• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Other causes of the change in weather

holbritter

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
21,239
Reaction score
10,227
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Does anyone consider the earthquakes that have shook the earth, have considerable effect on the current weather? Wouldn't it seem like a given that if earth's rotation and/or axis was in anyway changed, it would certainly cause a change in weather patterns? I'm not saying humans have no effect, but I believe there is more to it than that and it's too easy of a scapegoat narrative to suit an agenda.
=====================

When the magnitude 9 quake struck in March 2011, it shifted rock and changed the shape of the ocean floor, disrupting the sea level and causing small changes in the strength of the gravity.
This is the first time scientists have seen any variation over time in GOCE’s data, according to an ESA press release. The data lines up with that collected by twin satellites called GRACE — Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment — which is designed to measure changes over time.

The car-sized GOCE caused some worry earlier this fall when it ran out of fuel after its mission ended and started to fall toward Earth. Scientists were unsure where exactly it would enter Earth’s atmosphere, and thus where its pieces would land, but it ultimately fell harmlessly into the southern region of the Atlantic Ocean, according to NBC. The mission’s team will continue to work with the four years’ worth of data, which, according to ESA, is important for our understanding of ocean circulation, sea-level change, volcanic activity and other Earth systems.

https://weather.com/science/news/japan-earthquake-changed-earths-gravity-20131204
=============

Or maybe not, but cyclical shifts do as does the shifting wobble.
=======
Those shifts are tiny compared to long-term, cyclical shifts in earth’s movement that can raise or lower the planet’s thermostat. The planet currently leans at a 23.5 degree angle as it circles the sun, causing winter at one end of the globe and summer at the other, as its orientation toward the sun redistributes the amount of sunlight falling on each hemisphere annually. But the seasons can be greatly intensified depending on variations in earth’s tilt over long timescales. Every 41,000 years or so, earth’s tilt shifts about a degree in each direction—the equivalent of nearly 70 miles. At its highest tilt—24.5 degrees—more sunlight falls on the poles; at its lowest—22.1 degrees—more light falls on the equator.

Two other astronomical cycles shape earth’s climate: the changing shape of its elliptical path around the sun every 100,000 years or so, and the shifting wobble of its axis—much like a spinning top—on average, every 21,000 years. All three cycles are caused by the gravitational tug of the moon and the planets in our solar system.
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-big-earthquakes-disrupt-world-weather.html

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-04-big-earthquakes-disrupt-world-weather.html#jCp
===============

Similar changes to Earth's mass distribution were calculated from GPS data obtained during the 2004 Sumatra earthquake and the 2010 Chile earthquake. In the case of Sumatra, the change in the length of the day was larger: 6.8 microseconds.

But for the Japan earthquake, the change in Earth's wobble was more than twice as large as those calculated for the 2004 and 2010 events.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/
 
6.8 microseconds or even double that would be almost inconsequential as regards the tilt of the Earth's axis. The tilt is 11.5 degrees and the total north/south deviation would be 23 degrees. Not saying there could be no effect but the change in Earth's albedo caused by loss of ice cover is much more significant.
/
 
Does anyone consider the earthquakes that have shook the earth, have considerable effect on the current weather? Wouldn't it seem like a given that if earth's rotation and/or axis was in anyway changed, it would certainly cause a change in weather patterns? I'm not saying humans have no effect, but I believe there is more to it than that and it's too easy of a scapegoat narrative to suit an agenda.
=====================

When the magnitude 9 quake struck in March 2011, it shifted rock and changed the shape of the ocean floor, disrupting the sea level and causing small changes in the strength of the gravity.
This is the first time scientists have seen any variation over time in GOCE’s data, according to an ESA press release. The data lines up with that collected by twin satellites called GRACE — Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment — which is designed to measure changes over time.

The car-sized GOCE caused some worry earlier this fall when it ran out of fuel after its mission ended and started to fall toward Earth. Scientists were unsure where exactly it would enter Earth’s atmosphere, and thus where its pieces would land, but it ultimately fell harmlessly into the southern region of the Atlantic Ocean, according to NBC. The mission’s team will continue to work with the four years’ worth of data, which, according to ESA, is important for our understanding of ocean circulation, sea-level change, volcanic activity and other Earth systems.

https://weather.com/science/news/japan-earthquake-changed-earths-gravity-20131204
=============

Or maybe not, but cyclical shifts do as does the shifting wobble.
=======
Those shifts are tiny compared to long-term, cyclical shifts in earth’s movement that can raise or lower the planet’s thermostat. The planet currently leans at a 23.5 degree angle as it circles the sun, causing winter at one end of the globe and summer at the other, as its orientation toward the sun redistributes the amount of sunlight falling on each hemisphere annually. But the seasons can be greatly intensified depending on variations in earth’s tilt over long timescales. Every 41,000 years or so, earth’s tilt shifts about a degree in each direction—the equivalent of nearly 70 miles. At its highest tilt—24.5 degrees—more sunlight falls on the poles; at its lowest—22.1 degrees—more light falls on the equator.

