Is there any logic in this thought:

Could major changes in the earths climate and geo-activity be due in any part to the accumulation of resources in concentrated areas (i.e. Countries and continents that are more affluent than others) causing the earth to be in essence "out of balance" , like a wheel on a car?

It seems that with the changes (industrial) over the last 100 or so years that things have also changed globally as well. How much might be due (for example) to North America having more heavy buildings, cars, people, etc... than say Africa?

Thoughts?

 

Nominal compared to the weight of the oceans, mountains etc....

 

Really? I don't know. Sounds like that could play a small part.

 

if everyone in australia jumped at the same time, would it know the earth out of orbit?

 

Gravity isn't pulling, it's pushing. Discuss.

 

What if every 22 year old idiot drove in the left lane (at 67mph) at the same time?

 

No logic in it.

 

crust is the smallest/thinnest component of the earth.. has avg density of 3g/cm3

there are much much much denser components in the core

earth has radius of 25000mi (40000km if youre the scientific kind)


the fact that we're throwing a skyscraper on one side of the earth has less disbalancing effect than dropping a grain of sand on one side of a see-saw

 

however, changes in climate due to industrialization? absolutely... see: acid rain. global warming. global cooling. pollution.

at the very least, there are changes in microclimate.

there are also intentional man-made efforts at changing climate. china cloud-seeding to stop rain for the upcoming olympics!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06...hina-rain_x.htm

 

Thirty thousand years ago North America was almost entirely covered by ice.

Obviously things have warmed up a bit since then and yet where was man? Perhaps the fire he was cooking his wooly mammoth burger on is to blame. Come on.

The earth has warmed up since the mid 70's. That is about 30 years. The earth has been much warmer in the past then it is today and there have been much higher and much lower concentrations of CO2 in the atmospere during those warm cycles.

In the early 70's scientists believed we were on the edge of a new ice age!

In modern history, scientific theory was just that. 'Theory'. Until science proved or disproved the theory. Today, for the first time in modern history, theory is being accepted as science. Despite the many scientists and the science that disproves the 'theory'.

It is obvious that the earth is warming. Is there one single damn thing we can do to effectivley stop it? No. Are we the cause of it? No. The amount of CO2 produced by humans has been proven to be less than 1% of the total. Has Co2 been proven to be the cause? No. In fact the opposite is true. During past ice ages (and science has proven there to be literally thousands) CO2 levels have been much higher and much lower than the level recorded today.

There are two sides to the 'man made global warming theory.' Unfortunately 'also' for the first time in modern history, scientists who do not buy into 'humanity' as the cause are finding their funding cut off. Do a google search for the over 2,000 United Nations scientists who disagreed with the UN announcement naming man as the cause and asked to have their name stricken from the report.

I am not saying I know the cause. But I do know this. When someone tells me over and over and over what I should believe, it reminds me of Hitler's famous statement (and this isn't word for word but you will get the general gist), "tell the people a lie enough times and they will come to believe it."

And to the OP. The weight of the ice that has melted from both poles would (according to Einstein) possibly be enough to cause a wobble of the earth on it's axis. This ice, in areas is over a mile thick and almost 2 miles!. I believe we are talking much more weight wise than that of all man made structures.