Minding the Sciences — Spinning Out of Control

When James Taranto edited the Best of the Web Today feature on the Wall Street Journal Opinion page, there was a recurring trope: “Everything seemingly is spinning out of control.” This featured hysterical reactions to ordinary things, such as a new Heinz ketchup recipe “shaking up” fans of the condiment.

It seems now that we have to take Taranto’s trope seriously, if the latest wrinkle in the climate crisis narrative is to be believed. Climate change is altering the spin “of the entire planet,” according to The Byte’s Noor Al-Sibai. Of course it’s “mostly our fault,” says Popular Mechanics. Maybe everything really is spinning out of control?

Well, not quite. Our spinning Earth is being used to spin a phony climate crisis narrative.

This story begins with a scientific instrument: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s GRACE mission. GRACE comprises two satellites orbiting in tandem. As the satellites pass over Earth’s surface, they measure subtle variations in gravitational pull. For example, the gravity over mountains differs from the gravity over oceans. The GRACE satellites enable scientists to map the planet’s surface with unprecedented accuracy and to discern dynamic properties such as the exact location of the so-called rotational north pole (RNP)—the physical point around which the Earth spins.1

We have long known that the RNP is not fixed but wanders over time—true polar wander, as it’s called. This comes about because the distribution of mass on the Earth’s surface also wanders with time: continents move, mountains are pushed up, sea levels vary. Over a ten-million-year period from seventy to eighty million years ago, for example, the RNP wandered widely over northern Siberia, Scandinavia, and North America, ranging as far south as what is now Washington State. This was also a time of vigorous tectonic activity, the movements of magma that push continents around or fuel volcanic eruptions. At other times, polar wander has slowed to a near standstill, as it did about 150 million years ago, when tectonic activity was at a low ebb.

Prior to GRACE, the location of the RNP had to be inferred from small variations in residual magnetism in iron-rich rocks. This method can track changes in the RNP over very long periods of time and over very long distances. GRACE enabled geologists to follow true polar wander at much finer scales of time—month-to-month, rather than millions-of-years-to-millions-of-years—and distance—centimeters rather than hundreds of kilometers. That’s how remarkable an instrument GRACE is.

Now, back to the Earth seemingly spinning out of control. Two years ago, a group of Chinese and Danish scientists used GRACE data to analyze how changes over the past decade in what they called terrestrial water storage—water stored in glaciers and icecaps, mostly—could be inferred from the location of the RNP. They concluded that the translocation of water mass from ice (at elevations higher than sea level) to oceans shifted the RNP at a rate of about ten centimeters (about four inches) per year. This year, a group of Korean and American scientists refined this analysis, breaking down terrestrial water storage into finer components—water stored in ice, lakes, and reservoirs, as well as groundwater. They found that water pumped from the ground to feed agriculture and provide drinking water could account for about forty percent of the observed polar wander (amounting to about four centimeters, or about 1½ inches, per year).

As science, these two studies were a tour de force, warming the cockles of a data nerd’s heart like my own. The authors were also admirably modest in their conclusions. The Chinese researchers presented their findings as a potential tool to help reconstruct ancient climates. The authors of both papers presented their data as another set of measurements that could help dissect the complexities of an ever-changing climate. Neither set of authors went beyond those cautious statements.

Enter the “science press,” which infused these modest findings with ginned-up climate hysteria.

The Guardian kicked things off by telling readers that, according to the 2021 paper, the “massive melting of glaciers has tilted the planet’s rotation, showing the impact of human activities.” Note the scary language, which I have italicized. The publication added that the papers are evidence for the “climate crisis” caused by “the marked acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions and sea level rise, the destruction of wildlife and the transformation of land by farming, deforestation and development.” Neither of the papers said any of those things—The Guardian just filled them in.

Science Alert asserted that “[climate] has shifted the axis of the Earth.” Not to be pedantic, but it was the translocation of water, not climate, that shifted the axis. Climate may have contributed, but glaciers and icecaps come and go for a variety of reasons, including geothermal flux from the Earth’s hot interior, which appears to be driving ice melting at Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf. Popular Mechanics, which I’ve already cited, upped the ante by stating that the Earth’s axis has “secretly shifted.” The New York Times filled in the conspiratorial details: “Something was messing with Earth’s axis. The answer has to do with us.” Talk about a conspiracy theory!

