ssion List; Matsakis, Demetrios
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Earth speeding up?
In message , "Mats
akis, Demetrios" writes:
>The best hand-waiving arguments I've heard for these recent "decadal
>fluctuations" is that the oblateness of the Earth is changing, possibly
Rob,
> I think you mean many days shorter than 86400 seconds, not longer?
Right. Sign error. Thanks.
> Any betting person would say the plot shows an upward trend over the past 40
> years. A simple linear fit suggests the earth will be back to an honest 86400
> second day within a few years, a
On Apr 15, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
> On Tue 2014-04-15T09:42:20 -0400, Joseph Gwinn hath writ:
>> This first negative leap second may end civilization - essentially no
>> leap-second handling code is really ready for a step backwards.
>
> I think not. I think many of the computing
In message , "Mats
akis, Demetrios" writes:
>The best hand-waiving arguments I've heard for these recent "decadal
>fluctuations" is that the oblateness of the Earth is changing, possibly
>due to the ice caps changing.
Well, I'd somewhat doubt that.
The Arctic is sea-ice, so no net change in grav
> I'm not a geophysicist, but I too have noted what Tom reports. I've attached
> a plot that by coincidence I just made last week.
>
> The best hand-waiving arguments I've heard for these recent "decadal
> fluctuations"
> is that the oblateness of the Earth is changing, possibly due to the ice ca
> The best quip about the plot of LOD since 1972 is that the institution
> of leap seconds must obviously have caused the earth to speed up.
Next time you visit IERS, ask for the special tour, and they will show you the
knob they use to adjust LOD ;-)
> There was a clear local maximum of LOD aro
Hi Tom,
I see Steve and Demetrios have also responded.
> I know it's a risk making trend lines, but those of us who work with clocks,
> oscillators and frequency standards find it irresistible to peek ahead
> sometimes and guess what's coming. This applies to my favorite clock, the
> earth.
M
> Negative leapseconds are *much* easier to implemnent that
> positive leapseconds: They just look like the world stopped for
> a second, and they leave no timestamp ambiguity.
I agree with PHK. Aside the issue of potentially unexpected missing second, at
least negative leap seconds are compatib
On Tue 2014-04-15T13:51:10 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> That said, I'm not sure I fully buy Toms prediction yet, 35 years
> isn't that long of a data-set
The best quip about the plot of LOD since 1972 is that the institution
of leap seconds must obviously have caused the earth to speed up
In message <20140415094220442884.d7ec3...@comcast.net>, Joseph Gwinn writes:
>This first negative leap second may end civilization - essentially no
>leap-second handling code is really ready for a step backwards. Yes, I
>know the standard says it can go both ways. But who reads such boring
>d
On Tue 2014-04-15T09:42:20 -0400, Joseph Gwinn hath writ:
> This first negative leap second may end civilization - essentially no
> leap-second handling code is really ready for a step backwards.
I think not. I think many of the computing systems which fail for
positive leaps are ready for negati
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 06:31:21 -0700, Tom Van Baak wrote:
> I know it's a risk making trend lines, but those of us who work with
> clocks, oscillators and frequency standards find it irresistible to
> peek ahead sometimes and guess what's coming. This applies to my
> favorite clock, the earth.
>
I know it's a risk making trend lines, but those of us who work with clocks,
oscillators and frequency standards find it irresistible to peek ahead
sometimes and guess what's coming. This applies to my favorite clock, the earth.
See attached inverse length of day plots (that is, frequency error
13 matches
Mail list logo
