I recently read a headline from CNN Science. It noted, essentially, that the "Earth is spinning faster." That is eye-catching. The article proceeds with a discussion of "milliseconds" in each day. The concern is that some days are just over one millisecond, "less than 24 hours."
For clarity, a millisecond is one thousandth of a second. In numerical terms, it is 0.001 seconds. Most of us struggle to distinguish one second from the next, and this measure would have us divide "one Mississippi" or "one thousand one" into a thousand parts and find relevance in each. This seems much like examining a single grain of sand on a vast beach.
There are 24 hours each day, 1,440 minutes, 86,400 seconds, and 86,400,000 (86 million) milliseconds. One of those 86 million seems a curious concern. One millisecond per day does not equate to one second each year.
Nonetheless, there was a focus there on July 10. It was "the shortest day of the year so far, lasting 1.36 milliseconds less than 24 hours." If each day of the year were 1.36 milliseconds short, then the year would come out 496.4 milliseconds short, or roughly half a second. Believe me or don't we have data on this gathered by the "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" and "the US Naval Observatory."
The CNN author candidly concludes that this discrepancy is nothing new or unexpected. And, furthermore, that it "doesn’t have any obvious effect on everyday life." So, we might wonder why there is an "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" to keep careful track of these?
The author contends that these milli-fluctuations might someday have a cumulative impact on our "computers, satellites, and telecommunications." This is comparable, apparently, to the disaster in 2000 when all the world's computers stopped working because of the dreaded "Y2K problem, which threatened to bring modern civilization to a halt."
New flash for the younger generations - we were threatened, preached to, and disquieted as the millennium approached. The experts told us that in designing computers, we had shortcut our date references and that the computers would all fail us once the 19xx turned to a 20xx. Massive dollars were invested, both in computer programming and in our anxieties.
On New Year's Day 2000, the computers all remained functional. The planes continued to take off and land, the banking worked, and the world neither ended nor even changed much, despite the dire predictions. Perhaps the predictions were misguided or wrong? Possibly, the flurry of programming in the late 90s merely fixed all the potential failures?
Despite the "never mind" outcome of Y2k, there is now this concern among scientists regarding the shortened days, with a potential cumulative effect of almost one-half of a second this year. There is likely some reason this news story is not leading the headlines on social media.
The solution? Well, it is not a new problem. In reality, this planet has likely been experiencing these fluctuations since the dawn of time (Og and Grok likely simply did not notice). But, since 1972, the officials at the "International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service" have been periodically fixing the problem: "Since 1972, a total of 27 leap seconds have been added" to our days.
An extra second sprinkled in periodically keeps us all straight, much like a spoonful of sugar, perhaps. The experts may, eventually, remove a second for the first time. Despite the difficulty of making these findings either relevant or interesting, in the end, there is no real issue for concern here. Congratulations on reaching this far into a seemingly non-story.
Nonetheless, the scientific analysis in the article bears our consideration. One scientist is quoted regarding the impact of "the moon and the tides," which can cause the earth to "spin slower" at times. And these influences "compound ... the fact that during the summer Earth naturally spins faster."
Read that last scientific conclusion again, and think about it: "during the summer Earth naturally spins faster."
That pulled me back to third grade. I recall the revelation there that the world is a vast place, with some balances. The one we learned in third grade is that seasons are geography-specific. The third-grade example was that when it is winter in the U.S., it is summer in Australia. I suspect the teacher used Australia because of kangaroos, koalas, and other oddities that made the place resonate with our young minds.
Half a moment. That revelation would suggest, perhaps, that it is always summer somewhere. This is way more believable than "it is always sunny in Philadelphia," an axiom that I have personally witnessed debunked more than once. Then, if it is always summer somewhere, is the Earth rotating faster wherever it is summer at the moment?
Some are likely scratching their heads at this point. A few are hung up on the "summer somewhere" point and thinking of the old "it's five o'clock somewhere ..." Others are more openly screaming, "What does this have to do with workers' compensation?" No worries, I get that a lot.
Workers' compensation is all about science. There are instances in which no medical opinion is needed to establish the accident or injury, but it is nonetheless often required there. What are the probabilities for recovery, the extent of impairment, and the probable future care required? Science! What are the financial needs, the investment probabilities, and the loss ratios? Science!
Science is critical. I have been here before: Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make You Think (August 2021); Show Me The Science (September 2021); Science or Art (November 2023). Science should be replicable and predictable. The same experiment performed here in Paradise should produce the same result if it were performed instead in Australia. Not prediction, guess, or hypothesis—result, evidence, proof.
The workers' compensation system relies on medical opinions - a lot. The scientist's job is two-fold: (1) administer the science and (2) explain it to the rest of us. In that, the "summer somewhere" resonates. Perhaps my assumption is wrong—summer is not a constant. Perhaps my third-grade comprehension is too basic, and summer is actually more complex (or even a mere State of Mind, Surf School Dropouts, 2012).
But the real point is in (2) above. The scientist's job is to tell us about it. That is, explain it to us. Make your conclusion ("the planet spins faster when it is summer" somewhere) logical for us. Don't lay down broad, glossy statements and conclusions without the factual and necessary foundation. Explain not merely what you have concluded, but why and how you got there.
The scientist must remember that we did not all go to school to study their specialty (medicine, actuary, etc.). Some of us have only our third-grade exposure to seasons and our personal experiences (blueberries must be in season somewhere). The scientist must explain, educate, and guide us beyond the "faster in summer" and answer the broader questions, whether apparent or not.
- How do you know it?
- Why does it matter?
- Is that opinion or fact?
We have been misled before (standing in the Philadelphia rain and pondering the word "always"). We have a breadth of knowledge and experiences, but not yours. We require your conclusions and your sound and useful explanations.