Two other astronomical cycles shape earth’s climate: the changing shape of its elliptical path around the sun every 100,000 years or so, and the shifting wobble of its axis—much like a spinning top—on average, every 21,000 years. All three cycles are caused by the gravitational tug of the moon and the planets in our solar system.
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-big-earthquakes-disrupt-world-weather.html

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-04-big-earthquakes-disrupt-world-weather.html#jCp
===============

Similar changes to Earth's mass distribution were calculated from GPS data obtained during the 2004 Sumatra earthquake and the 2010 Chile earthquake. In the case of Sumatra, the change in the length of the day was larger: 6.8 microseconds.

But for the Japan earthquake, the change in Earth's wobble was more than twice as large as those calculated for the 2004 and 2010 events.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/

Earthquakes have no effect on global or local climate, unless they trigger a release of gases from the Earth - such as a volcanic eruption.

The Earth's climate does indeed have natural cycles, including orbital and axis changes that bring us into Ice-ages and Holocene's. These are referred to into climatology as 'Milankovitch cycles' and have been studied extensively.

But it is this same pattern that illustrates the 'feedback' phenomenon that demonstrates the relationship between greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate.

Part of what helps warm the Earth into Holocene's is that as temperatures rise from more sunlight being distributed to the poles, carbon dioxide from the oceans and Arctic methane is released into the atmosphere, which further warms the Earth, which melts ice-sheets and permafrost exposing darker surface area, which gives rise to the albedo effect.

Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png


Milankovitch Cycles ? OSS Foundation

Further, the dynamic of a warming troposphere coupled with a cooling stratosphere is the perfect fingerprint of anthropogenic warming of the climate.

Cooling_Stratosphere.gif


Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Earthquakes have no effect on global or local climate, unless they trigger a release of gases from the Earth - such as a volcanic eruption.

The Earth's climate does indeed have natural cycles, including orbital and axis changes that bring us into Ice-ages and Holocene's. These are referred to into climatology as 'Milankovitch cycles' and have been studied extensively.

But it is this same pattern that illustrates the 'feedback' phenomenon that demonstrates the relationship between greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate.

Part of what helps warm the Earth into Holocene's is that as temperatures rise from more sunlight being distributed to the poles, carbon dioxide from the oceans and Arctic methane is released into the atmosphere, which further warms the Earth, which melts ice-sheets and permafrost exposing darker surface area, which gives rise to the albedo effect.

Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png


Milankovitch Cycles ? OSS Foundation

Further, the dynamic of a warming troposphere coupled with a cooling stratosphere is the perfect fingerprint of anthropogenic warming of the climate.


Cheers.

It should be noted that the Green GHG Forcing line is theorized and not measured.
There is very little measured evidence the GHG forcing actually exists in the atmosphere.
Also their number of ratio of forcing scale of 1.5 C per Wm-2 is about five times higher
than the .3 C per Wm-2 used by the IPCC.
 
It should be noted that the Green GHG Forcing line is theorized and not measured.
There is very little measured evidence the GHG forcing actually exists in the atmosphere.
Also their number of ratio of forcing scale of 1.5 C per Wm-2 is about five times higher
than the .3 C per Wm-2 used by the IPCC.
The graph is showing the total net radiative forcing, not just those of GHG's. The IPCC estimates a trend of .3 C per Wm-2 per decade and a total anthropogenic forcing of over 1.0 C per Wm -2, IIRC.

The relationship between GHG's and temperatures is rock solid - which is probably why you avoided the evidence from stratospheric cooling.
 
The graph is showing the total net radiative forcing, not just those of GHG's. The IPCC estimates a trend of .3 C per Wm-2 per decade and a total anthropogenic forcing of over 1.0 C per Wm -2, IIRC.

The relationship between GHG's and temperatures is rock solid - which is probably why you avoided the evidence from stratospheric cooling.

Actually the label on the green line of the graph is GHG Forcing, All Forcings is the black line.
Also, No the IPCC did not estimate .3 C per Wm-2 per decade, that would not make any sense unless the conversion changes per decade.
From Baede et al 2001, IPCC TAR, and still cited in AR5,
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes.
An imbalance of 4 Wm-2, forces a temperature increase in the surface-troposphere system of 1.2°C,
So 4/1.3= .3 °C per W/m-2.
 
It should be noted that the Green GHG Forcing line is theorized and not measured.
There is very little measured evidence the GHG forcing actually exists in the atmosphere.
Also their number of ratio of forcing scale of 1.5 C per Wm-2 is about five times higher
than the .3 C per Wm-2 used by the IPCC.

Not only that, but that graph is in error. Almost all sources that give temperatures have a minimum 6 degree change, and a large number of them over 10 degrees. Looks like the creator of that graph purposely put it in the 3-4 degree range to claim the cycles are from greenhouse gasses.

Another scientific deception.
 
Last edited:
The relationship between GHG's and temperatures is rock solid - which is probably why you avoided the evidence from stratospheric cooling.

Yes, it is, in that the natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere are dictated by SST.
 
Yes, it is, in that the natural CO2 levels in the atmosphere are dictated by SST.
Which is itself dictated by number of other things, including GHG levels. :rolleyes:
 
Not only that, but that graph is in error. Almost all sources that give temperatures have a minimum 6 degree change, and a large number of them over 10 degrees. Looks like the creator of that graph purposely put it in the 3-4 degree range to claim the cycles are from greenhouse gasses.

Another scientific deception.
Actually, just another conspiracy theory post, where you climate change deniers accuse everyone else of being in cahoots.

Nobody claimed the cycles are from GHG's alone. That's simply a straw-man argument you created.
 
Actually the label on the green line of the graph is GHG Forcing, All Forcings is the black line.
Also, No the IPCC did not estimate .3 C per Wm-2 per decade, that would not make any sense unless the conversion changes per decade.
From Baede et al 2001, IPCC TAR, and still cited in AR5,

An imbalance of 4 Wm-2, forces a temperature increase in the surface-troposphere system of 1.2°C,
So 4/1.3= .3 °C per W/m-2.
That doesn't look right at all. The IPCC estimates the total radiative forcing to be 2.8 Wm-2 today.
 
That doesn't look right at all. The IPCC estimates the total radiative forcing to be 2.8 Wm-2 today.
You are right, it does not look right, which I am saying that there is something wrong with the graph you posted,
which shows the GHG Forcing at ~3 Wm-2 While the IPCC lists 2.29 Wm-2.
The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts « RealClimate
It is also worth noting that the only observed measurement, which may be forcing, comes in much lower,
than the current 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
 
Earthquakes have no effect on global or local climate, unless they trigger a release of gases from the Earth - such as a volcanic eruption.

The Earth's climate does indeed have natural cycles, including orbital and axis changes that bring us into Ice-ages and Holocene's. These are referred to into climatology as 'Milankovitch cycles' and have been studied extensively.

But it is this same pattern that illustrates the 'feedback' phenomenon that demonstrates the relationship between greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate.

Part of what helps warm the Earth into Holocene's is that as temperatures rise from more sunlight being distributed to the poles, carbon dioxide from the oceans and Arctic methane is released into the atmosphere, which further warms the Earth, which melts ice-sheets and permafrost exposing darker surface area, which gives rise to the albedo effect.

Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png


Milankovitch Cycles ? OSS Foundation

Further, the dynamic of a warming troposphere coupled with a cooling stratosphere is the perfect fingerprint of anthropogenic warming of the climate.

Cooling_Stratosphere.gif


Cheers.


I don't understand much of that. I think I get the drift, but not an understanding of it.

The reason I brought this up is because I saw a report that stated that scientists didn't think it would be happening this fast. With the swing in weather patterns and the unusual heat. It got me thinking about those earthquakes. I know one or two would probably not make a huge difference, but we've had a few in just the past 10 or so years. I really think it has to have some effect.
 
6.8 microseconds or even double that would be almost inconsequential as regards the tilt of the Earth's axis. The tilt is 11.5 degrees and the total north/south deviation would be 23 degrees. Not saying there could be no effect but the change in Earth's albedo caused by loss of ice cover is much more significant.
/

What about the gravity pull changing?
 
You are right, it does not look right, which I am saying that there is something wrong with the graph you posted,
which shows the GHG Forcing at ~3 Wm-2 While the IPCC lists 2.29 Wm-2.
The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts « RealClimate
It is also worth noting that the only observed measurement, which may be forcing, comes in much lower,
than the current 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
I'm no climatologist, so this is just my hobbyists hunch. I think that the GHG forcing includes methane estimates, which would partly explain the discrepancy.

