Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can Global Warming Cause

  1. May 14, 2008 #1
    Can Global Warming Cause Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes and Volcanic Eruption?. I know this is all normal but I mean can it cause it to be more extreme and happen more often?.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 14, 2008 #2

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In general no - the atmosphere doesn't have a lot of effect on the earth's crust.
    It may lead to more frequent and more violent hurricanes/cyclones as more warm water is available to feed them and greater temperature differences to drive them.
    Flooding is also a fairly obvious risk of rising sea levels.
     
  4. May 14, 2008 #3
    "..A new study of possible links between climate and geophysics on Earth and similar planets finds that prolonged heating of the atmosphere can shut down plate tectonics and cause a planet's crust to become locked in place.."

    I saw http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512135102.htm" article on Science Daily, so there are some people that think its at least possible. People {and animals for that matter} would be long gone before we would see anything like that though..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  5. May 15, 2008 #4

    matthyaouw

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That would mean they'd become less frequent and intense, surely?
     
  6. May 15, 2008 #5

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think this statement is very silly as it is contradicted by hundreds of millions of years of plate tectonics, both when the climate was much hotter and much colder than now.
     
  7. May 15, 2008 #6
    One also could question it's scientific merit, it's not falsifiable, hence can it be science?
     
  8. May 15, 2008 #7

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    There are planets with similair climate and geophysics to Earth? Where?
     
  9. May 15, 2008 #8
    .. Its not my article, nor my statement. I was merely responding to the original question, "Can Global Warming Cause Earthquakes .. and Volcanic Eruption?". Apparently Adrian Lenardic seems to think it could. As I said, and as stated in the article, it wouldn't be something we would see.
    I think it references Venus.
     
  10. May 15, 2008 #9

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wasn't implying that. But no matter its source, it is a silly statement. During the Carboniferous, it was much warmer than today, and during the glacial periods of a few hundred thousand years ago, it was much colder than today. That didn't stop plate tectonics.
     
  11. May 15, 2008 #10
    I'm sure you are right.. but again, I think the article implies a long period of thousands of years as a warmer planet.. warming on the order of hundreds of degrees above what we have or had..
     
  12. May 15, 2008 #11

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Like the Earth being consumed by an expanding sun? Yes that would have an effect on plate techtonics.
     
  13. May 15, 2008 #12

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Right, I should have read the article completely... So the point is that it is the temperature gradient through the crust which drives plate tectonics, and if it gets too hot, that gradient lowers, or at least the temperature distribution changes, and hence a different tectonics.

    But it is true that heating up earth a hundred degrees is a rather extreme form of global warming :smile:
     
  14. May 20, 2008 #13
    Have any of you heard of Ken Dickman?
    He is aussie with some very interesting ideas, that seem to have pretty good correlation with tecktonic events related to planetary gravitational pull. He has calculated 4 points that he calls SER-X points that when occupied by planets have lead to volcanoes, and earthquakes. Both the China quake and the Chile volcano happened in a "window" he predicted would cause problems.
    He has also fingered the first two weeks of June as very stressful weeks for the Earth.
    His idea, labled the "Dickman Cross" is the subject of an extended article in the June issue of NEXUS.
    Very interesting hypothesis and it has the advantage of being tracked back in time to major events in the past. This may turn out to be a potentially valuable prediction tool.
     
  15. May 20, 2008 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Global warming is not increasing hurricane activity. That mistake in the last IPCC report stating GW would cause an increase in huricanes was retracted almost immediately.

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/05/19/hurricane-warming-climate.html
     
  16. May 20, 2008 #15

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Madame Soleil predicted that I would have troubles in my sex life this week, and lo and behold, I had a dispute with my wife yesterday about why I didn't buy more than 2 packs of her favorite dessert when I went shopping ....

    Seriously, that doesn't sound like anything else but a form of astrology, no ?
     
  17. May 20, 2008 #16
    Dickman is far from an astrologer. I am disappointed that you would say that without (I suspect) doing any research into his work. Remember Theodore Landscheidt was labled an astrologer when he began studing the effects on the planets on the revolution of the Sun around it's barycentre. An effect which has been shown to affect the solar and geomagnetic force fields to a very large degree.
    The angular momentum of planets on this excentric orbit of the Sun have had a high correlation with solar flares which are well correlated with weather activity on Earth. Dickman has quantified these forces relative to fixed positions in the orbit of the Sun around the barycentre. Back tracking has high high correlation with such events a Tambora, Krakatoa (sp?) and many quakes that have registered 6.9 + including the great Christmas tsunami of several years ago. At each of these events one or more of the greater planets was right on one of the four SER-X points.
    Of course predicting earthquakes, volcanoes and violent storms is a science that only recently has begun to use real scientific methodology, so many ridicule it, but like all new science these are generally those who dismiss it wihout investigation.

    I would be interested in your response, Vanesch, after reading the Nexus article, and Dickmans published work.

    He has taken much of his theory as an extension from Rhodes Fairbridge, a fellow Aussie with impecable credentials.
     
  18. May 20, 2008 #17

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I admit never having looked into Dickman's work. The reason why I'm extremely skeptical is that the gravitational effects (I guess it can only be gravitational effects, right ?) of the sun and the moon are way more important than any planetary configuration in the solar system, witness tidal effects (which are the only ones that could potentially have any tectonic effect, general relativity obliging). There are, as far as I know, no significant tidal corrections for the planetary constellations, once the sun and the moon's positions are taken into account.
    If these almost unobservable tidal forces would have an influence on any volcanic activity, then imagine the influence of high tide !
     
  19. May 20, 2008 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have never heard of Ken Dickman, nor can I find anything about him through Google. What is his background? Please post links to information on him as well as what these "published papers' are.

    Also, you're not refering to this Nexus magazine, are you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_magazine
     
  20. May 20, 2008 #19
    I know someone who is studying the connection between solar flares and earthquakes. He can predict fairly accurately where, when, and how strong an earthquake could be based on the sun. He is hoping this is an area that can increase the warning time. Of course, it only predicts that an earthquake COULD happen, not that it WILL. There are many other factors yet to be found that play into the whole scheme of things.
     
  21. May 20, 2008 #20
    Yes Ms Music, When you say there are many other factors.... you if anything are understating the case. Everything from strange clouds, electrical charges, to the family dog's unusual behavior is under study.
    And I agree with you on the Would/Could statement as well.
    We are barely at a point where we can identify possible stress creating conditions, and I doubt if ever we can identify a window of time less than years or months for specific events.

    But then again, that is what is so exciting about a new field of science....the chance to have the inspiration to put together seemingly unrelated bits into a coherent whole, and to make a break through and thus add to the body of information.

    Dickman contends that solar flares are one of the ways the Sun reacts to stress from it's position in relationship to the solar system, and while perhaps not creating events on Earth but happening because of these same influences. He also feels that there is correlation between these forces and temperature as well as great storms.

    An interesting aspect to the serch for causation is that many of the different theorists seem to be unwilling to correspond with each other. Dickman tells me that he has made many attempts to correspond and has had little success. I wonder if it is that no one cares to share the success if it comes? Kind of petty but it seems to run in some scientific circles.
     
  22. May 20, 2008 #21
    Some of the things you guys are talking about are beyond me... lol... So I guess THERE IS NO connection between earthquakes and global warming because earthquake comes within the earth and global warming affects the outer part of the earth???. What about the recent or not so recent tsunami???.
     
  23. May 20, 2008 #22
    Well, newbie1 as you can tell there is some disagreement on that. It has been pointed out that we really do not know for sure everything involved in climate change. we do know climate is changing but that is a given......it is always getting warmer or colder. there is no stasis in climate. It is estimated that the Earth has spent much of its existence much colder than today. Glacial periods are typically measured at around 100,000 or so years and intergalcials ,like the one we are in now are typically 10 to 15 thousand years in length.
    In earlier times (millions of years ago) it perhaps was more of a balance, but for some reason unknown we went into the glacial ,/interglacial mode a million or more years ago.
    Personally I believe we are entering a cooler streach of 30 - 60 years based on the slowed activity of the Sun. There are cycles that show we do that periodically, and it appears that this solar sunspot cycle could be very weak and perhaps the next one or two as well. If that is the case we will look back at the last decades of last century with longing.
    It is my opinion that we are no longer in a warming stage. There has been little or now warming for the last decade dispite the somewhat desperate attempts the "warmers" are doing to keep the AGW idea alive.
    I am convinced by my own studies that our climate is driven not by human produced greenhouse gases but by solar activity. Since the early 1900's the Sun has been at one of the highest levels of activity ever seen, but it now appears to be quickly tapering off. Some have predicted a new "little ice age" but only time will tell who is right.
    The Christmas tsunami was, of course caused by an undersea earth quake.
    Personally i don't see how warming or cooling could have the effect to cause a quake. It is possible however that the same forces driving temperature could also drive geological events like quakes and volcanoes. Ken Dickman believes this is the case and until his hypothesis is proven or falsified it remains a possiblilty.
    I am a geologist by training with a lot of time spent studying paleo-geology. In the past two or three years I have been furthering my education in climate studies formally and informally. The field is extensive and there is much to take into account...there in lies the enjoyment
     
  24. May 21, 2008 #23

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is not because we do not know everything about earthquakes that this justifies just any crazy causal link, if the known physical effects of that supposed link are orders of magnitude smaller than other, known effects. Gravitational interaction of the constellation of planets on earth is totally negligible compared to the gravitational effects of sun and moon, and electromagnetic interaction between the sun and the earth is much smaller than the gravitational interaction between sun and earth. A causal link can only be established if a sensible, known, physical interaction can be proposed that can potentially produce an effect of the order of magnitude required. Looking for correlations when such a mechanism is hardly thinkable is nothing else but looking for spurious correlations, and if you look hard enough, you will always find some.

    In other words, one needs to be able to propose a crude model based upon known physical interactions that makes "order of magnitude" correct predictions before being able to take seriously any causal link suggested by a correlation...
     
  25. May 21, 2008 #24
    I agree with most of what you said.
    However a high degree of correlation, as Dickman has established is worth investigating, don't you think?
    He has sent me charts showing positions of planets at many major tectonic events, and he has included those that failed (when something should have happened and didn't) His successes outnumber the failures, and seem to be higher than random guess work. I have spent considerable time looking into the various prediction studies and find his the highest in correlation.
    I hope I didn't present his case as "THE ANSWER", if I did please accept this as conformation that this was not my intention.
    I do appreciate your POV, but believe that the electromagnetic forces are more important than most others understand.
    This, like anything else in science, will be sorted out over time and accepted or disposed of based on its track record.
    It appears to me that Dickman is doing what you propose....ie. developing his crude model. I will keep you updated if you want.
     
  26. Dec 10, 2008 #25
    It has been sometime since this thread was active, and I have learned a bit more about what Dickman is saying. He agrees that the effects of the Sun and the Moon are predominent, but also that some of the major planets when in allignment with the Sun and/or Moon create additional gravitaional and electromagnetic forces. It appears that he sees the Earth sitting on a needle point of tectonic balance and the addition or subtraction of relatively minor forces can cause repercussions, due to planetary influences on the the orbit of the Sun around its barycentre
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook