Geoengineering

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Elling</i>
<br />How many percent of the Earth's mass needs to be moved to the polar areas for a 1 deg tilt correction to be carried out over 10 years?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All the water in all the oceans of the planet comprise less than one-tenth of one percent of Earth's mass. -|Tom|-

Hmm, found fresh articels on the 41000 year cycle between 24 and 22.2deg and the 433 day wobble.
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/whoi-cie032905.php
www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/chandlerwobble.html
www.michaelmandeville.com/polarmotion/sp...ex_correlations2.htm
The ice weight on the poles and the tilt really control each other as seems to be indicated in these articles.
Building up a 1cm ice layer in the Antarctica in a year corresponds roughly to the normal flow in the Hudson river but it takes of course extra energy to lift and spread it in addition to desalination and keeping the pipes warm.
But it would invite a further study. At least I'm not convinved that its utopian.



Elling

Sounds like you're way too anxious to open Pandora's box. Anyway, you would not be changing the tilt of the Earth's axis; instead, you would only displace the Earth's crust---a layer conparable in thickness to the skin of an apple. This is the much-maligned theory of the Earth's Shifting Crust.

Sufficient imbalance would begin a slow slippage, which would generate heat in a boundary layer between the crust and mantle. As the boundary layer gets hotter and more fluid, the slippage accelerates; that makes the boundary layer hotter still, and the crust will slip as much as 30 degrees in a few years.

Due to the oblateness of the Earth, regions moving away from the equator will be crunched together and regions moving away from the poles will be split open. This process occurs at fairly regular intervals and produces cataclysmic earthquakes and vulcanism. Are you sure you really want to mess with Mother Nature to this extent?

For more about the consequences of the latest crustal slippage, see Atlantis and the Earth's Shifting Crust .

The boundry between the crust and mantle of Earth is very near the surface. The mass of all the stuff above this boundry is only about one percent of the total mass of the Earth and has a tiny effect on the total. The part of the crust you are thinking about is way less than 1% of the total mass of the crust. This is very tiny when set against the total mass of the Earth and the scale is the first thing you need to resolve before getting bogged down is the ooze.

When Chernobyl and now the Moscow (Dec. 15) reactor accident occurred:

1. The moon was full.

2. Either Earth lay near the minor axis of Earth's orbital ellipse, and Luna near the major axis of Luna's orbital ellipse (Chernobyl) or Earth near its major axis and Luna near its minor axis (Moscow).

3. Luna's line of nodes was perpendicular to Earth's orbital motion
(Chernobyl) or parallel to it (Moscow).

There's no reason to suspect that the moon had any direct effect on the reactors, but maybe it drove the operators mad. Both incidents were caused by human lunacy.