Following the 2023 paper, another wave of climate hysteria articles piled anew onto the story of the Earth’s wandering axis.

New Scientist added an interesting twist. In response to variations in measurements between the papers, a professor from Virginia Tech assured us that the “precise number doesn’t matter really”—an odd thing for a professor of science to say. All that matters, apparently, is what climate change is doing to the planet, never mind that the data may have other explanations. I’ll remember this for the next data set I analyze.

Science magazine chirped its own subtle dig, informing us that “massive” pumping of groundwater has tilted the Earth’s axis. If that wasn’t sufficiently alarmist, then The Byte (whom we’ve already met) breathlessly stated that our groundwater use was “whopping”: 2.1 trillion tons from groundwater into the oceans between 1993 and 2010, which “even caused sea levels to rise” [emphasis mine]. Science Alert jumped in with some climate change folk wisdom: “working towards mitigating human-influenced effects on climate is a long game. The sooner started, the better.” OK, let’s get right on that.

CNN added a dash of guilt and self-loathing, decrying humans’ “unquenchable thirst for groundwater,” which has “sucked so much liquid . . . that it’s affecting Earth’s tilt.” It closed with a sobering reflection on “unintended global consequences.” Scientific American chimed in to blame “rampant groundwater pumping” for changing the tilt of Earth’s axis. Again, note the scary language.

There is a narrative at work here, of course. Foolish, stupid, selfish humanity is destroying the planet in unprecedented ways and at unprecedented rates. These parasites (read, “you other people”) must be restrained, forcibly if necessary, to save the planet. So, stop growing food, stop using water for drink and sanitation, stay in one place, and restrain your lifestyle, or everything will seemingly spin out of control.

How detached from the actual science this is. How convenient is the narrative for one sector of our society that will gain at the expense of others. And how flimsy the justification, all for a change in the location of the north pole that could fit into a game of hopscotch.

1 The RNP is distinct from the magnetic north pole (MNP), toward which a compass needle points.

Editor’s Note: This piece is part of a new Minding the Campus article series called Minding the Sciences, wherein we are renewing our focus on the sciences given the many threats it faces in modern academia. Click here to learn more.

Image: Adobe Stock


  • J. Scott Turner

    J Scott Turner is Emeritus Professor of Biology at SUNY ESF in Syracuse, New York. He is the author of The Extended Organism: the Physiology of Animal-Built Structures (2000, Harvard University Press), and Purpose and Desire. What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It (2017, HarperOne). He is presently Director of Science Programs at the National Association of Scholars.

    View all posts

11 thoughts on “Minding the Sciences — Spinning Out of Control

  1. “They found that water pumped from the ground to feed agriculture and provide drinking water could account for about forty percent of the observed polar wander (amounting to about four centimeters, or about 1½ inches, per year).”


    What is the volume of this water relative to seasonal variances in precipitation?
    One inch/acre is over 27,154 gallons so just one inch of rainfall over hundreds of square miles is going to be a bleepload of water — and that’s just one rainstorm.

    Are we actually pumping enough water out of the ground to come anywhere near these seasonal variances in rainfall/snowfall?

    And when we talk about gravity, with the tides being the best example, it’s usually just the Moon (distance) and the Sun (mass), but there are seven or eight other planets in this solar system alone, along with a whole bunch of other solar systems in the galaxy — all of which have gravity and are moving, so this is not a constant force. Has anyone ever crunched all the numbers to determine how much of this wobble can be attributed to gravity?

    And then the Magnetic North Pole is racing towards Siberia at something like 37 miles a year — has anyone seriously considered the possibility of a polar inversion in progress? A polar inversion is when the North and South poles switch, we know it’s happened several times in the past, and that we are historically overdue for it to happen again. Well????

    I’ve lived through Man Made Global Cooling, Man Made Global Warming, and now Man Made Climate Change — it may be politically incorrect to say this, but there ARE other things that influence the climate…

    And yes, trees do pollute. Evergreens produce aromatic hydrocarbons which become smog, and others produce carbon monoxide.

    1. The authors of the most recent study (Seo, K.-W., D. Ryu, et al. (2023). Drift of Earth’s Pole Confirms Groundwater Depletion as a Significant Contributor to Global Sea Level Rise 1993–2010. Geophysical Research Letters 50(12): e2023GL103509.) actually expressed the groundwater loss in mm water (and to add to your conversion, 1 mm is equivalent to 1 liter over and area of 1 square meter). Over the years 1993-2010 (17 years), they assessed (their figure 2) groundwater depletion as high as 500 mm, or about 29-30 mm rainfall per year. This was concentrated mostly in the Indian subcontinent. Over most of Asia and North America, the groundwater loss was about 100 mm, or about 5-6 mm per year. So, to your first point, yes these are minuscule compared to the seasonal and multiyear variation in rainfall.
      As we’ve seen in California recently, “water crises” can be completely undone by one year’s rains and snow, at which point everyone panics about floods and mudslides. The other interesting thing in the Seo et al paper is a depletion of water stored in reservoirs. Solution? Build more dams, don’t knock them down!
      Finally, with respect to magnetic pole reversal, yes, it could happen, has happened many times in the past, and it’s been a long time since the last one. A magnetic pole reversal would be very challenging, but it’s hard to pin it in atmospheric CO2, so we don’t hear much about it!

      1. The latest hysteria is that the Atlantic Ocean is going to rise two *feet* in the next 27 years. Where is all that water supposed to come from?!?

        The ice on the North Pole is floating so it’s already displacing its weight in liquid water, and how much ice is on the South Pole? Two feet of water in the Atlantic is a LOT of water — it’s 41 million square miles!

  2. As I sit, day after day, in choking smoke from vast forest fires, I find it hard to take the fascinating story of our tilting the earth’s axis, even just a little bit, as some sort of “vast leftwing conspiracy,” to borrow and ben a memorable phrase from Hilary — the politician, not the hurricane.

    1. OK, lets talk about those forest fires — there are three provinces in Eastern Canada — Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Quebec is due north of VT&NH, New Brunswick is due north of Maine, and Nova Scotia is east of that — all at the same latitude and essentially the same weather.

      Quebec and Nova Scotia have had out of control wildfires this year — New Brunswick HASN’T… And the variable is the government and its forest management policies — New Brunswick is the home of the timber giant Irving and Irving has built more roads and cleaned out more deadwood — its done a much better job of managing its woodlands so that the fires that are started by lightning are less likely to spread and easier to access and thus put out.

      Yes, all three provinces have a drought this year — but all three have and one isn’t burning…

      1. I remember when the California wildfires were blamed on climate change, until it became obvious that they were the result of multiple and cascading failures in forest management and power grid maintenance. Climate change is the all-purpose excuse for gross incompetence and negligence.

      2. Uh, no Doc, not in Eastern Canada. As for the claim that private forests are more resistant to fire than public forests — it’s not a simple matter. You can read some actual research on this from, among other places, forestry scientists at Oregon State. It’s also not a simple matter whether climate change is making the North American forests more or less susceptible to fire. It doesn’t have to be all one cause or another. It seems very plausible to me that higher temperatures — which I think almost indisputably exist — make forests more prone to fire.

    2. Except the left is constantly coming up with wacko theories to advance their obsession with power. The climate change hoax is perfect example. And no, forest fires have nothing to do with the climate. They are caused by the left’s refusal to manage the forests by clearing undergrowth. That’s why Maui was so horrible. The electric company didn’t clear the brush because they spent all of their money pushing foolish green energy projects.

      1. True this. Mismanagement of forests and (now in Hawaii, brush) has been an issue going back decades, yet no one seems to apply the lesson! Climate change kills alright, just not how climatistas think it does.

      2. There’s more to Maui that hasn’t come out yet. I’m 6000 miles away and essentially “Kremlin watching” but it appears that a political decision was made to not supply water to the hydrants and this caused families (in extremis) who were sheltering in their showers to die. It’s being suggested that this was a “green” decision — who knows?

        It appears that the land where the fatal fire started was once used to grow sugar cane but no longer is. Now I know there is politics in the sugar market, including corn syrup, but could the NIMBYs have objected to commercial agriculture there?

        Was the land no longer farmed for economic or political reasons?

        It’s also suggested that animals (i.e. livestock) be permitted to graze these “non-native grasses.” That means that cows will eat them and Hawaii did once have a beef industry. But cows smell, and spreading their manure on the fields to produce quality hay smells even more — again, I ask about NIMBYs…

        At best there are two entities — the county fire department and the power company — who made some very bad strategic and immediate decisions, but if these decisions were “green” in nature…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *