Talk:Chandler wobble

This seems to be rather extreme:

theorised as the cause of major tectonic activity, including earthquakes, volcanism, El Niño, and global warming phenomenon

Would it be more correct to say:

theorised as the chaotic trigger of major tectonic activity, including earthquakes, volcanism, El Niño, and global warming phenomenon

That is, the wobble might be the nudge that pushes an event over the top such as nudging a supersaturated solution or superheated liquid?

WpZurp 15:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you just saying the following because the information was released on Coast to Coast AM, or have you actually checked the data yourself?

During a national radio broadcast on 28 January 2006, Lloyd Stewart Carpenter reported that the Chandler wobble has stopped (i.e., its amplitude has reduced to zero) -- which could be a harbinger of a catastrophic pole shift.

I don't think it's fair to call this completely unfounded.

Coast to coast AM?? hahaha. articles like this are what give wikipedia a bad rap. CiXeL

Several sources on the Internet as well as a major Swedish encyclopedia (NE) states that Euler predicted the nutation to have a period of 305 days. Which figure is the correct one? Mårten Berglund (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why 'The science fictional property'? 80.0.109.29 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

IMHO, "pole tide" deserves a page, and the Earth Tide page deserves a link - or are they the same? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this article be merged with Polar motion#Chandler Wobble?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionbelt en (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article says that the Chandler wobble of the Earth would die out in about 68 years, but is driven by energy contributed by ocean currents and such. A later section states that Mars has a Chandler wobble. Yet it has no ocean to keep the wobble going. Is there a sourced explanation for this discrepancy? Gnuish (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply