Source study found

Story checked

Earth's Shape Is Changing – Becoming Rounder And Less Round at The Same Time : ScienceAlert (opens in a new tab)

sciencealert.com · 2026-09-16

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mostly supported

Mostly supported.

One claim goes further than the study.

4 supported
1 overstated

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail

The story

Earth's Shape Is Changing – Becoming Rounder And Less Round at The Same Time : ScienceAlert

sciencealert.com · 2026-09-16

The story’s checkable claims.

Read the original story

NewsLink checks it

Mostly supported

One claim overstates the study. Four of five check out.

4 supported
1 overstated

Open claim evidence

The source study

Mapping Global GNSS Vertical Velocities to Solid Earth Figure Change

Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth · 2026

Open source record

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

Reading mode

Scan verdicts. Open evidence only when needed.

Browse by verdict

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5OverstatedThe article says the geoid is moving in the opposite direction, becoming increasingly flattened, and that this is physically compatible with melting ice at the poles and redistribution of mass toward lower latitudes.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper profile supports an inferred positive J2-rate trend interpreted as consistent with enhanced surface-mass redistribution toward lower latitudes. However, the story’s framing goes beyond the abstract-level profile by treating the geoid as straightforwardly becoming increasingly flattened and invoking melting polar ice as the physical explanation. The profile presents this as an inferred elastic-response J2 contribution and a consistency interpretation, not a direct causal attribution.

Study evidence

Polar mean uplift increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to ~1.0 mm/yr over 1997–2015.~0.5 mm/yr increase (from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr)

“The approach is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time‐resolved EFC estimates, their accelerations, and the contribution to the J2‐rate”

Study evidence

The inferred J2-rate due to the elastic Earth response exhibits a positive linear trend, which the authors interpret as consistent with enhanced surface-mass redistribution toward lower latitudes.positive linear trend (inferred elastic J2-rate)

“the inferred J2‐rate due to elastic Earth response exhibits a positive linear trend consistent with enhanced surface‐mass redistribution toward lower latitudes”

Claim 2 of 5SupportedEarth is changing shape and is apparently becoming both more and less squished at the same time, depending on how it is measured.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile supports the article’s central distinction: GNSS-derived solid-Earth deformation indicates increasing polar uplift with comparable equatorial subsidence, while the inferred J2/geoid-related trend moves in the opposite flattening sense. The headline is simplified, but its hedge and 'depending on how it is measured' framing are consistent with the paper profile.

Study evidence

Polar mean uplift increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to ~1.0 mm/yr over 1997–2015.~0.5 mm/yr increase (from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr)

“The approach is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time‐resolved EFC estimates, their accelerations, and the contribution to the J2‐rate”

Study evidence

“the inferred J2‐rate due to elastic Earth response exhibits a positive linear trend consistent with enhanced surface‐mass redistribution toward lower latitudes”

Claim 3 of 5SupportedAccording to a new study by geologist Christopher Kotsakis of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, the rate at which the polar regions are rising has roughly doubled in less than 20 years.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedroughly doubled in less than 20 years

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile reports application to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 GNSS vertical velocities over 1997–2015 and a polar mean uplift increase from about 0.5 to about 1.0 mm/yr, i.e. roughly doubling over an interval of less than 20 years. The author/affiliation detail is not independently evidenced in the supplied profile, but the scientific claim is supported.

Study evidence

Polar mean uplift increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to ~1.0 mm/yr over 1997–2015.~0.5 mm/yr increase (from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr)

“The approach is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time‐resolved EFC estimates, their accelerations, and the contribution to the J2‐rate”

Claim 4 of 5SupportedKotsakis writes that there is an acceleration of polar uplift accompanied by a comparably increasing rate of equatorial subsidence, meaning the solid Earth’s overall shape is becoming slightly less flattened.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedpolar uplift from about 0.5 mm/year to 1 mm/year; slightly less flattened

Why this verdict

The profile reports increased polar uplift, concurrent equatorial subsidence of similar magnitude, and an accelerating degree-2 zonal/solid-Earth flattening-change signal. The stated magnitudes, including polar uplift from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr, match the abstract-level evidence.

Study evidence

A geometric framework was developed to estimate Earth Figure Change (EFC) parameters from global GNSS-derived vertical velocity fields and their gridded representations, with a specific focus on the degree-2 zonal component.

