Humans’ unquenchable thirst for groundwater has sucked so much liquid from subsurface reserves that it’s affecting Earth’s tilt, according to a new study.
Groundwater provides drinking water for people and livestock, and it helps with crop irrigation when rain is scarce. However, the new research shows that persistent groundwater extraction over more than a decade shifted the axis on which our planet rotates, tipping it over to the east at a rate of about 1.7 inches (4.3 centimeters) per year.
That shift is even observable on Earth’s surface, as it contributes to global sea level rise, researchers reported in the study published June 15 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
“Earth’s rotational pole actually changes a lot,” said lead study author Ki-Weon Seo, a professor in the department of Earth science education at Seoul National University in South Korea, in a news release. “Our study shows that among climate-related causes, the redistribution of groundwater actually has the largest impact on the drift of the rotational pole.” ...
The researchers then evaluated sea level variations “using the groundwater mass change from the model,” to pinpoint how much of the axis shift was caused by groundwater pumping alone, Seo said.
The redistribution of groundwater tilted Earth’s rotational axis east by more than 31 inches (78.7 centimeters) in just under two decades, according to the models. The most notable driver of long-term variations in the rotational axis was already known to be mantle flow — the movement of molten rock in the layer between Earth’s crust and outer core. The new modeling reveals that groundwater extraction is the second most significant factor, Seo said.
The CNN article fails to mention that the "two decades" they were measuring were 1993–2010. So, there's been another 13 years since then, and humanity's water usage has probably only risen in that time.
The observed drift since humans have been able to make these observations is that our natural tilt fluctuates 2⁰ over 40,000 or so years. Which comes out to about 576 inches a year (I didnt do the maths, im basing this off the speed that the polar circle is currently drifting, not sure if thats the best way to approximate earths tilt vs. orbital plane). So comparing that to 31 inches of drift per year due to water, this seems to account for roughly 5% of the observed axial drift of the earth.
It's dawning on me that our most current astronomical measurements and this study are drawing on the same time period of observations, and that most of the water humans have moved around on earth likely occurred before and/or after the decades this model accounts for. So yeah, it's troubling.
Haven't humans been extracting groundwater (i.e. drilling wells for drinking water & irrigation) since prehistoric times? No doubt our usage has grown in recent decades. Our use of nearly all resources has become much more intensive over time. But it's not easy to see how civilization might exist away from immediately riparian areas without using groundwater.
Right, but we’ve seen effectively exponential population growth in the last few centuries. Global population just 200 years ago was 1.2 billion, and those people had far less industry needing groundwater for their processes.
I don't intend to imply that groundwater extraction should cease, only that this effect desperately needs to be studied further. Perhaps we can develop a way to safely replace or counterbalance the mass of the groundwater we take out. Perhaps we wont need to, and natural processes that take longer than human timescales will have negative feedback mechanisms that will gradually counteract the effect. We need more precise data than an 2 decades model can provide if we want to be able to project how this will continue. Of course we also don't want Antarctica at the equator in X thousand years. We should understand what's happening better before we define and label this as a problem problem develop and propose solutions. But the known unknown, the potential for extreme axial drift leading to mass exctinction via a "global roll," is just waiting to be investigated.
It's difficult to quantify exactly how much human population has really grown. It's estimated that the Black Plague took 20 to 25 million lives which was thought to be anywhere from 30% to 50% of global human population at the time, which was between 1348 to 1350. The estimated population in the 1600's is roughly 500,000,000 (five hundred million humans). Roughly half of the population just 200 years later by the 1800's, where we reached 1 billion people on the planet.
So in just over 200 years we have expanded 7 fold. Even adding up the entirety of the human population from 5,000 bce to 1100 A.D. is barely reaching the total amount of humans we have today.
For context, we're at/near 8 billion now. A century ago, 1923, we had roughly 2 billion people.
The sheer amount of expansion we've had far outweighs total lives in human history. Multiple, multiple centuries of humans never even came close to amounting the resource draw which we have today - in part due to technology, in part because we've paved a way for more efficient destruction, and in part because we have multiplied our numbers.
Man made precipitation machines? Manually create the process of forming hydrogen and oxygen bonds? I have no idea. All I know is that the numbers of humans throughout history into our present day are very difficult to grasp exactly just how exponentially we've grown, which is mostly what I was referring to in regards to the sheer amount of resource draw it takes.
For water specifically - sustainable methods is our only real option. Removing the power that Nestle holds as a corporation over a human necessity would be another. That alone would give a plethora of small communities their natural springs and reservoirs back in addition to being one less thing fraking our water.
I also think smarter use of water. Plumbing shouldn't really be using clean or grey water. I don't know exactly what, but I know that pissing and shitting into a ever filtering water supply isn't what it should be. Literally the entire system is fine except for the choice of fluid. Similarly, grey water should be much more widely used. Similar to these, these need to be implemented globally and used in tandem with existing methods. Bonus: theoretically it could have other resource gains and taking water from the ocean solves another issue with water levels rising.
If some of these sound insane or absurd, it's because that's just how fucked we are in terms of actual solutions. Right now we need to be thinking practically because that's the only plausible, or rather feasible way of it being effective. The fact that our main solutions right now are reliant on hypothetical and prototyped technology doesn't exactly bode well for our future. But hey, maybe the new land previously permafrosted in the arctic will reveal some new elements, fossils, and lost civilizations technologies! (/s)
That said, if mechanisms do get figured out and if they are effective, a combination of cleaned ocean water, man-made water, and reorienting current systems to be more sustainable we may actually have a chance at replenishing clean water supplies with surplus. However, I think the chances of the United States transitioning from clean water plumbing to some hypothetical non-existed replacement is more likely than Nestle ever losing an ounce of power. And honestly, that's the most damning problem of all. Our solutions will not matter if corporations stay on course.
Yo Buckminster Fuller was saying back in the 60's that the earth was too small for us to ignore environmental problems and this is literally exactly what the fuck he was talking about. Ugh.
Add comment