Climate change and polar ice melting could be impacting the length of Earth's day
Humanity's impact on the polar ice sheets is slowing Earth's rotation, posing a challenge for how it matches up with the official timekeeping.
Humanity is rapidly waking up to the fact that time is running out to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change. Ironically, climate change itself, primarily caused by the release of greenhouse gases via the burning of fossil fuels, could help delay a time-related crisis.
Currently, we keep official time using around 450 ultra-precise atomic clocks to keep Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which was first defined in 1969. A more traditional historical method of time-keeping uses the rotation of Earth. But because Earth's rotation fluctuates, since 1972, the alignment between these two measurements has been maintained by adding 27 "leap seconds" to the official time standard.
However, new research led by University of California geologist Duncan Agnew suggests that ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica caused by global warming could be impacting Earth's angular velocity, the rate at which the planet turns, and thus lengthening the day, albeit by an amount so small it is imperceptible to humans—but not to computers that rely on precise timekeeping.
"Global warming is already affecting global timekeeping," Agnew and colleagues write in a paper published in Nature on Wednesday (March 27).
Related: Mars attracts: How the Red Planet influences Earth's climate and seas
The melting of ice is decreasing Earth's angular velocity more rapidly than before, which may require a "negative leap second" or taking a leap second away, being adopted three years later than scientists had expected.
The problem with this is that activities like network computing and financial markets require the consistent, standardized, and precise timescale that UTC provides, and the addition of a negative leap second has never been tested before.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
"A negative leap second has never been added or tested, so the problems it could create are without precedent," Patrizia Tavella, meteorologist in the Time Department of the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), wrote regarding the recent research in an accompanying News & Views paper. "Agnew’s suggestion that the change could be delayed is welcome news indeed."
Tavella thinks that pushing back the need for a negative leap second from 2026 to 2029 could help meteorologists better calculate Earth's rotation. This improved information would help better assess if a negative leap second is really needed while the related risks are assessed.
Earth is a poor time-keeper
The planet's rate of rotation has always fluctuated, but before the implementation of precise timekeeping and technology, the only detrimental effect it had was changing the timing of eclipses and other astronomical events compared to records created and recorded by ancient astronomers.
"On a millennial timescale, changes in Earth's rotation reflect the combined effect of three geophysical processes," Jerry Mitrovica at Harvard's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences wrote in the News & Views Nature piece.
Mitrovica said one of these elements is the coupling between Earth's iron core and its outer rocky mantle and crust. That means that any change in the core's angular momentum must be balanced by an equally sized but opposite-sign change in the mantle and crust. So if the core slows down, to keep Earth's rotation consistent, the outer parts of the planet have to speed up by the same amount. However, both the core and upper layers have been losing angular momentum.
In the past, this core-mantle coupling has led to an increase in Earth's rotational period of 6 millionths of a second per year. While this rate slowing might seem trivially small it is really felt by atomic clocks.
Agnew and colleagues turned to satellite gravity data to determine the decrease in Earth's angular momentum and its effect on timekeeping.
This revealed that the increased melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica has changed the mass distribution of our planet's surface and has decreased the angular velocity of Earth's solid outer layers more rapidly while the angular velocity of the mostly liquid core continues to decrease consistently.
"His analysis demonstrates persuasively that core–mantle coupling has led to accelerated rotation, but that there has also been a pronounced deceleration owing to the onset of major melting of polar ice sheets that began near the end of the twentieth century," Mitrovica wrote. "This human-induced process is slowing rotation by moving melted ice mass from the poles to lower latitudes."
Agnew and colleagues suggest that while a negative leap second won't be required by UTC until 2029 now, the problem this change poses for computer network timing requires changes in how UTC is aligned to the Earth’s rotation to be made earlier than currently planned.
"Unless international timekeeping guidelines change soon, the myriad technological foundations of human society must be updated in preparation for this unprecedented event and for the disappearance of 23:59:59 on a single day in the not-too-distant future," Mitrovica concluded.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Robert Lea is a science journalist in the U.K. whose articles have been published in Physics World, New Scientist, Astronomy Magazine, All About Space, Newsweek and ZME Science. He also writes about science communication for Elsevier and the European Journal of Physics. Rob holds a bachelor of science degree in physics and astronomy from the U.K.’s Open University. Follow him on Twitter @sciencef1rst.
-
Helio It would be interesting to see the data on Earth's rotation rate. There is a group that uses quasar positions to find millisecond variations in our rotation rate. Air mass movements are the main source of variations, IIRC. I recall the change in our rotation rate when the large tsunami (Indonesia) hit, though it was not the largest cause for that time period.Reply
I would assume the ice melts would demonstrate a net increase in our rotation period, but perhaps not much. -
Ken Fabian
Ice melt will move mass from nearer the poles to nearer the equator; I would expect that to slow Earth's rotation. Observation (and theory) shows that ice sheet mass loss causes sea levels nearby to fall due to local gravity effects; it is furthest away from them that gets the most sea level rise.Helio said:I would assume the ice melts would demonstrate a net increase in our rotation period, but perhaps not much.
