Simple answer is that gravitational erosion is constant, so we should not notice anything from this effect with the exception of timeframes of hundreds of millions of years.
It does, however, add some heat to the earth, especially in relation to the moon. The moon is in a locked orbit wiht us, which is why we always see the same side of the moon. We, however, are not locked with the moon yet, which is why the moon moves across the sky. Eventually we will also be locked with the moon and the moon will not move in the sky. Until that occurs, the earth gains energy in the form of waves and heat until enough energy is lost and we lock with the moon. This will occur over millions upon millions of years. Because it happens over such a long period of time, there is really no reason to factor this into climate change.
What is your context here? Why are you asking this question, ie what makes you think that there is a connection. Is this for a class? Are you talking about regional natural change or global warming?
A mountain range has a dramatic effect on regional climates: rain on the windward side, rain shadow on the leeward side. Over many many centuries erosion degrades the mountain range. It that the kind of thing you are looking for?
Really nice to see Trevor back again.
Nice guy.
Knows a lot.
:)
Hi Ruby,
Hard to answer without knowing whether you’re including tidal friction within the realms of gravitational erosion (i.e. interplanetary gravitational forces and planetary distortion) and also which climatic scales you’re referring to.
Terrestrial gravity is a force acting upon all objects with mass and as such, even something the size of a continental landmass, will be subject to gravitational erosion over very long timeframes.
Often though, it’s the smaller scale effects over short timeframes that are being referred to such as the creeping, sliding, collapse and flow of land. Usually it occurs on a small scale and affects perhaps a few hectares, often it’s exacerbated by the presence of water and particularly when saturation is reached. Common examples are landslips and mudslides.
Where does climate come into this?
The most significant impacts will be encountered at the very small climatic levels, the nano or epi and micro climates. The effects can be catastrophic on small scale climatologies.
At nanoclimatic levels multiple climatic zones will be destroyed, only to be replaced by new ones as the land settles. Changes in vegetation and hydrology will significantly affect microclimates.
The mesoclimates are localised macroclimates extending from perhaps one hectare to several hundreds of hectares and they have the potential to be significantly affected, at these scales the effects are felt by humans.
The primary meso or topoclimatic effect will be consequent to the loss of vegetation. This will affect evapotranspiration which in turn affects precipitation and humidity (both will decrease until new vegetation is established). Another potential impact at the meso scale is the diversion of water-courses, this can affect the ecology of the area which also affects evapotranspiration.
Surface reflectance can also be altered and this will influence how much solar radiation is absorbed or reflected by the land. For example, a landslip that results in a darker surface being exposed means that more heat energy from the Sun will be absorbed by the darker ground and this will increase temperatures in the affected area.
If a significant number of trees are lost during an erosion event then the effects can be observed many miles away, especially along the track of prevailing winds. Here there can be disruption to precipitation patterns that can exacerbate aridity and drought.
Any such changes will be confined to the affected area and the immediate surroundings. In the context of global climate change the effects will be so miniscule as to be irrelevant.
At the global scale the process of gravitational erosion is a constant factor, one that’s been around since the Earth formed a crust some 4.5 billion years ago. The changing landscape means that there are ongoing changes to the ecology, hydrology, topography, albedo etc. These are in a state of quasi-equilibrium with the positive climate forcing influences balanced by the negative ones. In short, they contribute to the climate (in a small way) but not to climate change.
The gravitational forces from beyond the Earth (most notably the Sun, Moon and Jupiter) cause a constant stretching and contracting of the planet. The internal tidal forces generate massive amounts of friction and this generates heat energy. Although it’s about 30 terrawatts per year, it pales into insignificance compared to the heat from the Sun. It’s also a fairly constant amount (over the timescales of the solar, jovian and lunar planetary orbits and alignments) and so in respect of climate change it can be ignored.
Try this http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8x3Mt...
I've been trying to research this but I can't find any answers. I would really appreciate the help. Thanks.
