Can Global Warming Cause

[Newbie1]

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?.

 

[mgb_phys]

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.

 

[g33kski11z]

Can Global Warming Cause Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes and Volcanic Eruption?. .

"..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..

 

[matthyaouw]

That would mean they'd become less frequent and intense, surely?

 

[vanesch]

"..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 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.

 

[Andre]

One also could question it's scientific merit, it's not falsifiable, hence can it be science?

 

[mgb_phys]

climate and geophysics on Earth and similar planets

There are planets with similair climate and geophysics to Earth? Where?

 

[g33kski11z]

..I think this statement is very silly ..

One also could question it's scientific merit, it's not falsifiable, hence can it be science?

.. 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.

There are planets with similar climate and geophysics to Earth? Where?

I think it references Venus.

 

[vanesch]

.. Its not my article, nor my statement.

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.

 

[g33kski11z]

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..

 

[mgb_phys]

warming on the order of hundreds of degrees above what we have or had..

Like the Earth being consumed by an expanding sun? Yes that would have an effect on plate techtonics.

 

[vanesch]

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..

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

 

[latecommer]

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.

 

[Evo]

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?.

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

 

[vanesch]

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.

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 ?

 

[latecommer]

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.

 

[vanesch]

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 !

 

[Evo]

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.

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 referring to this Nexus magazine, are you?

Nexus is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine. It covers geopolitics and conspiracy theories; health issues, including alternative medicine; future science; the unexplained, including UFOs; Big Brother; and historical revisionism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_magazine

 

[Ms Music]

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.

 

[latecommer]

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.

 

[Newbie1]

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?.

 

[latecommer]

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

 

[vanesch]

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...

 

[latecommer]

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.

 

[latecommer]

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

 

[uart]

Hi Latecommer. Did you know that the tidal gravitational effects (on both crust and water) of all other planets combined is approximately 10000 times less than that of the sun and moon! So if the effect is not gravitational then what the heck is it?

Edit : Vanesch beat me to it.

Edit Edit : Damit I didn't see the whole second page of this thread before replying. No wonder everything I said had already been covered.

 

[uart]

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

Ok he might "see" it as a "needle point" balance but that would also require evidence. Think about it, if the "tectonic balance" was really at that much of a knife edge then surely there would be world wide volcanic and earthquake chaos on a monthly basis each time the moon and sun aligned. Now I'm not talking about a subtle effect either, if the planets 1000+ times weaker gravity causes a significant "Dickman" effect then this very much stronger monthly occurrence would have to be pandemonium on a disaster movie type scale, right?

 

[latecommer]

Of course these questions should be asked of Dickman if you seriously want to know what he is speaking of, but gravitational effects are not the only effects, and the effects are not only on the Earth.
The electro magnetic forces of the large planets when they are in certain positions relative to each other, and to the Sun create changes in solar angular momentum and jerk the Sun around in a very complicated orbit around the Solar systems barycentre. Even making it double back on itself in tight loops at certain points. I believe that this electromagnetic force is more important than gravitational effects.
The Center of gravity of the Sun varies by more than a solar diameter due to these effects and moving that mass that much closer or furtheraway also causes added stress to the Earth.

Your point seems to imply an either/or position. I am referring to an "in addition to" position.
All the varied forces of the Sun, Moon, and the other planets at times pull together or are together relaxed...these are higher probablility windows.

I first contacted Dickman, through a mutual friend, Dr. Bob Foster of Austrailia, a couple of months before the Christmas Tsunami. At that time he indicated that late December would be a time of increased stress due to the combined pull in one direction of the Sun, moon and planets. He did not say we would have an event, but that the likely hood was higher. He has also informed me of potential events like this a few more times, and not always is their anything dramatic. However there is generally a higher number of 6+ events during these windows, He has "reverse engineered" the positions back in history as well and the correlation with several historic volcanoes and Earth quakes are quite remarkable.
I have spent a lot of effort in field research looking for indication of predictive factors (earthquakes) and I have found none with the correlation of Dickmans hypothesis.
I am not saying he is correct, merely that he deserves study and attempted falsification.

 

[fluver]

There may be all this effects contine again and again

Lisa

 

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

From your article.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist, said Knutson's computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and "fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity."

Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said it is not just the number of hurricanes "that matter, it is also the intensity, duration and size, and this study falls short on these issues."

Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn't produce storms surpassing 112 mph.

I guess it depends on how you define hurricane activity. He admits his model is flawed, therefore his conclusions are suspect as well. It is very difficult to assign a cause to an individualy storm, but there is no denying that warmer SST's provide fuel for and increase hurricane intensity.

Whether or not a hurricane forms depends on the strength of upper level wind shears.

 

[JorgeLobo]

No denying? What data prove that?

 

[Evo]

From another post.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1232579&postcount=72

 

From another post.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1232579&postcount=72

So, we need to drop the "global warming is causing bad hurricanes" bit, because it obviously is not, and instead focus on what global warming might be causing.

Citing one study from 2005 and declaring an absolute seems a bit heavy handed.

Especially when the conclusion reads:

We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.

I would agree that there is still not enough accurate long term data to support high confidence, but even the evidence you cited is contrary to the position that there is no cause and effect relationship.

 

[Evo]

It's from Science. As we know, the number of hurricanes fell off drastically after the busy 2005 season, and that data is not included in this piece.

 

It's from Science. As we know, the number of hurricanes fell off drastically after the busy 2005 season, and that data is not included in this piece.

"[URL [Broken]
From NASA July 29, 2007[/URL]

The 2006 hurricane season was far less active than the two preceding years, in part because of the emergence of an El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean. However, that year, which was not included in the study, would have ranked above average a century ago, with five hurricanes and four other named storms.