> The cause of the differing speed of Earth’s spin is unknown, but theories abound:
> The melting of the glaciers means less weight on the poles
Those physics don't make sense to me. When ice melts, this should be moving mass from near the axis of rotation (i.e, the poles), to farther away, i.e diffused through the ocean. Which should have the opposite affect.
Burning lots of oil stored near the crust seems like a much more plausible way to decrease the earth's inertia.
The caption for the image in the article expands on the theory a bit.
The idea is that as the ice melts, less weight is on the poles, which causes them to rise up. It’s proposed that the overall effect is to make the Earth more round/spherical lowering its moment of inertia. This effect is, at least in this theory, seems to be stronger than the effect of moving water out to the equator. It wouldn’t surprise me if the water that’s moving around simply isn’t massive enough to cause an effect the size observed. Same with the oil that you propose.
2 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] thread> The melting of the glaciers means less weight on the poles
Those physics don't make sense to me. When ice melts, this should be moving mass from near the axis of rotation (i.e, the poles), to farther away, i.e diffused through the ocean. Which should have the opposite affect.
Burning lots of oil stored near the crust seems like a much more plausible way to decrease the earth's inertia.
The idea is that as the ice melts, less weight is on the poles, which causes them to rise up. It’s proposed that the overall effect is to make the Earth more round/spherical lowering its moment of inertia. This effect is, at least in this theory, seems to be stronger than the effect of moving water out to the equator. It wouldn’t surprise me if the water that’s moving around simply isn’t massive enough to cause an effect the size observed. Same with the oil that you propose.