I would also like to point out, that the estimated age of the Universe is 14 Billion years.

            For about 10 billion of those years we assume, the earth wasn't formed.

            Well, when the Earth did form, many billions of years went by, about 3 billion, before we had any complex life forms.

            After they arrived we had one very sophisticated life form/s

        • Re:Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @12:12PM (#8190125) Journal
          Oh, and any change away from the conditions that are viable for life can be considered detrimental.

          Are you so sure that the conditions we are experiencing right now are the precisely optimal conditions for life?

          Are you so sure that a couple of degrees warmer might not be a good thing? Or that a couple of degrees colder might not be a good thing?

          How are you so sure?

          If the global temperature drops a degree, it's a catastrophe. If the global temperature rises a degree, it's a catastrophe. If the global CO2 levels wiggle by a percent, it's a catastrophe. If the global aldebo level wiggles byt a fraction of a percent, it's a catastrophe. If the ice at some local lake averages thinner then 50 years ago, it's a catastrophe. If some lake freezes a month sooner then 50 years ago, it's a catastrophe. If the glaciers melt, it's a catastrophe. If the glaciers grow, it's a catastrophe. If the sea levels rise, it's a catastrophe. If the sea levels sink, it's a catastrophe. If the acidity in the rain rises, it's a catastrophe. If the acidity in the rain falls, it's a catastrophe. If the suns output increases, it's a catastrophe. If the suns output decreases, it's a catastrophe. If some species goes extinct, it's a catastrophe. (Remarkably, nobody seems to get too uptight about new species, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.)

          If some natural climatic process occurs, it's a catastrophe. If some natural climatic process doesn't occur, it's a catastrophe.

          Climates change. It's what they do. The conditions right now aren't the only viable ones for life, as exemplified by the vast array of conditions life has thrived in throughout Earth's history.

          This kind of panicking every time an indicator wiggles is tiring and pointless. The indicators will wiggle. Global warming will occur, and it will be followed by a period of global cooling. The sea level will rise, and it will subsequently fall. The CO2 levels will rise, and they will subsequently fall. The sun's output will rise, and it will subsequently fall. All of these things have occured several times, even within humanity's life time and even within yours, for some of these indicators.

          There is some merit in debating how these things will affect us, but acting as if a statement like "don't make the mistake of assuming that the planet might become uninhabitable by members of your niche within short order at some point" is worth panicking over is unjustified. Debating the impact of long terms trends is interesting; twitching, having a fit, and screaming at everyone else who refuses to have a fit every time an indicator goes somewhere is not.

          Chill out. Pun intended.

          (Personally, I'm still thinking a couple of degrees warmer will be a net benefit; one should not analyse merely the costs without considering the benefits, and surprise surprise, that's exactly what twitchy, panicky, screamy environmentalists do. Sure, we lose a couple of inches of coastline, but we get a lot more arable land and perhaps more rain will help roll some deserts back. Who knows? Nobody, that's who. But I can tell you it's been warmer before and life seemed to be quite prolific. Fortunately nothing at those times was smart enough to panic at unstoppable changes.)

          • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Informative)

            by Carnildo ( 712617 )
            (Personally, I'm still thinking a couple of degrees warmer will be a net benefit; one should not analyse merely the costs without considering the benefits, and surprise surprise, that's exactly what twitchy, panicky, screamy environmentalists do. Sure, we lose a couple of inches of coastline, but we get a lot more arable land and perhaps more rain will help roll some deserts back.

            I'm sure there are some people in Niue who would disagree with you. A rise of only 2 degrees will raise the sea level enough
            • Yup. Bummer. Shit happens. But you're still arguing in nothing but negatives. Like I said, cooling is a disaster, warming is a disaster, everything is a disaster. That's not rational thinking, that's twitchy panicking.

              If the globe cools, we'll lose more land to ice. If the globe warms, we lose land to rising sea levels.

              Don't you see the problem with this logic? If this were true, we'd have long since lost all land on Earth to ice and sea. If the globe warms, we may lose islands, but we get more of Siberia

      • Re:Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by IPFreely ( 47576 ) <mark@mwiley.org> on Thursday February 05, 2004 @12:13PM (#8190136) Homepage Journal
        There is no law of nature that says change is going to be detrimental.

        It's not a natural law, it's a political, financial and resource law.

