Large hydro dams have shifted the earth's poles

For some perspective, just the James Bay Project alone (from the Wikipedia page):

The establishment of reservoirs containing large amounts of standing water has the ability to produce local climate changes. Alteration of annual precipitation patterns, increased abundance of low stratus clouds and fog, and warmer autumns and cooler springs, leading to a delay in the beginning and end of the growing season, have all been observed in the vicinity of the project's major reservoirs. The doubling of the freshwater input into James Bay during the winter decreases the salinity of the seawater, thereby increasing the freezing point of the bay. The resultant increased ice content at the northern section of the project in the winter has cooled warm air currents more than usual, bringing harsher Arctic weather, including strong winds and less precipitation, to south-central Quebec. The tree line at the southern edge of the development has shifted noticeably southward since the project's construction.

Following construction of the project, the area's water flow was substantially modified. In the James Bay area in general, the average monthly surface runoff rate in the winter increased by 52%, doubling the total freshwater input, while that of the summer months decreased by 6%. The James Bay area's water flow is most affected by the hydroelectric project from January to April because rivers have their lowest runoff rates in the winter months when freezing occurs. Additionally, runoff rates in the damming system can be altered to meet power needs, which are highest in the winter and lowest in the summer, thereby more completely reversing the natural water flow cycle. As evidenced by the 500% increase in its winter runoff, the La Grande River is the pillar of the James Bay project's hydroelectric capacity, with the runoff increasing from an average yearly amount of 1,700 m3/s to 3,400 m3/s, and from 500 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s in the winter. This immense harnessing of the area's energy at La Grande was made possible by reducing the Eastmain River's water flow at its mouth by 90% and by reducing that of the Caniaspiscau River's by 45%, and then by diverting these rivers into La Grande. Not only does this alter the runoff amount of the Eastmain and the Caniaspiscau Rivers, but also their drainage location, since prior to having been directly merged with La Grande, these rivers’ drainage locations were separate from the La Grande River. The summer runoff rate of La Grande increased by 40%, making the average annual runoff rate 91% greater than its natural rate.


I would expect that the damming of the Yangtze River with the Three Gorges dam, which also produced a giant reservoir and altered water flows would have a similar impact.
 
Interesting read. I'm not sure I'm convinced. The article mentioned nothing about data to show that the two changes, damming of water and shift in Earth's poles, are necessarily related. is there enough astronomy data around prior to 1835, when the article claims the start of major dam construction in North America and Europe, to show that Earth's axis was relatively stable before this time?

I'm pretty skeptical when I read articles about studies where they only give you the highlights and, we the reader, are supposed to assume that the researchers are right.
Did you also read the study? It's linked as well.

I wouldn't go back that far, I'm thinking of more recent projects like James Bay, Three Gorges, Itaipu...etc. All the largest dams are much newer than 1835.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reservoirs_by_volume
 
And slowed the planet's rotation.

This is according to a study performed by researchers at Harvard University, who investigated the effect of artificial water impoundment on the earth.

While the effects are small in magnitude, it's still very interesting to see how something as simple as just disrupting the natural flows of water have a global impact.

Article here:

https://news.agu.org/press-release/water-storage-in-dams-has-caused-minute-shifts-in-earths-poles/
The Magnetic Pole has inverted a few times already as Geology shows, this may be a coincidence if True.
Sea Currents have a much higher impact on axial rotation than river flow.
These experts have to justify their paycheck ;)
Screenshot 2025-07-26 at 14.50.11.webp
 
Read the study, which is also linked, don't just read the article. I think it's interesting. All activity has an impact, to some degree. A single volcanic eruption can disrupt weather patterns for huge swaths of the earth for years, I don't think it's implausible that blocking the flow of billions of gallons of water would have an effect. Now, how significant is the effect? That's what the study claims to present, and that's debatable of course, as all studies are, but I don't think it's prudent to just outright dismiss the premise.
I read the article. Massive amounts of water was trapped in glaciers around the poles during the ice age. Have an affect - sure. But who knows all the other things having an affect also - like the earths core which they theorize is always moving.
 
Pretty sure that the earths rotation is speeding up and it's the magnetic poles that are shifting.
An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by some force.

For the earth to be speeding up there would have to be some force causing the rotational speed to increase. And I don't know of any such force.

The evidence is that the earth's rotation is very very very slightly slowing. So why would the earth's rotation slow? The only force I can think of is the "friction" from tides. The amount of energy required to move all that water must be tremendous. You can think of all that expended energy as being a force applied over time.

Regarding the study:
(1) There is a plausible basis for the claimed effect - the conservation of angular momentum. A mass (all that water) now located above sea level would be expected to have some effect, though a very very small one.

(2) The amount of movement of the poles claimed to have occurred is minuscule. I'd like to know how they measured the position of the poles with sufficient accuracy to even detect that amount of movement. With satellite based GPS sure, but that's recent technology.

(3) The plates on the earth's surface are known to be moving. For evidence, see the Himalaya mountains, the subduction zone off the Pacific coast of North America, the fissure opening in mid Atlantic giving rise to Iceland, etc. How do we separate the natural movement of the surface plates from movement resulting from large dams?
 
Yeah, because tide gauges for the last 150 years and satellites for the last 50 don't actually exist.
Maybe, but is the sea level rising or the ground subsiding?

