Idea about change in Earth's rotation speed by Climate Change

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the potential impact of climate change on Earth's rotation speed due to the melting of polar ice caps. As ice melts and water shifts closer to the equator, it increases the Earth's moment of inertia, which could theoretically slow down the rotation speed. However, the effect is expected to be extremely small, only measurable by precise instruments. Calculations suggest that the mass of water moving from the poles to the equator is negligible compared to Earth's total mass. Additionally, the initial movement of water from higher elevations to lower ones could temporarily speed up the Earth's rotation before any slowing occurs.
TheBigK1d
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I know the two seem very unrelated at first, but actually I think the partial melting of the polar ice caps would actually give us longer days and nights.

Most of the ice that would be melting is relatively close to the poles, the axis of Earth's rotation. But, when it melted, the mass of the water would move closer to the equator, increasing the Earth's moment of inertia (I think this is the right way to use this, but basically the same as a figure skater moving their arms out and slowing their rotation speed down). Thus, the Earth's rotation speed would slow down, although probably so minuscule that it would only be measured by very precise instruments.

Do you guys think I'm right? And how would I calculate this speed change?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
TheBigK1d said:
Do you guys think I'm right? And how would I calculate this speed change?

You would estimate how significant it is by forming a rough estimate of the mass of the water that's moving from polar icecap to equatorial ocean, then comparing that mass with the mass of the Earth to see if it's enough to make a difference.

The mass of the Earth is about 6x1024 kilograms.

A volume of ice 1000 kilometers on a side and 100 meters thick will have a mass of about 1017 kilograms.

So the mass that we're shifting will be about one part in sixty million. You can play with the numbers a bit, move that sixty million around by a factor of ten or so in either direction... But you're still talking about an ant trying to influence the spin of a soccer ball by walking around on its surface.
 
Most of the ice that would be melting is relatively close to the poles, the axis of Earth's rotation. But, when it melted, the mass of the water would move closer to the equator, increasing the Earth's moment of inertia (I think this is the right way to use this, but basically the same as a figure skater moving their arms out and slowing their rotation speed down). Thus, the Earth's rotation speed would slow down, although probably so minuscule that it would only be measured by very precise instruments.
When the ice melted it would also move from a higher level on the Earth's surface to a lower one at first before moving towards the oblate equator.Which would speed up the Earth's rotation before any slowing.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top