Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.astro, sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? |
| Date | 2016-02-11 19:44 +0000 |
| Organization | Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics |
| Message-ID | <n9ioa1$657$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <56B42852.31BE@ix.netcom.com> <n92eu8$lu2$3@pcls7.std.com> <n92fmr$h9b$1@odin.sdf-eu.org> <n935ca$quk$1@dont-email.me> <n938vn$2sk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In article <n938vn$2sk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes: > I am sceptical too but here is one source with references: > http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/moon.html I looked at the notes but not the references. They refer to single locations and limited periods of time, which makes me wonder about statistical significance. In any case, they can't tell us anything global. > There is a more recent climate related paper claiming a statistically > significant temperature to lunar phase correlation in satellite data but > not rainfall. > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5203/1481.abstract > > It isn't totally implausible since the Earth will be very slightly > closer to the sun at full moon. The effect is tiny ~20mK I think Martin has nailed the cause, though the authors didn't. While the authors write "0.02 K" and "0.03 K" in the text -- and why they give two different values is unclear to me -- their Figure 1 (which I found in the pdf but not the html version) actually shows 10 mK difference. That's just the amount I estimate from the difference in solar distance as a function of lunar phase. I'm impressed that it can actually be measured. Another source quoted http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/lunar-gravity-affects-rainfall.html which is based on the refereed article at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067342/full This shows the expected semi-diurnal tidal effect on the atmosphere and correlates it with a tiny rainfall effect. The original claim was a monthly effect, which this paper doesn't address and about which I remain skeptical. By the way, it's not hard to compare the relative tidal forces on a raindrop from the Moon and from a nearby frog. The Moon is roughly three times denser than a frog, so if the Moon and the frog subtend the same angular diameter as seen from the raindrop, the Moon's tidal force will be three times larger. Move the frog 30% closer, and the tidal forces will be equal. (Tidal force goes as r^-1/3.) Of course both are utterly negligible for any practical purpose. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Back to sci.astro | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Moon was produced by head-on collision? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 19:55 -0500
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 22:17 -0600
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-01-31 07:25 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-31 09:44 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-01-31 17:02 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 03:13 -0500
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 10:36 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-01 22:27 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 19:44 -0500
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-01 23:12 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-02 05:57 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-02 15:59 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-02 22:14 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 14:23 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-04 11:40 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 11:35 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-05 03:18 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 20:42 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-05 08:46 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-05 15:26 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-05 15:39 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-05 12:55 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-05 22:31 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2016-02-05 22:50 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 12:41 -0600
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-06 01:20 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-06 12:53 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-07 01:28 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-07 07:06 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-08 02:58 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-08 06:35 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-07 13:54 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-07 15:11 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-07 16:16 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-08 21:36 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-09 11:37 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 12:39 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2016-02-03 22:16 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 22:22 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-03 22:38 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-04 11:46 -0800
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? the_shadow <the_shadow@xcoxx.net> - 2016-02-06 07:30 +0000
Re: Moon was produced by head-on collision? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2016-02-04 07:52 -0800
csiph-web