        Right now, we have a fairly complex structure of food production needed to keep 6+ billion humans alive. This includes a lot of land in specific places set aside for crops and livestock. If the weather patterns change, earth as a whole will likely still be habitable for humans in general, but any given piece of land may not be suitable for food production. If the current crop lands go bad, and some other land, a thousand miles away suddenly becomes much better for that same crop, then you have to move the whole production machine over to the new location.

        This doesn't even account for fights over property rights, cost liabilities, and what to eat during the time it takes to move. A lot of current companies/countries will lose power/influence, and a lot of other landowners, and other countries, suddenly find themselves in control of valuable resources that weren't valuable before. It will, for a while at least, be even more politically and economically destabalizing than the constant bickering over oil is now.

        THAT is what the alarmist are talking about, and that is what all the anti-alarmist seem to not understand.

        • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Informative)

          by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) *
          Northern Africa was once a fertile plain that was the breadbasket of Rome. Now it is part of the world's largest desert. (And you cannot blame that on Bush either, greenies)

          Climates change. If you own property that turns into a desert, you are screwed financially.
        • And you've been screaming about it being right around the corner for the past thirty years. Probably more than that, but that's all I can remember. I remember being absolutely terrified as a kid that the Earth was cooling, and we weren't doing a damn thing about it. Now, I hear we're warming, but I really don't see the conclusive evidence. I especially don't see conclusive evidence that humans are causing it, or even that we could stop it from happening, regardless of cause.

          Right now, I feel like we're

          • I wouldn't say "Do Nothing" was an appropriate response, but maybe alter the type of action to take. Rather than attack the problem in terms of prevention (like the Tokyo accord), we could act in terms of preparedness.

            By making lots of good measurements of yearly changes of averages in lots of areas, we could make realistic estimates of how regions are likely to change over time. With that, we could make preparations to add food production in new promising areas before the old ones completely dry up. It's

        • Many major civilizations in the past 10,000 years (yup, gotta include those south african ones your history teacher never told you about) have fallen just because of draught...and we already know the average temperature of the earth has been MUCH HOTTER and MUCH COLDER in the past. 12,000 years ago we ended an ice age. Radical climate change has happened before, it'll happen again. Civilizations will collapse. Big deal. Insolation is the key to climate, not man's activities.
      • You reminds me of Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun.

        (After an army tank has just crashed into a Chinese fireworks factory) Frank-Alright. Nothing to see here. Please disperse! Nothing...nothing to see here! Please!


    • Sensational and alarmist, quite possibly.

      Something to keep an eye on, absolutely.

      The problem has been that we're caught between chicken little alarmists on the one hand and monied interests on the other (Carbon emission problem? I don't think so! Here, fill up your tank and get a free cup of coffee with Janet Jackson's picture on it!)

      • Carbon emission problem? I don't think so! Here, fill up your tank and get a free cup of coffee with Janet Jackson's picture on it!

        Spoken like a true Chicken Little Alarmist.

    • 0.3% of 6378km is ~20km. But I think that what's really alarming is that the trend has suddenly reversed and has shown such a big change since 1997.

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:33AM (#8188879)
      "Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling that this is a sensationalistic, alarmist write-up of a marginally interesting phenomena?"

      It's you.

      "the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator"

      Which means that the sea level is rising. You don't consider this interesting?

      "This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate"."

      Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something. I'd consider for the moment the change in albedo produced by the sea level rising, or the fact that this is going to destabilise land structures to the point where erosion can cause tsunamai from land slippage, not to mention the effect on active volcanos, or the increase in tides.

      Then there's the quasi-stable structure of things like the ice-tongue that channels the gulfstream around the UK, and which have an impact on sea life, both shallow and deep. Not evolutionary scale, but within a couple of decades.

      While I'm not suggesting that reporters get it wrong, I _really_ hate the implication that we should just sit on the information until we're sure, simply because it's hard to prove.

      We've gone to war on less evidence.

      • Re:Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:44AM (#8189012) Homepage

        Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something.

        Where are mod points when I need them... I want that sentence on a plaque on my wall.


        • From the most excellent Manifold trilogy by Steven Baxter:

          Say you have some algae growing on the surface of your pond. It doubles in size every day. It will take 30 days to cover the pond.

          When the pond is half covered, you decide to start to do something about it...

          ...but, when the pond is half covered, it's the 29th day, and you're out of time.

          • when the pond is half covered, it's the 29th day, and you're out of time.