It looks like the GHG forcing bar is actually just CO2 levels
 
The sun, earths rotation, earths orbit, etc....
 
What about the gravity pull changing?
The Earth as a singular gravitational field is many orders of magnitude greater than any local changes in the distribution of mass.
 
Does anyone consider the earthquakes that have shook the earth, have considerable effect on the current weather? Wouldn't it seem like a given that if earth's rotation and/or axis was in anyway changed, it would certainly cause a change in weather patterns? I'm not saying humans have no effect, but I believe there is more to it than that and it's too easy of a scapegoat narrative to suit an agenda.
=====================

When the magnitude 9 quake struck in March 2011, it shifted rock and changed the shape of the ocean floor, disrupting the sea level and causing small changes in the strength of the gravity.
This is the first time scientists have seen any variation over time in GOCE’s data, according to an ESA press release. The data lines up with that collected by twin satellites called GRACE — Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment — which is designed to measure changes over time.

The car-sized GOCE caused some worry earlier this fall when it ran out of fuel after its mission ended and started to fall toward Earth. Scientists were unsure where exactly it would enter Earth’s atmosphere, and thus where its pieces would land, but it ultimately fell harmlessly into the southern region of the Atlantic Ocean, according to NBC. The mission’s team will continue to work with the four years’ worth of data, which, according to ESA, is important for our understanding of ocean circulation, sea-level change, volcanic activity and other Earth systems.

https://weather.com/science/news/japan-earthquake-changed-earths-gravity-20131204
=============

Or maybe not, but cyclical shifts do as does the shifting wobble.
=======
Those shifts are tiny compared to long-term, cyclical shifts in earth’s movement that can raise or lower the planet’s thermostat. The planet currently leans at a 23.5 degree angle as it circles the sun, causing winter at one end of the globe and summer at the other, as its orientation toward the sun redistributes the amount of sunlight falling on each hemisphere annually. But the seasons can be greatly intensified depending on variations in earth’s tilt over long timescales. Every 41,000 years or so, earth’s tilt shifts about a degree in each direction—the equivalent of nearly 70 miles. At its highest tilt—24.5 degrees—more sunlight falls on the poles; at its lowest—22.1 degrees—more light falls on the equator.

Two other astronomical cycles shape earth’s climate: the changing shape of its elliptical path around the sun every 100,000 years or so, and the shifting wobble of its axis—much like a spinning top—on average, every 21,000 years. All three cycles are caused by the gravitational tug of the moon and the planets in our solar system.
https://phys.org/news/2011-04-big-earthquakes-disrupt-world-weather.html

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-04-big-earthquakes-disrupt-world-weather.html#jCp
===============

Similar changes to Earth's mass distribution were calculated from GPS data obtained during the 2004 Sumatra earthquake and the 2010 Chile earthquake. In the case of Sumatra, the change in the length of the day was larger: 6.8 microseconds.

But for the Japan earthquake, the change in Earth's wobble was more than twice as large as those calculated for the 2004 and 2010 events.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com...-shortened-days-earth-axis-spin-nasa-science/

If it was not for human pride, ignorance and ego all men would know they understand practically nothing of the vast causes underlying weather changes and that man has next to nothing to do with them and could not change them if he tried.
 
If it was not for human pride, ignorance and ego all men would know they understand practically nothing of the vast causes underlying weather changes and that man has next to nothing to do with them and could not change them if he tried.

I wouldn't go that far. There is no way possible for humans not to have any effect on climate over all these years.
 
I'm no climatologist, so this is just my hobbyists hunch. I think that the GHG forcing includes methane estimates, which would partly explain the discrepancy.

It looks like the GHG forcing bar is actually just CO2 levels

No, the IPCC chart is showing 2.29 Wm-2 for all forcing s.
 
I wouldn't go that far. There is no way possible for humans not to have any effect on climate over all these years.

That is what many people have strangely come to believe. The Greeks had their beliefs in weather control by intelligent beings. One such attempt ended in scorched earth disaster when Zeus struck Phaethon down while stupidly flying a chariot into the sun. Hail archers shot arrows into the sky trying to produce rain in Medieval times. American Indians did rain dances even while American farmers were improving irrigation techniques. Castro even accused the US of manipulating the weather for military purposes and the UN intervened by passing a resolution banning such manipulation.

Curiously, humans are gaining more knowledge while remaining remarkably stupid in some ways the whole time.
 
Back
Top Bottom