| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Perth and Fremantle are in turn green because of the Easterly Effect of the Great Australian Bight. However there are two caveats here. First of all the GAB does not produce a full easterly effect and the reason for this (not presently known) will presumably assist in isolating the precise cause of the Eastern Effect. But the GAB cannot account for the northern extension of the Perth area fertile zone. This may be because of modern irrigation intervention (researchers please advise) or it may be out-of-Africa (see below). |
Just need to emphasize: My hypothesis solves all these "problems".
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| If you look at the globe Indonesia isn't "to the north". It's almost on the same latitude and north-west Australia is practically touching (lush) New Guinea. |
Some of you still do not appreciate the terrifying precision of the New Model. I re-iterate for the zillionth time: rainfall is a strictly east-west business. It doesn't matter that Indonesia is only a few miles away from Australia, the direction is north-south so nothing that occurs in Indonesia has the slightest effect on Australia
| Is it me or are you saying the exact opposite of what you said vis-a-vis South America? |
No, I am saying exactly the same thing. Look at South America again and place your hand upright along the Andes so it covers the Atacama. Now move your hand ever-westward and sing out when you come to any vegation. But you won't since your hand will cross a) the Pacific b) the desert continent of Australia and c) the Indian Ocean. That is why parts of the Atacama have no recorded precipitation whatsoever.
Now do the same with Australia. This time your hand will cover the Indian Ocean but very soon part of it will cover Madagascar and southern Africa and then back to (Atlantic) ocean again. The difference is just enough, just sufficiently vegetative, to produce these two thin green strips in the Australian map you provided which crosses the continent two-thirds the way up.
| Such a vast expanse of ocean to the east would surely outweigh "foliage factors". |
I will be quantifying these factors soon. Apologies for the delay but my computer is being installed by a "software engineer" so obviously it utterly ceases to function for long periods on a regular basis. How I miss the visits from the quill-cutter.
| And you haven't explained why the south-west isn't desert too. |
I did but you missed it. The principle is so important I will repeat it. Place your thumb on the Great Australian Bight at its greatest north-south extent (some of you will be nodding sagely, knowing precisely why it is such a peculiar shape but nod on!).
Moving your thumb ever-westward, all the land it covers within 500 kms of the water in the Bight should be non-desert. As you will see from your map, the fit is excellent in terms of the sudden production of non-desert generally but no-quite-so-good in detailed application. This is pace Ishmael because we are dealing here strictly ex hypothesis and not with the underlying reason. Precision is always relative in model-making.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Since there is no vegetation anywhere at Antarctic latitudes, Antarctica is understandably mostly desert (everything up to and including the white bits)� we just need to explain the peninsular and coastal precipitation. |
This is the first time I have seen an Antarctican precipitation map and the results are astounding. As you will see Antarctica is overall a desert continent in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason as Australia: there is no greenery to the west of it, none whatsoever.
There are two areas of complete non-desert to be explained -- the two red-and-yellow areas. Both are precisely predicted by the Eastern Effect since these are the two areas of Antarctica that most markedly have sea to the east. There are some slight anomalies of a kind we have met before: the Ross Sea (the one at the bottom of the map) and other indentations are Great Antarctican Bights that do not produce precisely the proper extent of non-desert.
The pink areas -- which might be desert and might not be (the scale cuts through the 240 mm mark) are all consistent with a slight Eastern Effect in that they are united by being somewhat exposed to sea-to-the-east.
| I think it may have something to do with the unbalancing of the sea-level evaporative equilibrium, caused by glacial melt water in the peninsular region. |
Well, if so, then all the other eastern effects found on every other continent must be produced by the same thing. Is there glacial meltwater in the Great Australian Bight? Deeper thought required!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| This time your hand will cover the Indian Ocean but very soon part of it will cover Madagascar and southern Africa and then back to (Atlantic) ocean again. |
You've explained it very clearly. Thank you for your patience.
Can't you apply the same principle to Antarctica though, i.e. its non-desert north-west is aligned with the southern tip of South America and the south-east with Australia north-western non-desert?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Think of it this way: latitude = east-west lines; east-west lines = rain and snow. Antarctica is unique among the continents of the world in having no other continent at its latitude. None. Not one. No others. That's it. Precipitation-wise, it's on its ownio. No overlapping, no alignment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Snow fails to build up in the thin portions of Antarctica for precisely the same reasons that sand fails to accumulate in the thin portions of South America -- which, incidentally, is also the same reason the Atacama fails to cross the Andes.
Same effect. Same cause.
The Eastern Effect is most elegantly explained when doing so requires the introduction of no new mechanism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Cloud formation? As you can tell I'm all at sea. Like Ishtar I prefer desserts to deserts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
|
If Antarctica is by itself and covered with ice/snow, then where do the clouds come from for it to snow/rain on itself when there are no plants perspiring?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
Well according to Chad clouds hover over islands and apparently he's right. A thin strip of land or peninsula is similar to an island in that respect presumably. Perhaps it causes air to rise? But the 'Eastern Effect' that results is rather mysterious (to me).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishtar
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Well according to Chad clouds hover over islands and apparently he's right. A thin strip of land or peninsula is similar to an island in that respect presumably. Perhaps it causes air to rise? But the 'Eastern Effect' that results is rather mysterious (to me). |
I agree, I'm convinced that it is happening, but I'm still confused on the mechanism. Hopefully the powers that be will have some patience with me. :)
I keep thinking back to warm / cold air but I'm sure that's not right. There must be something that stops the clouds from going further.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mallas wrote: | | If Antarctica is by itself and covered with ice/snow, then where do the clouds come from for it to snow/rain on itself when there are no plants perspiring? |
Hey. Good point.
ahh... mmm..... oops. I'm stumped. Mick?
help me?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
And I was going to say (so I may as well anyway):
Ahh... so the eastern effect produces precipitation without the involvement of vegetation...?
No worries... as I said earlier, all that fresh water ice melting and crashing into the sea off the peninsula and other coastal bits will unbalance the evaporative equilibrium by greatly reducing oceanic salinity. The water vapour thus produced will then just circulate at that latitude and produce snow... at just that latitude (and none inland).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mallas
|
|
|
|
| The water vapour thus produced will then just circulate at that latitude and produce snow |
Chad, can you please explain how the water vapour is actually produced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Youse guys never listen. Antarctica is entire unto itself and has no plants so there is no plant-driven precipitation, which is why Antarctica is a desert-continent (zero Western Effect). Antarctica is circular round the pole so there is no sea to its east, hence there is no Eastern Effect either. However, there are small bits eg the Antarctic Peninsula which stick out into the southern ocean and hence create a local Eastern Effect.
You may speculate all you like on the causes of the Eastern Effect but unless what you come up with applies to all places where the Eastern Effect operates (every goddamn continent on earth), I shall not be listening. "Fresh water ice melting..." yeah right, that's a real feature of the world's continents. Why do I spend my entire life surrounded by morons...oh yes, it's 'cos I'm a genius and it just seems that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Well. Mick does not deny that there is some evaporation from shallow coastal waters (especially desalinated waters), and perhaps there is just enough at that latitude to replenish the glaciation that every year falls into the sea.
I expect that hard statistics concerning Antarctic glaciation may be hard to come by in our present political climate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