            Not if it takes less than a day to clear the pond.


            • Not to be rude, but: so what? Anything that can be solved that quickly isn't worth worrying about, and isn't an interesting problem.

              More to the point, there will be problems that cannot be solved that quickly. There will be ponds that we cannot clear in a day. There will be crises that we out off too long. Saying that some problems can be taken care of in a short time is great, yeah, fine, but it doesn't help the other problems, and doesn't really mean anything.

              • so what?

                So, your silly little analogy presupposes that clearing the pond takes more than one day. This might not be the case.

                Nobody knows one way or the other how the climatic changes we've seen the last few years are going to affect us, there's just too many variables to take into account. To state that there is an emergency and that we're all going to die is... well, premature.

                There needs to be more research done before we can say if the pond takes more or less than a day to clear, or even if it ne

                • So, your silly little analogy presupposes that clearing the pond takes more than one day. This might not be the case.

                  You're missing the point. We know the pond in question takes a long time to clean. Or, for a given climatic/environmental issue, we know it's not an easily solvable problem. There's no "might not be the case" weaseling out of it.

                  (P.S.- Attacking the analogy instead of the reasoning is a common failure of critical thought. Take a look at, say, http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ for some t

                  • You're missing the point.

                    No, you are missing the point. The point -- and it's a sharp point indeed -- is that we have no idea. You're saying it takes longer than a day to clear the pond, I say it might take less than a day. None of us knows, since we don't know the size of the pond, the effectiveness of the cleaning method, the availability of alternative cleaning methods, or even if we really should clean it. We just don't know.

                    That is why your analogy was silly.

                    for a[ny?] given climatic/environment


                    • No, I'm not... but as you seem unwilling to accept that I'm not a dumbass, I guess there's no point to continuing the thread. Have a nice day.

                    • you seem unwilling to accept that I'm not a dumbass

                      You're not giving me much evidence to the contrary.
                      Anyone who states as a certainty that "for a[ny?] given climatic/environmental issue, we know it's not an easily solvable problem" needs to rethink the basic tenets of scientific method.
                      Oh, and your helpful advice on critical thought didn't especially endear you to me either.

                      I guess there's no point to continuing the thread.

                      As you wish.

                      Have a nice day.

                      You too :)
        • Yes, sounds like a good addition for Despair.com [despair.com]. Perhaps if you find a picture to go with it (a meteorite, maybe with dinosaurs perhaps) you could have it posted to the demotivators [despair.com]

      • We've gone to war on less evidence.


        Oh, well in that case what are we waiting for!

      • Nice Troll, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @11:31AM (#8189591) Journal
        It's not "just him", either. Nice way to try to marginalize his viewpoint, which is, by the way, shared by more than just a "niche". There are a lot of scientists (and not just ordinary citizens) that are going "ok, slow down, it's not neccessarily a catastrophe". As many people have pointed out in the past, the Earth frequently goes through changes like this for reasons that are unknown, and that predate the industrial revolution. And lets face it, this whole piece was about pointing a finger at mankind's evil technological ways and saying "see what we're doing to the Earth?"

        The Earth's sea level has risen and fallen over the centuries many times, without any input from man. The previous poster was just pointing out that this happens, and that the article might be just a tad sensationlistic in order to promote an agenda (and we know THAT nevers happens in science or anywhere else, right?).

        If you agree with that agenda, fine, say so. But when you try to make opposing views look like fringe nuts because it suits your purposes, you just end up looking like an ass.

        • Most of our "scientists" are brown-nosing yes men that jump on whatever bandwagon is convenient to get government funding. And once married to a certain point of view, it can be very painful to accept defeat and throw away ones "life's work". Earth's climate is primarily governed by changes in solar activity, and there's buggerall we can do about it. It's time we redirected funding to more fruitful endeavors, like recovering methane hydrates.
      • Which means that the sea level is rising. You don't consider this interesting?

        Marginally, as I said. I do, however, concede the fact that others find it more interesting than I do. For some, it might even be very interesting (the Dutch, for example).

        Of course by the time you consider it alarming or frightening, it's probably going to be too late to do something.

        Well, thanks for telling me what I think ;) The earth changes constantly, and has done so through the aeons. As I said: Something to keep an
      • I _really_ hate the implication that we should just sit on the information until we're sure, simply because it's hard to prove.

        Yea... let's start making guesses as to how we should "fix" the problem (because we're so sure it needs to be fixed because it IS an actual problem, right?). Let's try terraforming out planet as to how we *think* it should be.

        Real smart. Start shootin in the dark when trying to "fix" our own habitat.

        I'm sorry, but it's just not something you want to screw with until you're 100%

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm actually concerned that so much fresh water is getting dumped into the ocean, though what matters much more is, is how much is getting dumped around greenland. The problem being that this leads to the possibility of the gulf stream getting blocked up by fresh water, because the fresh water thins the salt water and hinders the sinking of gulfstream water so it can transport in the deepsea back to the gulf. Once it stops it could be centuries or more before it restarts, and lead to many degree's drop in t

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ktanmay ( 710168 )
      Ok, given, a little towards the alarmist reaction, but then one thought strikes me, what effect will this increase in equatorial size have on the ocean tides?

      Tides are something we experience everyday, and an increase or decrease in volume will be felt. I don't know, I'm probably missing the fundamental concept here, but to me, the port authorities may just start taking note of it soon.

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FlyingOrca ( 747207 )
      Yeah, it's definitely you. And a whole bunch of other people who have bought the "it's too early to tell" line.

      I used to live on the shores of Hudson Bay, and the ice used to break up at the end of June/early July. It's happening a lot earlier now. The result? Polar bears are losing weight and dying more often because they can't hunt as long. Things don't look good for the Hudson Bay bear population.

      Or let's look at another species - murres. Twenty years ago, they mostly fed on arctic cod they found und
      • Climate change is not a theory, it's a reality...

        and we will know when it is a real unstoppable problem when insurance companies stop selling policies for coastal areas.

      • Re:Alarmists... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by deman1985 ( 684265 ) <dedwards&kappastone,com> on Thursday February 05, 2004 @01:22PM (#8190972) Homepage
        I won't argue about whether it's too early to tell or not; the simple fact of the matter is that the climate is changing and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Will it cause some species of animals to go extinct? Quite possibly. Is it going to force us to change food production and abandon areas that are no longer inhabitable? Almost certainly.

        But what has been stated over and over and everyone seems to ignore is that the Earth is BOUND TO CHANGE. There is nobody who can question that. The climate goes through cycles which are not necessarily related at all to any pollutants we have introduced during the period of human civilization. Even if this does turn out to be the case, then guess what? We just make equipment run as efficiently as we can and when the time comes that the climate has shifted usable land, then we start shifting food production and residental areas accordingly.

        Yes, it is a shame that certain species will die off and may never see the face of the Earth again, but people have to keep in mind that it's all part of nature. Climactic changes are one of many factors that contribute to the evolution of our planet. If the world hadn't gone through such changes in the past to force older species to extinction, the human race may have never become the dominant species it is now. The major difference that sets us apart from other species is that we are intelligent and can adapt to our environment. Short of the sun burning out (which will also happen eventually), the human race will always find ways of surviving on this planet-- even if that means living in man-made greenhouses to isolate us from the outside environment.
      • "Climate change is not a theory, it's a reality, and more evidence is showing up every day."

        True, climate change is demontrable fact. That humans have any significant impact on climate change (or even could if they tried) is 100% theory, unsupported by experimental evidence.

        A.

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 )
      Something to keep an eye on, certainly, and something to look into the reasons why, of course, but let's not press the big red panic button just yet, ok?

      If I lived on a low-lying island or costal region, I'd be jumping up an down on that button. Small rises in sea level can lead to large areas going from beachfront property to shallow water, displacing millions of people.

    • This was covered over at Carnicom last year
      in beautiful detail. Clifford first noticed
      it because of the slowdown in the earth's
      rotation. He's got a rack of quartz clocks
      that he uses to approximate an atomic clock.
      The redistribution of angular momentum is
      truly awesome, and the implications for the
      behaviour of the liquid core of the earth
      are yet to play out. You can read about
      Clifford's best work here: http://www.carnicom.com/time6.htm

    • Visualize! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      We're talking a whole planet, not a tennis ball. .3% is a lot. Look at it this way. The planetary diameter is about 7K miles. 0.3% of that is more than 20 miles! No wait, that can't be right. If the sea level had risen by that much somebody probably would have noticed. Time to RTFA...

      Ah, I got it. The articles doesn't say that the bulge has risen by .3%. The equatorial bulge has always been about 0.3% How much has the bulge increased recently? They don't give figures. But they do say that gravitational fi

      • Try to remove politics from your thinking regarding this issue.

        Temperature changes in the pacific (remember el nino?) are driving the climatic change and is threatening the gulf stream.

        Let's think about what may have screwed up weather patterns in the Pacific... hmmm... maybe the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the 90's... maybe the burgeoning industrialization along the Pacific rim...

        The climate has changed alot in the last 200 years. The East River in NYC (salt water) used to freeze solid between Brooklyn
        • Oh of course, all my logic is an illusion! I've been seduced by those evil Liberals! Thanks for straightening that out.
          • On second thought, you are absolutely right.

            Bush is responsible for global warming, a decade of SUV popularity has devastated the Earth, and destroying the global economy via the Kyoto protocol would have saved us all.

            Thank you
            • Actually, it's all that beer you've been drinking. Lots of greenhouse gases in belches.

              I'll make a deal with you. If you'll assume that my opinions are honestly held, and not "political thinking", I'll do the same for you.

    • Good point.

      Science is now mostly government funded, so the more alarmist the predictions of global destruction are, the more funding you'll get in FY2005.

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 )

      So, the earth has gained 0.3 percent around the equator, and the glaciers are still retreating. This is in my eyes neither "rather frightening" nor "an alarming rate".

      Good god, if sea level had risen to anywhere _near_ .3 of a percent near the equator it would be a natural disaster like no one has ever seen. .3 of a percent of the diameter of the earth is 24 miles. That's 12 miles on each side. Do you realize how much seacoast would be underwater?

      Where you got your imaginary number I don't know, nowh
      • Vellmont wrote:
        [You're out to lunch]

        You're right, of course. The change discussed in the article was on the order of millimeters. The .3 percent came from this [space.com] link off the article, and talks about how earth is .3 percent fatter round the equator than a sphere.

        A 24 mile increase in diameter would indeed be both frightening and alarming, were we not drowned at that point :)

        As it is, I stand corrected as to the numbers, but still maintain that a few millimeters increase in diameter is not very frighte

    • When such a large change occurs then there are going to be consequences ... which probably wont be good for human beings. What kind of consequences ? OK here [guardian.co.uk] is an article describing fears based on a possible slowing / shutdown of the Gulf Stream and perhaps even of the whole conveyor, and here [whoi.edu] is the article that probably inspired it, and finally here [fortune.com] is the Pentagon take on the real world dire consequences.

      By the way, I think this change is so large that there is no way it can be stopped. It is just plai

    • Re:Alarmists... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kd4evr ( 712384 )
      You may have a point regarding this specific article - but I have long stopped comforting myself with thoughts like:
      - last year's extremes are well within long-term records
      - climate changes on Earth are frequent
      - human action is too small to have any damaging impact on a global scale.

      The last few years have been more than enough for me to change my opinion. I now consider the situation very serious, for example:

      1. The snow - the skiing
      - the average height of the snow cover in the mountains during the wint
    • ... probably think its just you. If they have to move in with their mother in law on higher ground, they probably consider the situation worse than frightening. Also anyone who wonders whether the mass and energy transfers involved might affect the seismic stability around the Pacific rim might also suspect its just you. If you depend on an accurate geoid for your work and the darn thing keeps changing, well it might not be frightening, but it could be irritating.

  • Hmm. (Score:3, Troll)

    by noselasd ( 594905 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:17AM (#8188736)
    Ok, We've had Europe and lots of other land covered by glaciers only 10.000 years ago. The ice at the poles have melted quiet a few times in earths history. It's likely earth won't be doomed this time either.

  • Slower? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitect ( 217483 ) <digitectNO@SPAMdancingpaper.com> on Thursday February 05, 2004 @10:25AM (#8188815)

    Will this make days longer?

    Just as figure ice skater retract their arms closer to their axis of rotation to go faster, and spread them out to slow down, won't this have the same effect on the earth's rotation? If so, it should then be measurable, proving or disproving the claim.

    • Re:Slower? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Infinite93 ( 664963 )
      If you combine this with the lack of need to add the leap second for the last few years, it would imply we are holding speed instead of slowing down. Almost counter-intuitive. That or our assumptions are wrong.
  • The earth is not fat, it's just big boned !
  • Sounds like earth needs to take some Midol.

