<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
With added water being free to move about our planet, shorley this will have some affect on the rotation of earth and or the axis of our lovely earth.
The total amount of water is the same, but its distribution can be altered by global warming. Specifically, mass moves from the poles to lower latitudes and this must slightly increase the moments of inertia of the earth. Since angular momentum is conserved, the rotation of the earth will slow and days will be longer. The effect is rather small, a few milliseconds, but easily measured.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/users/jcm/T…
—
No. GW won’t create any water. It will change some from solid to liquid and some liquid to gaseous and will relocate some but that’s it. And the weight is negligible compared to the mass of the Earth. (Oh, OK, d/dx… is right, due to conservation of angular momentum, moving water from the poles to the equator will have a very miniscule impact).
But there’s some interesting answers already:
“water moving into it’s liquid state would weigh less” - really? Well, there goes the law of conservation of mass (unless ice turning to water involves thermonuclear reactions…)
“the worst it could do is flood the Earth” - nope, the worst it could do is raise sea levels by 80m - lots of land higher than that