Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [geofiction] Hot Seasonality

Expand Messages
  • Mike Ham
    ... I would pass a sceptical eye over any such claims to nice pleasant temperatures from FTP, Scott. It produces average temperatures for the year, and do
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > Play around with the world's Albedo, Greenhouse effect, and axis
      > tilt. Axis tilt will really affect the spread of climate types. I
      > have created worlds that are virtually all temperate climates (from
      > poles to equator) simply by messing around with axis tilt and albedo
      > (percent of sun rays reflected by a planet). Greenhouse effect keeps
      > heat on a planet (Earth = 1. If you go much higher though (1.1 for
      > example) you could burn up.

      I would pass a sceptical eye over any such claims to "nice pleasant
      temperatures" from FTP, Scott. It produces average temperatures for the
      year, and do not take into consideration seasonal variations which, on a
      planet with a massive tilt, are enormous.

      Remember that tilt is seasonal, meaning it happens once a year (on
      Earth, at least), and though I see no good reason why planetary wobble
      cannot happen more often than once a year, I have a sneaking suspicion
      there might be astro-physicists who will explain that the earth's
      "rotate-around-the-sun year" and "seasonal year" coincide for "good
      reason". I don't know.

      But, if we assume there IS a connection, that seasons happen once a
      year, that means on a planet with an 89° tilt on any given spot, for
      half the year it is >12-hours sunny and for half it is not-so-much. When
      the sun don't shine, it gets cold (ask the Norwegians about winter).
      When the sun does shine, it gets warm. (Ask dem again). However, on
      average, it seems nice and temperate.

      At least that's what I would guess would happen in FTP.

      I would suggest that the BEST way to get perfectly temperate
      temperatures all-year would be to have very short seasons so that the
      planet gets a nice even covering of sunlight, and temperature variations
      are minimised. Of course, what would that do to the plant life of the
      planet? You'd probably find that the tropical vegetation "required" to
      "grow" the planet's biodiversity wouldn't exist, and the planet might be
      dead.

      Too much of a good thing isn't always good. ;)

      Just my thoughts. I am willing to be proven wrong.
      MH

      PS; Eshravel, aye? Hmmmm.....
      --
    • Gilly, Tom (GTICCC)
      ... at least), and though I see no good reason why planetary wobble cannot happen more ... astro-physicists who will explain that the earth s
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >Remember that tilt is seasonal, meaning it happens once a year (on Earth,
        at least), and though I see no good reason why planetary wobble cannot
        happen more
        >often than once a year, I have a sneaking suspicion there might be
        astro-physicists who will explain that the earth's "rotate-around-the-sun
        year" and "seasonal
        >year" coincide for "good reason". I don't know.

        I'm not an astro-physicist, but I do know why the seasons happen once a
        rotation around the sun. It's because the earth doesn't wobble at all--it is
        tilted. It maintains the same tilt all the time. In the summer solstice for
        the northern hemisphere the tilt is toward the sun. At the equinoxes the
        tilt is in a direction that is at a 90 degree angle from the sun. And at the
        winter solstice it is away from the sun.

        --Tom


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Taina Lloyd
        ... I m not an astrophysicist either, but I recall reading somewhere that if the earth wasn t tilted, the latitudes at which agriculture is possible would be
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > I'm not an astro-physicist, but I do know why the seasons
          > happen once a
          > rotation around the sun. It's because the earth doesn't
          > wobble at all--it is
          > tilted. It maintains the same tilt all the time. In the
          > summer solstice for
          > the northern hemisphere the tilt is toward the sun. At the
          > equinoxes the
          > tilt is in a direction that is at a 90 degree angle from the
          > sun. And at the
          > winter solstice it is away from the sun.
          >
          > --Tom

          I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I recall reading somewhere that if
          the earth wasn't tilted, the latitudes at which agriculture is possible
          would be much more restricted. This is because the tilt produces a much
          longer growing season.

          Taina
        • Gilly, Tom (GTICCC)
          ... the earth wasn t tilted, the latitudes at which agriculture is possible would be much more ... I must apologize, I was not quite correct. The earth does
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            >> I'm not an astro-physicist, but I do know why the seasons happen once
            >> a rotation around the sun. It's because the earth doesn't wobble at
            >> all--it is tilted. It maintains the same tilt all the time. In the
            >> summer solstice for the northern hemisphere the tilt is toward the
            >> sun. At the equinoxes the tilt is in a direction that is at a 90
            >> degree angle from the sun. And at the winter solstice it is away from
            >> the sun.
            >>
            >> --Tom

            >I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I recall reading somewhere that if
            the earth wasn't tilted, the latitudes at which agriculture is possible
            would be much more
            >restricted. This is because the tilt produces a much longer growing season.

            >Taina

            I must apologize, I was not quite correct. The earth does have a wobble.
            However, the wobble is very slow, it occurs over a period of 41000 years. It
            varies its tilt from 21.5° to 24.5°. It is thought that earth may have
            gotten its tilt from a collision with another, smaller planet early in the
            development of the solar system. The debris of that planet became the moon.
            Also, Mars has a tilt about the same as the earths, and it has moons.
            However, Venus has almost no tilt, and no moons. So there seems to be a
            correlation between tilts and moons.

            It would be interesting to create a world with no season's and no moons.
            What kind of life would evolve there? What kind of civilization would
            appear? The effect of season's on our culture is considerable. Has anyone
            out there tackled the issue?

            --Tom






            Long Live Geofiction!
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geofiction/
            geofiction-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            geofiction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            Yahoo! Groups Links









            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mike Ham
            ... Now, you just KNOW that don t make no sense! /:o Well, if you mean the surface of the planet at the tropics of cancer and capricorn are 90° to the sun at
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > > Remember that tilt is seasonal, meaning it happens once a
              > > year (on Earth, at least), and though I see no good reason
              > > why planetary wobble cannot happen more often than once a
              > > year, I have a sneaking suspicion there might be astro-
              > > physicists who will explain that the earth's "rotate-
              > > around-the-sun year" and "seasonal year" coincide for
              > > "good reason". I don't know.
              >
              > I'm not an astro-physicist, but I do know why the seasons
              > happen once a rotation around the sun. It's because the
              > earth doesn't wobble at all--it is tilted. It maintains
              > the same tilt all the time. In the summer solstice for
              > the northern hemisphere the tilt is toward the sun. At the
              > equinoxes the tilt is in a direction that is at a 90
              > degree angle from the sun. And at the winter solstice it
              > is away from the sun.

              Now, you just KNOW that don't make no sense! /:o
              Well, if you mean the surface of the planet at the tropics of cancer and
              capricorn are 90° to the sun at the equinoxes, then, yes, that's right.
              But you know that there is a **gradual** tilt from one tropic line to
              the other between the two equinoxes? And that the earth's tilt toward or
              from the sun is therefore NOT constant throughout the year? (Your text
              seems to suggest otherwise.)

              And, when I talk about a "wobble", that's what I mean: the earth, in the
              twelve months around the sun, is swapping from one extreme in the tilt
              to the other and then back again. That, to me, is a wobble, albeit a
              very slow one. And it is that "wobble" that causes the seasons. I'm
              sorry, it's just language, but to me a "tilt" sounds like a permanent
              state of affairs, even though that's the term they use in
              astro-physics-land.

              > I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I recall reading
              > somewhere that if the earth wasn't tilted, the latitudes
              > at which agriculture is possible would be much more
              > restricted. This is because the tilt produces a much
              > longer growing season.

              Now that IS interesting.
              So, maybe I am wrong. Maybe if the earth DID tilt more we **would** have
              more temperate land on the planet. Still, I don't think you could
              submerge half the planet in darkness for half the year and expect
              anything to grow there in the winter. So, I guess the maximum amount of
              tilt you would want -- given the polar regions are snowbound, even
              though they get sunlight -- might be 45°.

              I'm just thinkin'
              --
            • Gilly, Tom (GTICCC)
              ... The earth is not swapping from one extreme to the other. The tilt is in fact fixed (we can disregard precession, which is the real wobble, since it takes
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 7, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                >> I'm not an astro-physicist, but I do know why the seasons happen once
                >> a rotation around the sun. It's because the earth doesn't wobble at
                >> all--it is tilted. It maintains the same tilt all the time. In the
                >> summer solstice for the northern hemisphere the tilt is toward the
                >> sun. At the equinoxes the tilt is in a direction that is at a 90
                >> degree angle from the sun. And at the winter solstice it is away from
                >> the sun.

                >Now, you just KNOW that don't make no sense! /:o
                >Well, if you mean the surface of the planet at the
                >tropics of cancer and capricorn are 90° to the sun
                >at the equinoxes, then, yes, that's right.
                >But you know that there is a **gradual** tilt
                >from one tropic line to the other between the
                >two equinoxes? And that the earth's tilt toward
                >or from the sun is therefore NOT constant
                >throughout the year? (Your text seems to suggest otherwise.)

                >And, when I talk about a "wobble", that's what
                >I mean: the earth, in the twelve months around
                >the sun, is swapping from one extreme in the tilt
                >to the other and then back again. That, to me,
                >is a wobble, albeit a very slow one. And it is
                >that "wobble" that causes the seasons. I'm sorry,
                >it's just language, but to me a "tilt" sounds like
                >a permanent state of affairs, even though
                >that's the term they use in astro-physics-land.

                The earth is not swapping from one extreme to the other. The tilt is in fact
                fixed (we can disregard precession, which is the real wobble, since it takes
                thousands of years). The reason we have seasons is that the earth takes a
                year to orbit around the sun. Let's split up the orbit into 360 degrees.
                Let's say summer solstice is at 0 degrees. At this point the earths tilt is
                pointing toward the sun. Then in the fall equinox the earth has moved 90
                degrees. The tilt is still pointing in the same direction, but since the
                earth has moved relative to the sun the tilt is no longer toward the sun. At
                180 degrees the tilt is now away from the sun. The way you described it
                suggests that you can have more that one seasonal cycle in a year. But the
                fact is that you have to have one seasonal cycle in one year. If the earth
                suddenly stopped orbiting around the sun you would not see it wobble in
                place over the course of a year. The tilt would remain in the same
                direction.

                --Tom



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gilly, Tom (GTICCC)
                ... If the earth wasn t tilted we wouldn t have seasons. Without seasons you would have a perpetual growing season at all latitudes that weren t ice-capped. So
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 10, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  >> I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I recall reading somewhere that
                  >> if the earth wasn't tilted, the latitudes at which agriculture is
                  >> possible would be much more restricted. This is because the tilt
                  >> produces a much longer growing season.

                  >Now that IS interesting.
                  >So, maybe I am wrong. Maybe if the earth DID tilt more we **would**
                  >have more temperate land on the planet. Still, I don't think you
                  >could submerge half the planet in darkness for half the year and
                  >expect anything to grow there in the winter. So, I guess the
                  >maximum amount of tilt you would want -- given the polar regions
                  >are snowbound, even though they get sunlight -- might be 45°.

                  If the earth wasn't tilted we wouldn't have seasons. Without seasons you
                  would have a perpetual growing season at all latitudes that weren't
                  ice-capped. So in the polar regions you could have some sort of vegitation
                  that evolved for that environment being able to grow all year. Perhaps you
                  could have a plant that could even grown on an ice sheet. Remember, without
                  a tilt, every part of the globe would have equal length days and nights
                  throughout the year. Energy intake through solar energy is extremely
                  reliable on such a world. In fact, the concept of a "year" would be
                  irrelevant to the inhabitants of that planet (unless they had advanced
                  astronomy). You would have an unending sequence of identical days, with very
                  different ecosystems developed for different sections of latitude.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Taina Lloyd
                  ... Dredging through my memory, I think the idea was that the existence of summer gives a growing season long enough and warm enough to grow wheat and other
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 10, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > If the earth wasn't tilted we wouldn't have seasons. Without
                    > seasons you
                    > would have a perpetual growing season at all latitudes that weren't
                    > ice-capped. So in the polar regions you could have some sort
                    > of vegitation
                    > that evolved for that environment being able to grow all
                    > year. Perhaps you
                    > could have a plant that could even grown on an ice sheet.
                    > Remember, without
                    > a tilt, every part of the globe would have equal length days
                    > and nights
                    > throughout the year. Energy intake through solar energy is extremely
                    > reliable on such a world. In fact, the concept of a "year" would be
                    > irrelevant to the inhabitants of that planet (unless they had advanced
                    > astronomy). You would have an unending sequence of identical
                    > days, with very
                    > different ecosystems developed for different sections of latitude.

                    Dredging through my memory, I think the idea was that the existence of
                    summer gives a growing season long enough and warm enough to grow wheat
                    and other grain crops at higher lattitudes than would be possible in a
                    world without seasons, though as you say, if there never was a tilt,
                    they may have evolved to grow in cooler but constant temperatures.

                    Taina
                  • Peregrine John
                    ... One reason I ve never attempted such a thing is the fact that Earth s life forms are generally designed for seasonal cycles, in many cases actually
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 11, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > If the earth wasn't tilted we wouldn't have seasons. Without
                      > > seasons you
                      > > would have a perpetual growing season at all latitudes that weren't
                      > > ice-capped. So in the polar regions you could have some sort
                      > > of vegitation
                      > > that evolved for that environment being able to grow all
                      > > year. Perhaps you
                      > > could have a plant that could even grown on an ice sheet.
                      > > Remember, without
                      > > a tilt, every part of the globe would have equal length days
                      > > and nights
                      > > throughout the year. Energy intake through solar energy is extremely
                      > > reliable on such a world. In fact, the concept of a "year" would be
                      > > irrelevant to the inhabitants of that planet (unless they had advanced
                      > > astronomy). You would have an unending sequence of identical
                      > > days, with very
                      > > different ecosystems developed for different sections of latitude.
                      >
                      > Dredging through my memory, I think the idea was that the existence of
                      > summer gives a growing season long enough and warm enough to grow wheat
                      > and other grain crops at higher lattitudes than would be possible in a
                      > world without seasons, though as you say, if there never was a tilt,
                      > they may have evolved to grow in cooler but constant temperatures.

                      One reason I've never attempted such a thing is the fact that Earth's
                      life forms are generally designed for seasonal cycles, in many cases
                      actually depending on it. The ramifications of life made for one
                      season (not to mention actually coming up with those species, which
                      would be a blast) makes for a bigger project than I've ever attempted.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.