简而言之:没有。除非数百万时间表。我们把牛顿力学教学的原因,是因为它是一个非常精确的近似一个更一般的理论(广义相对论)政权内的速度和重力加速度在日常生活中发现。因此,所有的相对论修正牛顿力学在地球系统中可以忽略不计。,对气候的内部运营和其轨道参数的进化几百几千年或更短的时间尺度。一个效应,将拱点的旋进的次要角色的变化分布的太阳能所描述的[Milankovic周期][1]。但可以说是微不足道的。但或许最重要的贡献是相对论修正的影响在地球轨道偏心率变化数百万年的时间尺度。最先进的地球的轨道运动的长期解决方案[La2010][2],用相对论修正,但是他们很小。修正的方式包括在模型中被[萨哈&屈里曼(1994)][3],他们指出:> General行星运动的相对论效应分数>振幅的美元\压裂{k ^ 2} {c ^ 2 r} \ sim 10 ^ {8} $ $ r = 1 \ \ textbf{盟}$。 Meaning that the correction correspond to a 0.000001% of the total variation of the orbital parameters. Unquestionably, even such small corrections have a cumulative effect over multi-million years timescales. [Varadi et. at. (2003)][4], compares the output of a model using relativistic corrections (solid line) with one not using them (dashed line), and the following figure show the results over 3 million years, where can be observed that significant differences arise after 300,000 years. [![enter image description here][5]][5] However, it is reasonable to consider that such small corrections would have been overcome at some point in the past by some other unaccounted effects, like large meteorite impacts (or fly-by), solar storms, etc. Remember that La2010 go back 50 million years and [other models go back several billion years][6], when such events were rather common. So, I would still argue that relativistic corrections are not very significant. However, in a chaotic system like Earth's climate, you can never rule out that a negligible forcing could have had an important effect. Of course the answer would be different (and the relative importance higher) if we consider a planet orbiting extremely close to a super-massive star. But, I'm assuming you are mostly considering planets similar to Earth in that regard. There are also some claims (the [Damhsa Theory][7]) that gravitational waves might have play a role in the very long term climate evolution of Earth. However, I'm not capable to really assess the validity of such theory, but I have to admit I'm skeptical about it. I've posted [a question about that][8] in Physics SE, an there seem to be wide consensus that such effect would be exceedingly small to ever deserve any kind of consideration. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Orbital_shape_(eccentricity) [2]: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2011/08/aa16836-11.pdf [3]: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1994AJ....108.1962S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf [4]: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375560/pdf [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6GSFD.png [6]: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html [7]: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/posters/P4_01_Lynch_Poster.pdf [8]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/394552/damhsa-theory-can-gravitational-waves-really-affect-the-long-term-climatic-evo