“We develop a geometric framework to estimate Earth figure change (EFC) parameters from global vertical velocity fields and their gridded representations, focusing on the degree‐2 zonal component”

Study evidence

Polar mean uplift increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to ~1.0 mm/yr over 1997–2015.~0.5 mm/yr increase (from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr)

“The approach is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time‐resolved EFC estimates, their accelerations, and the contribution to the J2‐rate”

Claim 5 of 5SupportedThe article says the study used Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) station measurements from 1997 to 2015 to map vertical motion of Earth’s surface around the globe.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated1997 to 2015

Why this verdict

The profile states that the framework was applied to global GNSS-derived ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocity fields over 1997–2015, using gridded representations to estimate Earth figure change. This supports the story’s description of using GNSS measurements over that interval to map vertical surface motion globally.

Study evidence

“We develop a geometric framework to estimate Earth figure change (EFC) parameters from global vertical velocity fields and their gridded representations, focusing on the degree‐2 zonal component”

Study evidence

Polar mean uplift increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to ~1.0 mm/yr over 1997–2015.~0.5 mm/yr increase (from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr)

“The approach is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time‐resolved EFC estimates, their accelerations, and the contribution to the J2‐rate”

Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

The analysis removes a modeled glacial isostatic adjustment signal before estimating the non-GIA component.
This is an interpretation-changing methodological step because the reported uplift/subsidence and J2 contribution depend on GIA model removal. It is not included in the story caveats mentioned.
From secondary_data observational GNSS analysis
Translation of non-GIA radial deformation into a J2-rate contribution assumes an elastic Earth response.
The elastic-response assumption is material to interpreting the geoid/J2-related finding, but the story caveats do not mention it.
From secondary_data observational GNSS analysis; interpretive synthesis of GNSS-derived EFC estimates
The authors evaluated gridding-related biases using synthetic experiments based on GIA models, but the abstract does not provide quantitative bias magnitudes.
The story does not mention the synthetic bias tests or the associated uncertainty about gridding and spatial aggregation.
From Synthetic GIA-driven gridding experiments

4 things the story did carry across

The paper develops a geometric framework mapping global GNSS-derived vertical velocity fields to Earth Figure Change parameters, especially the degree-2 zonal component related to solid-Earth flattening.
The real-data application uses ITRF2014/ITRF2020 GNSS vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time-resolved EFC estimates and accelerations.
The paper reports increased polar uplift from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr with concurrent equatorial subsidence of similar magnitude, implying an accelerating solid-Earth flattening-change signal.
The inferred J2-rate due to elastic Earth response shows a positive linear trend, interpreted as consistent with enhanced surface-mass redistribution toward lower latitudes.

Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

in silico

1Lead resultin silicoDevelop a geometric framework to estimate Earth Figure Change (EFC) parameters—especially the degree-2 zonal component linked to solid-Earth flattening rate—from global GNSS-derived vertical velocity fields (including gridded representations).Geometric framework mapping GNSS vertical velocities to degree-2 zonal EFCExpand

In plain English

The paper develops a geometric framework that maps global GNSS-derived vertical velocity fields (including gridded representations) to Earth Figure Change (EFC) parameters with emphasis on the degree-2 zonal component that describes the rate-of-change of the solid Earth's flattening. The approach analytically links polar and equatorial mean radial deformation rates to the degree-2 zonal coefficient, evaluates gridding-related biases through synthetic experiments based on GIA models, and—after removing a modeled GIA signal—uses an elastic Earth response assumption to translate GNSS vertical displacements into contributions to the temporal evolution of J2. The framework is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to produce time-resolved EFC estimates, accelerations, and an inferred J2 contribution from elastic Earth loading.

Key findings

A geometric framework was developed to estimate Earth Figure Change (EFC) parameters from global GNSS-derived vertical velocity fields and their gridded representations, with a specific focus on the degree-2 zonal component.
The methodology provides an analytic linkage that maps polar and equatorial mean radial deformation rates to the degree-2 zonal coefficient describing the rate-of-change of solid-Earth flattening.

“We develop a geometric framework to estimate Earth figure change (EFC) parameters from global vertical velocity fields and their gridded representations, focusing on the degree‐2 zonal component”

What this piece can’t prove

Gridding biases were evaluated with synthetic experiments, but the abstract does not provide quantitative bias magnitudes or how they scale with data coverage or grid resolution.

