Research confirms it's a small world, after all

Aug 16, 2011
This view of Earth comes from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aboard the Terra satellite. Image credit: NASA

(PhysOrg.com) -- A NASA-led research team has confirmed what Walt Disney told us all along: Earth really is a small world, after all.

Since Charles Darwin's time, scientists have speculated that the solid Earth might be expanding or contracting. That was the prevailing belief, until scientists developed the theory of plate tectonics, which explained the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere, or outermost shell. Even with the acceptance of plate tectonics half a century ago, some Earth and space scientists have continued to speculate on Earth's possible expansion or contraction on various scientific grounds.

Now a new NASA study, published recently in , has essentially laid those speculations to rest. Using a cadre of space and a new data calculation technique, the team detected no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth.

So why should we care if Mother Nature is growing? After all, Earth's shape is constantly changing. Tectonic forces such as earthquakes and volcanoes push mountains higher, while erosion and landslides wear them down. In addition, large-scale like El Nino and La Nina redistribute vast water masses among Earth's ocean, atmosphere and land.

Scientists care because, to put movements of Earth's crust into proper context, they need a frame of reference to evaluate them against. Any significant change in Earth's radius will alter our understanding of our planet's physical processes and is fundamental to the branch of science called geodesy, which seeks to measure Earth's shape and , and how they change over time.

To make these measurements, the global science community established the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. This reference frame is used for ground navigation and for tracking spacecraft in . It is also used to monitor many aspects of , including and its sources; imbalances in ice mass at Earth's poles; and the continuing rebound of Earth's surface following the retreat of the massive ice sheets that blanketed much of Earth during the last Ice Age.

But measuring changes in Earth's size hasn't exactly been easy for scientists to quite literally "get their arms around." After all, they can't just wrap a giant tape measure around Earth's belly to get a definitive reading. Fortunately, the field of high-precision space geodesy gives scientists tools they can use to estimate changes in Earth's radius. These include:

• Satellite laser ranging -- a global observation station network that measures, with millimeter-level precision, the time it takes for ultrashort pulses of light to travel from the ground stations to satellites specially equipped with retroreflectors and back again.

• Very-long baseline interferometry -- a radio astronomy technology that combines observations of an object made simultaneously by many telescopes to simulate a telescope as big as the maximum distance between the telescopes.

• Global Positioning System -- the U.S.-built space-based global navigation system that provides users around the world with precise location and time information.

• Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite -- a French satellite system used to determine satellite orbits and positioning. Beacons on the ground emit radio signals that are received by satellites. The movement of the satellites causes a frequency shift of the signal that can be observed to determine ground positions and other information.

Scientists use all these techniques to calculate the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. Central to the reference frame is its point of origin: the precise location of the average center of mass of the total Earth system (the combination of the solid Earth and the fluid envelope of ocean, ice and atmosphere that surrounds it, around which all Earth satellites orbit). Scientists currently determine this origin point based on a quarter century of satellite laser ranging data, considered the most accurate space geodetic tool for this purpose.

But the accuracy of the satellite laser ranging data and all existing space geodesy technologies is contaminated, both by the effects of other major Earth processes, and limited ground measurement sites. Think of it this way: if all of Earth's GPS stations were located in Norway, their data would indicate that Earth is growing, because high-latitude countries like Norway are still rising in elevation in response to the removal of the weight of Ice Age ice sheets. So how can scientists be sure the reference frame is accurate?

Enter an international group of scientists led by Xiaoping Wu of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and including participants from the Institut Geographique National, Champs-sur-Marne in France, and Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands. The team set out to independently evaluate the accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame and shed new light on the Earth expansion/contraction theory.

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Explore further: International science team could help to predict future earthquakes

Related Stories

Scientist Finds a New Way to the Center of the Earth

Jun 12, 2007

Humans have yet to see Earth's center, as did the characters in Jules Verne's science fiction classic, "Journey to the Center of the Earth." But a new NASA study proposes a novel technique to pinpoint more ...

