following the discussion about if the sun went out and I thought what
might happen if the moon was gone. The amount of insulation might stay
the same but with the oceans and currents soon going haywire the
weather system would be sure to follow.

In article ,
Simon S writes:
following the discussion about if the sun went out and I thought what
might happen if the moon was gone. The amount of insulation might stay
the same but with the oceans and currents soon going haywire the
weather system would be sure to follow.

The tides would certainly be markedly reduced, but would that
necessarily mean a major change in ocean currents?
--
John Hall "Never play cards with a man called Doc.
Never eat at a place called Mom's.
Never sleep with a woman whose troubles
are worse than your own." Nelson Algren

"Simon S" wrote in
message
m...
following the discussion about if the sun went
out and I thought what
might happen if the moon was gone. The amount of
insulation might stay
the same but with the oceans and currents soon
going haywire the
weather system would be sure to follow.

The depth to which deep ocean tidal mixing would
be reduced greatly. Sea surface temperatures
(SST's) would rise and this would have a big
effect on the weather and climate. Ice shelves may
be less prone to break-up, despite higher SST's.
Overall effects unknown.

Try a Google search on "Keeling Tides" and you may
find some relevant research.

Mike Tullett wrote in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 13:27:38 -0700, Simon S in
om wrote:

following the discussion about if the sun went out and I thought what
might happen if the moon was gone. The amount of insulation might stay
the same but with the oceans and currents soon going haywire the
weather system would be sure to follow.

In last week's "Material World" on Radio 4, there was a discussion
about the search for life on extrasolar planets. One of the essential
criteria for intelligent life to develop was the planet must have good
size moon. Without the moon, the Earth's axial tilt would vary much
more, leading to more dramatic climate variation. Isn't this the case
with Mars, which only has tow asteroid-size moons?


Tides would still occur - but the lunar component would go, leaving just
the solar component which is about 46% of the moon's effect (off the top of
my head)

I'd certainly miss the interest the tides add to the sea and some of
our rivers.

Mike Tullett wrote in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 13:27:38 -0700, Simon S in
om wrote:

following the discussion about if the sun went out and I thought what
might happen if the moon was gone. The amount of insulation might stay
the same but with the oceans and currents soon going haywire the
weather system would be sure to follow.

There would be little impact on currents at all, as surface ones are
largely induced by the wind, although in quite a roundabout and complex
fashion.

Tides would still occur - but the lunar component would go, leaving just
the solar component which is about 46% of the moon's effect (off the top of
my head)

Funny thing about that component: It can produce an high tide on the
opposite side of the earth to it. Not only that remarkable
demonstration of the breaching of the laws of gravity but: at quarter
moon it can do so despite the fact that the sun can do nothing.

Well of course that is according to "the establishment" whoever they
are. Tides would not occur if the absence of the moon required the
absence of that amount of mass from the orbit and vicinity of the
earth. The earth would have to change it's orbital radius to stay in
orbit.

If there was debris it would reach some sort of Lagrangian stability
and produce components for tides from there or fall to the earth -or
leave it.

/snip/
(Michael McNeil) wrote in message . com...

Funny thing about that component: It can produce an high tide on the
opposite side of the earth to it. Not only that remarkable
demonstration of the breaching of the laws of gravity but: at quarter
moon it can do so despite the fact that the sun can do nothing.


Why does it breach the law of gravity? When the Moon/Sun pull on the
oceans, they form a tidal bulge. The ocean level then drops but to
counter-balance the ocean system, a second bulge must form on the
other side of the globe. The second wave is driven by gravity and so
doesn't breach the "law" (whatever that may be!).


I don't understand why you say at quarter moon the "Sun can do
nothing".

cheers,

Paul.

"Paul Knightley" wrote in message
om...


Why does it breach the law of gravity? When the Moon/Sun pull on the
oceans, they form a tidal bulge. The ocean level then drops but to
counter-balance the ocean system, a second bulge must form on the
other side of the globe. The second wave is driven by gravity and so
doesn't breach the "law" (whatever that may be!).


I don't understand this either.
Why does this second bulge form?
As the moon/sun pull the water towards them it should surely flow towards
from everywhere on the globe.
If this second bulge forms then some water must surely flow *away* from
the sun/moon?

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

"Joan Lee" wrote in message
om...

In last week's "Material World" on Radio 4, there was a discussion
about the search for life on extrasolar planets. One of the essential
criteria for intelligent life to develop was the planet must have good
size moon. Without the moon, the Earth's axial tilt would vary much
more, leading to more dramatic climate variation. Isn't this the case
with Mars, which only has tow asteroid-size moons?


I think Mars has a tilt of 24 degrees, little more than ours.
Besides even with a much higher tilt life would probably have
found a way.

I have heard that without a moon life outside the sea would never
have developed because there would have been no rock pools
as a 'stepping stone' to land.

However once again, life would have found a way.
It just wouldn't have been as we know it.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:20:43 +0100, Col in
wrote:

I don't understand this either.
Why does this second bulge form?
As the moon/sun pull the water towards them it should surely flow towards
from everywhere on the globe.
If this second bulge forms then some water must surely flow *away* from
the sun/moon?

To understand the second bulge in the lunar component, we have to treat the
earth and moon as one system with a common centre of mass. This is known
as the Barycentre and lies within the earth, nearly 3000 miles from the
earth's centre. Not only is the moon rotating about this point once very
~28 days, but so is the earth's centre i.e. it wobbles as it orbits the
sun.

One can argue to keep the earth rotating around that point, requires an
inward acting force (on the opposite side to the moon - a centripetal
force) and this weakens the "gravity" there thus allowing that second bulge
to form. I am simplifying things a lot and diagrams would be useful. This
site looks quite sound - "Why are there two high tides each day"

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/tides.html

Mind you, this is very much the Newtonian approach and assumes very deep
water (much deeper than is really the case), and no land to affect the
tidal bulges as the encircle the earth.

--
Mike posted to uk.sci.weather 25/09/2003 17:57:50 UTC
Coleraine
Seeking information about the Internet and the way it works? - Subscribe to
news:uk.net.beginners

(Paul Knightley) wrote in message . com...
/snip/
(Michael McNeil) wrote in message . com...

Funny thing about that component: It can produce an high tide on the
opposite side of the earth to it. Not only that remarkable
demonstration of the breaching of the laws of gravity but: at quarter
moon it can do so despite the fact that the sun can do nothing.


Why does it breach the law of gravity? When the Moon/Sun pull on the
oceans, they form a tidal bulge. The ocean level then drops but to
counter-balance the ocean system, a second bulge must form on the
other side of the globe. The second wave is driven by gravity and so
doesn't breach the "law" (whatever that may be!).

Which of the three basic laws of motion defined by Newton in his intro
to the Pricipia.. does the bulge on the opposite side to the moon
obey?

I don't understand why you say at quarter moon the "Sun can do
nothing".

In his book on astronomy for kids, Patrick Moore has sketched the
positions of the sun and moon at Spring and Neap Tides. The earth is
shown with bulges on both sides. There is no representation of the
(presumably smaller) bulge under the sun. Or was he just kee[ing it
simple?

Whichever answer you get for the last question, you are running up
against a paradox.