I expect that keeping the clocks in sync with Earth's rotation will be the least of the issues from global ice loss - which is already up to 60 metric tons of ice sheet melt per person per year. And the impacts of ice loss may be huge in the longer term but other climate impacts will be more near term. -
Helio
Yes. There are areas where the reduction of ice mass due to melting causes a rise in the land, which distorts the real sea level rise estimates.Ken Fabian said:Ice melt will move mass from nearer the poles to nearer the equator; I would expect that to slow Earth's rotation. Observation (and theory) shows that ice sheet mass loss causes sea levels nearby to fall due to local gravity effects; it is furthest away from them that gets the most sea level rise.
I expect that keeping the clocks in sync with Earth's rotation will be the least of the issues from global ice loss - which is already up to 60 metric tons of ice sheet melt per person per year. And the impacts of ice loss may be huge in the longer term but other climate impacts will be more near term.
My thought is that the millisecond measurements in the Earth’s reduction in the average rotation rate might be a useful, and more accurate, way to measure real sea level rise.
However, the rise in the land would likely make this too complicated. -
billslugg "ice sheet mass loss causes sea levels nearby to fall due to local gravity effects"Reply
This statement does not refer to isostatic rebound from ice sheet loss, but the gravitational attraction of the ice sheet, pulling the nearby waters towards it. This is why Greenland's seal level will drop as the ice sheet is lost. Isostatic rebound will also play a role. However, isostatic rebound occurs upward only where the ice sheet was thick. Near the coast, that area goes downward to compensate. This is why US East Coast isostatic rebound of the land is downward. Canada is moving upward, US East coast downward. -
Unclear Engineer This whole subject of ice sheet effects on Earth's rotation is something that I have been asking about for over 2 decades, but mostly my questions have been ignored.Reply
The current article about ice loss affecting day length is trivial compared to what must have happened when the 2-mile-thick ice sheets in the northern hemisphere melted rather rapidly about 20,000 years ago, raising sea level by around 325'. The Earth is still a little "pear shaped" as the rock slowly adjusts to having been depressed under the continents in the northern hemisphere, and some land is still rebounding upward, while the areas that were not glaciated are still slowly sinking back down.
So, what is happening now is only "unprecedented" in that humans are measuring and recording it. Much larger effects have already happened in human experience.
But, not only should the interglacial period melting have affected the day length by a lot more than what his article is talking about, I am thinking that it should have also affected the rate of "wobble" of our spin axis, just like pressing on a spinning top makes it wobble differently. Wouldn't that have changed the rate of precession and made different frequencies of the Milankovitch cycles? Could taking that into account help make the global climate models better match the geological records for the actual ice age frequencies? -
Classical Motion Our problem with earth time is not the rate of rotation. Any rate will cause the same problem. Because it takes more than one, 360 degree rotation to line up with the sun every day. Earth's rotation is not absolute, it's relative to our star. Not still space. A result of motion mechanics.Reply
You may use math to describe and measure it, but not power or reason it. Math has no power or reason. Math is NOT self powered. Like mass is. -
Unclear Engineer Earth's rotation can be measured against "fixed" stars - stars that do not appear to move from Earth's perspective - at least not in an amount that matters to determining a fixed direction. So, one 360 degree rotation is called a "sidereal day", and it is shorter than a "solar day" because the Earth needs to rotate (on average) 360 + 360/365.25 degrees to get the same point directly facing the Sun the next day. Of course, there is some variability of that solar day length because the Earth's orbit is elliptical, not perfectly circular, and its angular progress around the Sun varies in speed.Reply
What this article is talking about is the rotation rate of the Earth as measured against the "fixed" stars, which can be determined quite precisely.
And, that varies some, too, for a variety of reasons both short term and long term. -
Helio
There is a group, which a quick search didn't find, that uses quasars since their great distance gives greater accuracy.Unclear Engineer said:Earth's rotation can be measured against "fixed" stars -
There is also the G. This is a new underground laser system that measures hourly, apparently. -
Ken Fabian
That was not what I was pointing out - the sea level fall around where ice mass is lost is due to reduced local gravity from the reduced mass. It is a rapid response to change in local gravity. Isostatic rebound - land rising - from less mass is a lot slower and is a different phenomena.Helio said:Yes. There are areas where the reduction of ice mass due to melting causes a rise in the land, which distorts the real sea level rise estimates. -
Helio
It seems likely that the rebound would be slow in accord with slow melting. If a vast, mile-thickness glacier, however, were to vanish instantly, I would expect a very quick rebound.Ken Fabian said:That was not what I was pointing out - the sea level fall around where ice mass is lost is due to reduced local gravity from the reduced mass. It is a rapid response to change in local gravity. Isostatic rebound - land rising - from less mass is a lot slower and is a different phenomena.