NASA uses new method to estimate earth mass movements

Sep 14, 2010

NASA and European researchers have conducted a novel study to simultaneously measure, for the first time, trends in how water is transported across Earth's surface and how the solid Earth responds to the retreat ...

NASA Satellites Measure and Monitor Sea Level

Jul 08, 2005

For the first time, researchers have the tools and expertise to understand the rate at which sea level is changing and the mechanisms that drive that change. Sea levels rise and fall as oceans warm and coo ...

Mapping mountains from space with GOCE

Aug 01, 2007

How high is Mount Everest exactly? Recent surveys have come up with heights that differ by more than five metres. An expedition called the Geodetic Journey is making its way through China and Tibet to highlight ...

Earth is getting fatter

Jul 28, 2011

Like many of its inhabitants, the Earth is getting thicker around the middle -- that's what a new study out this week says. The increased bulge is due to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Recommended for you

Image: Towing the Costa Concordia

5 hours ago

This Sentinel-1A image was acquired on 26 July 2014 over the coast of northwestern Italy while the Costa Concordia cruise ship (enlarged) was being towed towards the city of Genoa.

User comments : 11

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Isaacsname
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2011
And it's not in anybody's hands but our own.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2011
Deze so callem scientistes donts knows nofink.

If dee earths isnt done cooling then its gotcha be bigening.

Explains this here so called scientsits. I challenge.

and yoo cants tells me dats obame aint no muslin.

http://www.youtub...7qDeI05U
Y8Q412VBZP21010
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2011
"It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."
skitterlad
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2011
0.1mm per year thickness?
Earth's Surface area, 510072000 km2

do the math. That's pretty big. and whats that? millions or billions of years of time. that's now something to consider. Fancy Scientists!
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2011
@Skitterlad The earth is NOT growing at .1mm per year. The raw data output .1mm per year, but the measurement was not accurate at those scales.

I dont even know why they would give that figure, it only serves to confuse. They should have just said that any change (if present) was undetectable using their method.

statistically insignificant figures contain zero information, the only useful bit of information they could have given would have been the level of uncertainty. Instead all we know is that the uncertainty was >.1mm and that they did not detect any change.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2011
Shouldn't the earth be contracting ever so slightly?
As there the earth cools the crust should slowly grow thicker. With a solid crust presumably being a bit denser than the viscuous mantle below this would mean a smaller average radius.

Though, with the earths crust being 5-30km thick (and that having solidified over the entire lifetime of the earth which is about 4.5 billion years) that effect should be rather small.
GSwift7
not rated yet Aug 17, 2011
Shouldn't the earth be contracting ever so slightly?


That depends who you ask. If the molten core contracts as it cools, but the mantle expands as it solidifies into crust, then they could balance out, but it's unlikely that they 'exactly' cancel out, so which happens faster?

These guys are just saying that our best measurements aren't good enough to say one way or the other.

Observing the Moon, which has already cooled much more than the Earth has, seems to indicate not much expansion or contraction. You would see fissures or wrinkles (mountains) if there had been major changes in radius. There's no weathering to destroy such features, should they have ever formed.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 17, 2011
How 'fined tuned' is the mass loss or gain of Earth?
GSwift7
not rated yet Aug 19, 2011
How 'fined tuned' is the mass loss or gain of Earth?


It's infantessimally small, even over long time scales, but I think it is a net loss.
PPihkala
not rated yet Aug 21, 2011
I think earth is constantly bombarded by small meteorites etc orbiting stuff that will burn and melt at atmosphere. I think someone even suggested that maybe our ocean waters have been made by this way over billions of years. So I would vote for constant increase of earth mass and therefore radius.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2011
Depending on where you look you get figures between 22000 tons and 78000 tons per year from meteorites (with 40000kg/year being the value most often quoted).

It's not clear how much atmospheric mass we lose each year (due to solar wind and stuff generally leeching away into the vacuum of space).

So it's not entirely clear whether earth gains mass, loses mass, gains solid mass but loses atmospheric mass, ...