4 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

2in silicoQuantify and characterize gridding-related biases in EFC/J2 inferences using synthetic experiments driven by GIA model fields.Synthetic GIA-driven gridding experimentsExpand

In plain English

The authors conducted synthetic (in silico) experiments, driven by glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model velocity fields, to evaluate how gridding and spatial aggregation of vertical velocity fields bias estimates of Earth figure change (EFC) — in particular the degree-2 zonal component — and the corresponding inferred contribution to the J2 rate. The experiments are intended as a validation/diagnostic step to quantify sensitivity of the proposed EFC/J2 estimation framework to choices in gridding and interpolation, separate from the application to observed ITRF vertical velocities.

Key findings

Synthetic experiments based on GIA model fields were used to evaluate gridding-related biases in inferred EFC (degree-2 zonal) and in the elastic-response contribution to the J2 rate; the abstract states this evaluation was performed but does not report quantitative bias magnitudes or specific directional tendencies.

“evaluates gridding‐related biases through synthetic experiments based on GIA models”

What this piece can’t prove

Synthetic experiments driven solely by GIA models may not capture gridding biases arising from non-GIA signals, GNSS measurement noise, heterogeneous station distribution, or model misspecification.

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

3secondary dataApply the framework to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 GNSS vertical velocities (1997–2015), remove modeled GIA, and estimate time-resolved EFC (including acceleration) and the implied contribution to J2-rate under an elastic loading assumption.secondary data observational GNSS analysisExpand

In plain English

Applied a geometric framework to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 GNSS-derived vertical velocities (1997–2015), removed a modeled GIA signal, assumed an elastic Earth response to translate non-GIA radial deformation into a contribution to J2, and produced time-resolved estimates of Earth figure change (degree-2 zonal component), their accelerations, and the implied J2-rate contribution. Results indicate polar uplift increased from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr with comparable equatorial subsidence, producing an accelerating solid-Earth flattening-change signal; the elastic-response-inferred J2-rate shows a positive linear trend.

Key findings

Polar mean uplift increased from ~0.5 mm/yr to ~1.0 mm/yr over 1997–2015.~0.5 mm/yr increase (from ~0.5 to ~1.0 mm/yr)
Concurrent equatorial subsidence of similar magnitude was inferred, producing an accelerating solid-Earth flattening-change (degree-2 zonal) signal.similar magnitude to polar uplift (~0.5 mm/yr scale); acceleration reported but numerical acceleration not specified in abstract

“The approach is applied to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocities over 1997–2015 to derive time‐resolved EFC estimates, their accelerations, and the contribution to the J2‐rate”

What this piece can’t prove

Analysis limited to 1997–2015 interval and to ITRF2014/ITRF2020 vertical velocity solutions.
Removal of GIA relies on a modeled GIA signal; results depend on GIA model choice and accuracy.
Potential gridding-related biases exist despite authors' synthetic-experiment evaluation; abstract does not quantify residual bias or uncertainties.
Abstract does not provide numeric uncertainties or statistical significance for reported trends/accelerations.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

4otherInterpret inferred patterns (polar uplift increase, equatorial subsidence, positive trend in inferred elastic J2-rate) as consistent with enhanced low-latitude surface-mass redistribution and as a complement to gravity-based monitoring.interpretive synthesis of GNSS-derived EFC estimatesExpand

In plain English

From GNSS-derived, gridded global vertical-velocity fields (ITRF2014/ITRF2020, 1997–2015) with modeled GIA removed and an assumed elastic Earth response for non-GIA deformation, the authors interpret an observed increase in polar uplift (≈0.5 → ≈1.0 mm/yr) and concurrent equatorial subsidence as producing an accelerating solid-Earth flattening change and report that the inferred elastic contribution to the J2-rate shows a positive linear trend. They characterize this positive trend as consistent with enhanced surface-mass redistribution toward lower latitudes and argue that GNSS vertical velocities provide a geometric complement to gravity-based monitoring of Earth-figure change.

Key findings

The inferred J2-rate due to the elastic Earth response exhibits a positive linear trend, which the authors interpret as consistent with enhanced surface-mass redistribution toward lower latitudes.positive linear trend (inferred elastic J2-rate)
Geodetic vertical velocities (GNSS) provide a geometric complement to gravity-based assessments of Earth's figure change.

“the inferred J2‐rate due to elastic Earth response exhibits a positive linear trend consistent with enhanced surface‐mass redistribution toward lower latitudes”

What this piece can’t prove

Interpretive language ('consistent with') indicates correlation/consistency rather than definitive attribution to low-latitude mass redistribution.
Conclusions depend on assumptions: modeled GIA removal, the assumed elastic Earth response for non-GIA deformation, and gridding choices; abstract provides limited detail on uncertainties and robustness.

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer