https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses Imagining the physics of it it seems plausible. I image that if the bottom left of a spining sphere becomes more massive while the top right of the spining sphere becomes less massive, the spinning sphere will loose it equilibrium and shift towards its new center of mass
Compared to the mass of the earth that mass is negligible. The earth's mass is about 6 sextillion (10 to the 21) tons. The mass gain is about 100 billion (10 to the 9th) tons a year. That is 12 orders of magnitude difference.
Is your argument then that this different will have no effect? Even as the antartic continues to gain more mass and the artic loosing mass? A different will always have an effect. And while that may be the mass of the earth, it is not evenly distributed. I think that we can get the answer by finding out how land mass is distributed. And I dont hink that assertion takes platetectonics into the account and just looks at the earth as a solid sphere. But the crust is free moving So the weight of the innards is inconsequential. The crust makes up 1% of earths total volume. I imagine that if Antarctica becomes massive enough while the artic becomes less massive that this will cause earth crust to slip and shift towards the new center of mass. Could be world ending
Do you understand the scale of the differences? It's the difference between a trillion and a 1. A trillionth does not make a difference. Even if I take your assertion of 1%, we still have a billionth. A billionth is still a trivial amount. (a billionth means a fraction with a 1 over a billion.)
The mass of the innards definitely matters. Afterall, that's part of how center of mass is calculated. I'd have to do some digging, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Moon-Earth tidal forces have a bigger impact on Earth's center of mass due to the tidal bulge than does the uneven glaciation at the poles. Someone should look that up if they get time.
Do we really know this? That there has been no shift? We know that axial tilt had always stayed constant. Only changing by a factor of 1 or 2 degrees over millions of years. But since the crust is freefloating, you can have a shift while maintaining a constant axial tilt. Think of a gyro. The surrounding free floating rings of the gyro are free to move and rotate when a force is applied. Even as the axial tilt stays constant.
Technically speaking, just by walking around you shift the earths retation. But not measurably or in any way that matters. Even if the earths rotation or orientation were to shift by a few inches no one would know it.
According to calculations done here- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09...ng-until-antarctic-ice-touches-south-america/ -it will take 36 years for ice sheet to expand enough to form a land bridge with south America. Assuming that the ice sheet expand uniformly around. For the sake of this thought experiment lets get rid of that assumption. Thinking of earth's crust as the free floating rings of a gyro which is fixed togeather, picture Antarctic ice sheet lopsidedly extending towards south America forming a land bridge. This new addition of mass will weigh it down causing the tip of south American to ever so slightly drift downwards towards south. This will cause more ice to form because its getting further from equator which will in tern weight it down some more and so on. Eventually youll get to the point(keeping the same continental orientation) where south America becomes the new south pole and europe becomes the new north pole. Even as the 23 degree axial tilt stays constant. Again think of earths crust as a free floating ring of a gyroscope. A sphere with a stationary spining core that keeps a constant axis and an independent freefloating surface with shapes of continents on it.
The Earth is not a Gyroscope in ANY way and our magnetic field is unaffected by land mass for the most part. Axial tilt is effected on extremely long time frames and does not shift in decades, centuries, or even thousands of years abruptly...cosmology and planetary science disagree with this hypothesis completely.
No one is arguing that the degree of axial tilt itself will shift. Nor that it will effect our magnetic field This is a thought experiment to see if something like cust displacement could happen due to lump lumpsided accumulation of ice mass on one side while at the same time the other side is losing ice mass. Spining core with crust thats moves independently of it. Sounds like a gyro to me. "The 1950's-60's were a period in which continental drift was still discredited but plate tectonics had been validated by mid-Atlantic ridge spreading. (Or: We knew ocean floors were spreading, but didn't think that continents did as well.) It was only in the early 1970's that continental drift was solidly evidenced and became the mainstream view. For the intervening decades, this chaos among the geological scientific establishment lent credence to ideas like Hapgood's. (As a result, Hapgood was able to get a foreword to The Earth's Shifting Crust from Albert Einstein.) Hapgood (like most people) believed that continental drift didn't exist. However, supposedly after a student asked him about the fictional continent of Mu, Hapgood wanted to find an explanation for changes in the Earth's features over time that explained historical lost continents. This led him on the quest that brought him to numerous archival maps in the Library of Congress (such as the Piri Reis map) that supposedly showed ancient coastlines and a large southern lost continent that became Antarctica. Hapgood thus speculated that the crust has shifted suddenly in relation to the rotational axis at periods of time in the past, causing massive changes to the crust. A phenomenon called true polar wander does in fact exist and has been demonstrated. It is produced when wobbles in the Earth's core, or changes in the topography of the crust-mantle boundary, bringing the two largest of Earth's moments of inertia near equality, with the result of a geographic shift in the locations of the poles. The rotational axis does not shift relative to the stars, but the Earth itself reorients relative to the rotational axis, in the same way that any spinning nonspherical object (say, an egg) will orient its longest axis to its rotational equator." Maybe just like how continental drift was considered pseudo science then the crust displacement theory is considered pseudo science now Earth crust displacement theory is largely considered pseudo science because scientists think that the only way that the crust displacement could happen is with a large impact. Thus they say that the effects of crust displacement would be trivial compared to the actual impact that causes it But who says that it has to be an impact? Is an impact the only way of creating a force? What if one side of the globe is lumpsidedly gaining more ice mass while the other side is loosing ice mass. And since the ice mass gain is already near the bottom of the globe(tip of south America) it won't take as much force to cause it to sink down since its pretty much gravity assisted. Maybe I should paint this in a more extreme so you guys can get a better picture of what I'm talking about. If you clumped all the antarctic ice mass together in a giant ice ball and superglued that ball to the tip of south America, what do you image will happen? Glue a weight to a ball and see which way it will roll As explained. I think that it would cause the south american tip to sink down towards the bottom.
IF....Unicorns ate magic Iridium coated acorns while swimming in localized mercury lakes that shimmered in unison with Tacyon particles inundating the atmosphere from supernova activity on the moon, a left handed force field would instantly shift our dimension into dark matter neutrino invisibility. But, only on Saturdays and Jewish holidays.
Mocking my post is not providing evidence against it. Your type of mentality prohibits true scientific discovery since it stays in the confines of what you know without ever venturing beyond. It never goes beyond what is established and what is already known. Thats not discovery. Scientific consensus change with time with introduction of new discoveries. You can only have that by venturing beyond that consensus. True polar wonder is an established scientific fact. What can cause it is up for debate as we dont have all the facts.