  • i guess that answers that question (Score:3, Funny)

    by scrytch ( 9198 ) <chuck@myrealbox.com> on Thursday February 05, 2004 @11:09AM (#8189307)
    ... when a planet stops being a young planet. It starts getting thick around the middle.

  • Bad Reporting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by penguiniator ( 746400 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @11:24AM (#8189497) Journal

    The article you cite (which was published over a year ago) starts by saying, "Accelerated melting of Earth's glaciers in recent years has forced the planet to let a notch out of its belt as its midsection gains girth, according to a study released today."

    The only source linked by the author of that article says, "They considered that ice melting at the poles and raising the overall sea level could be the culprit. Calculations showed, however, that 'you would have to drop a 10x10x5 kilometer cube of it into the ocean every year for the past five years.' Separate measurements of sea surface height from NASA's TOPEX/Poseidon mission don't support this scenario."

    The article concludes by tempering its opening assertion. "Dickey cautioned that the study is not entirely conclusive, as the changes in sea level are measured in millimeters and represent a "daunting task" that requires numerous corrections to account for various known factors, such as natural short-term fluctuations."

    So it is conceded that glacial melting cannot account for the few millimeter changes in sea level observed, and that they don't know enough to conclude that it is anything more than a natural short-term fluctuation. Once again, "journalists" are inflating the conclusions of scientists and alarming the public with no more justification than a desire to sell a weekly rag.

    So tell us. Why are you bothering to bring up an article published more than a year ago as though it were breaking news?

  • This is for all the people who are crying for action against this rise in sea level.

    Without a better understanding of the full dynamics of the geology, climatology and biology involved in this thing, any attempts to reverse it might have unintended and unpredictable side effects.

    Cut CO2 output? Sounds good but even though CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas, it's also one of the weakest. Lower levels of CO2 could also be problems for the plant biosphere being the CO2 breathing, carbon fixers that the
    • Cut CO2 output? Sounds good but even though CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas, it's also one of the weakest. Lower levels of CO2 could also be problems for the plant biosphere being the CO2 breathing, carbon fixers that they are.

      The plants got by just fine without us raising CO2 levels -that is before we cut down or burned a seizable amount of it.

    • Re:What do you propose we do? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jellisky ( 211018 ) on Thursday February 05, 2004 @02:14PM (#8191667) Journal
      I'm trying to remember where I heard or read this, but, supposedly, when asked about what they would do about the rise in ocean levels by as much as a meter in 50 years, one of the guys who is in charge of the dykes that keep the Netherlands dry replied, "We'll build the wall higher."

      Let's not forget that humans are where we are in the planetary scale of things because of our incredible ability to adapt to our environments. It's not as if these changes will be immediate... you won't go to bed on the oceanfront and find your house flooded by a new meter of water. In fact, most people won't even notice anything, even over the course of a year.

      You make a good point, though. There's lots of people who are running around, crying that the sky is falling... and doing nothing about it or not proposing solutions to the problems. It's truly annoying. I'm not advocating that we do nothing; there have been some "solutions" presented. Whether or not they'll "work" is another problem altogether (e.g. humans may or may not be doing ANYTHING to the climate system), but it's still a start. We have to ultimately accept that change, in many ways and forms, is inevitable and get over the whole "why can't things be the same as before?" attitude that's so prevalent in the western philosophy.

      Okay, end of rant. *laughs.*

      -Jellisky
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • My days really are getting longer!

  • Equatorial bulge (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GerritHoll ( 70088 )
    This means the equatorial bulge gets larger as well. This bulge causes the precession of the Earth, and this in turn the period in which the magnetic poles turn around the geographic poles. In the history of the Earth, ice caps have grown and shrank many times. Have geologists taken this into account when they calculated the place of the magnetic poles in the past, relevant for many geologic phenomona? Or have they always applied actualism, e.g. assumed the precession of the earth is static?
  • Think of the earth as a computer.

    On this computer, there are many files (matter) which are used by programs (natural processes) which all work under the operating system (natural "laws"). We (humans) were clueless newbies who started putzing around on this computer. In the process we have edited files (built things). Now when one of the programs reads a file we have edited it does something different than it did before. Quite often we don't like the results.

    Now that we have become fairly good computer
  • ...that this might have something to do with not needing the leap second for the past few years? The increase in size around the equator would definitely affect the earth's motion.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close