It all depends on perspective. When I was a kid, my grandparents moved into a house on the Chesapeake Bay. At low tide, their seawall had several feet of sand exposed, and at high tide there was nearly 4.5’ of water depth at the seawall. In the interim 35 years, they had to extend their dock 80’ further into the water, and now even at high tide there is nearly 100’ of beach between the seawall and the edge of the tide.

If all you want to do is rely on water depth, their property is being thrust upwards out of the Bay according to your logic!
 
Maybe, but is the sea level rising or the ground subsiding?

It all depends on perspective. When I was a kid, my grandparents moved into a house on the Chesapeake Bay. At low tide, their seawall had several feet of sand exposed, and at high tide there was nearly 4.5’ of water depth at the seawall. In the interim 35 years, they had to extend their dock 80’ further into the water, and now even at high tide there is nearly 100’ of beach between the seawall and the edge of the tide.

If all you want to do is rely on water depth, their property is being thrust upwards out of the Bay according to your logic!
It might be....

Years ago, a similar situation happened in Yellowstone. Scientist noted that the water level at one of the larger bodies of water had been moving about, over the course of 1000s of years. They concluded that it was the land rising and falling, not the water. It was sloshing around, like if you had some water on a dinner plate and was trying to keep the pool in the center.

As I understand, this was one of the reason they came to find that yellowstone was a volcano.

I do agree, it is perspective, but it is not typically open for debate....there is right and wrong.
 
And slowed the planet's rotation.

This is according to a study performed by researchers at Harvard University, who investigated the effect of artificial water impoundment on the earth.

While the effects are small in magnitude, it's still very interesting to see how something as simple as just disrupting the natural flows of water have a global impact.

Article here:

https://news.agu.org/press-release/water-storage-in-dams-has-caused-minute-shifts-in-earths-poles/
Amazing because I just read an article saying that the Earth's rotation was speeding up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/07/22/july-22-shortest-day-earth/85311440007/
 
Is this based on the same science used for global warming, where sensors that have been located in the same location for over a century, once surrounded by nature, are now surrounded by highways, parking lots, and high-rise buildings? Just asking. :unsure:
Do you generally calculate the Earth's average temperature measured next to HWY in Central Texas, or do you observe data collected around the planet? Just asking:unsure:
 
I understand we may be slowing then earth's rotation with all the skyscrapers we build. I kow we're only talking about microseconds, but it is theoretically possible. It's like the spinning skater that brings her arms out... the opposite of bringing her arms in. We are taking some of earth's materials and putting them higher.
 
I learned in elementary school how the Three Gorges Dam slowed the rotation of the Earth. It would make sense that the redistribution of mass would change the angular momentum of the Earth, much like a load of laundry in the washing machine.

Why? Did you do research that refuted that hypothesis?

Apparently everyone here is a water resources engineer and an expert in hydrology....although not surprising with how many think some dude flies around the sky and makes things out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
I learned in elementary school how the Three Gorges Dam slowed the rotation of the Earth. It would make sense that the redistribution of mass would change the angular momentum of the Earth, much like a load of laundry in the washing machine.



Apparently everyone here is a water resources engineer and an expert in hydrology....although not surprising with how many think some dude flies around the sky and makes things out of thin air.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting anything of the sort. For me personally, and I suspect for many others here also, I have been around enough to know that many studies are errant.

Perhaps assumptions are made that are needed to support a hypothesis, and the assumptions cannot be supported with factual data. This happens often, when researchers are too committed to believing that their hypothesis is correct. Many times there is no statistical confidence level calculated to support theoretical causation. And I'm always skeptical when a study is paid for by an organization that has a vested interest in the results. For example, when RJ Reynolds pays for a study that concludes tobacco does not cause cancer. You may find that absurd today, but it happened.

And sometimes hypothetical studies are simply presented as being actual fact, like this one. Perhaps it is true. Perhaps not. But what is presented does no prove anything.

I'll give you two examples that show why we should not blindly believe all studies that are presented as fact.

First is cold fusion studies that were carried out in the late '80's at the University of Utah and the University of Southhampton in England. In early 1989 they released data showing that they had generated small levels of electrical current from cold fusion. This made world news, and was hoped to be the solution to all the world's power needs. Other research universities across the world tried to confirm the results through their own testing, but without success. Under careful pier review, it was found that what they were measuring as electrical output, was actually a portion of the electricity that they were putting into the cold fusion reactor. No flying around in the sky making things up out of thin air. Just an honest mistake. But none the less, still initially presented as scientific fact.

I pause in mentioning this next one, because the subject is so charged, with strong opinions on both sides. Please, I don't want it to take over this discussion. But it is an excellent example of why we should question studies.

In 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield and other colleagues presented a paper that suggested that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children. Unless you have been living under a rock for the last three decades, you have surely heard about this. Again pier studies did not support the conclusions. Ten of the twelve co-authors of the paper retracted their claims. After careful scrutiny from the medical research field, Dr. Wakefield later confessed to totally fabricating critical items of the study, which made the rest of the study unsupported. Wakefield was found guilty of deliberate fraud. I lost track, but I believe criminal charges were brought against him in England.

So yea, I never blindly accept any scientific study. Show me the methods. Show me the confidence interval. I may not understand everything, but I can at least come to believe whether they did their due diligence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
Back
Top Bottom