| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
This is because of a) the eastern effect
But it doesn't rain more to the east. |
No attempt has ever been made to quantify rain. That is why we always use deserts, it allows us to explore the absolute case. No doubt if OGRE turns out to be true, these things will appear in the wash.
| And the top blob of South America is too wide, innit? |
At first, I assumed that the Eastern Effect varied with latitude, and was greatest at the tropics (a possibility still to be explored) but then decided that the start of the Atacama coincided with the Indonesia/ Australia hiatus (which it only kinda does). Or it's a combination....the point is OGRE works better than orthodoxy which, anyway you look at it, cannot have a desert slap in the middle of the tropics (the Atacama begins within three degrees of the Equator!).
It encourages people to believe in Equatorial Rain Forests.
Those big green things on the Equator do quite a good job of convincing people. |
Now you're doing it. The fact that rain forest occurs habitually at the equator has led everybody to assume that it is the equator (ie heat) that is causing the rain. In fact, this is a case of 'As Above, So Below' because, as every OGREist knows, it is the forest that is causing the rain. If the continents were laid out differently we could have deserts occurring habitually at the equator and everyone would be composing learned theses about how it's way too hot for rain in the tropics.
Easter Island [is] not an exception since it is all Eastern Effect
No it isn't: it's on the downhill slope between wet mid ocean and dry Atacama. |
Again, you may well be right but, if you remember, the original question was "Why are there no desert islands?" [a question orthodoxy has never deigned to answer] and OGRE's answer is that the Eastern Effect will always prevent it unless the island is so enormous, the phrase 'desert island' would never be applied.
Easter Island is interesting since, as far as I know, it is as near to a desert island as we have on earth (though I think there are some similar examples off Baja California). And therefore should be explored as 'an absolute case'.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Easter Island is interesting since, as far as I know, it is as near to a desert island as we have on earth (though I think there are some similar examples off Baja California). And therefore should be explored as 'an absolute case'. |
Not coincidentally, Easter Island has been denuded of trees.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'd forgotten that. In fact orthodoxy must be a bit daft not to notice that the present rainfall doesn't support trees yet be aware from archaeology that the islands used to be densely forested.
It all happened terribly recently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It all happened terribly recently. |
Yes. And I don't buy the orthodox explanation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| No attempt has ever been made to quantify rain. |
Thanks for that. I rather thought the scales on the charts that go up to 8+ mm per day denoted quantities.
| That is why we always use deserts, it allows us to explore the absolute case. |
What, deserts absolutely defined as getting less than 10 inches of unquantified rain per year, you mean?
| the point is OGRE works better than orthodoxy which, anyway you look at it, cannot have a desert slap in the middle of the tropics (the Atacama begins within three degrees of the Equator!). |
Fair enough. That's why I called my theory SHREK, Son of OGRE.
| Now you're doing it. The fact that rain forest occurs habitually at the equator has led everybody to assume that it is the equator (ie heat) that is causing the rain. In fact, this is a case of 'As Above, So Below' because, as every OGREist knows, it is the forest that is causing the rain. If the continents were laid out differently we could have deserts occurring habitually at the equator and everyone would be composing learned theses about how it's way too hot for rain in the tropics. |
Indeed, but a) I assumed no such thing, b) it's not heat per se and orthodoxy seems to be catching on, since they taught my son a few years ago that the rising hot air draws all that transpired water high up to where it cools and rains back down again (rainforests water themselves) and c) you're assuming on the basis of OGRE that a different layout would put deserts on the Equator, while the rain belt all the way across the centre of the low-OGRE Pacific rather suggests it would rain on/near the Equator anyway.
Besides, a thorough SLOT model might demonstrate the limits of the layouts that are actually possible -- and since water is now implicated as a lubricant in Plate Tectonics, a proper model of rain and deserts might demonstrate the limits of the layouts that are actually possible there, too.
| if you remember, the original question was "Why are there no desert islands?" and OGRE's answer is that the Eastern Effect will always prevent it |
Yes, I remember, but how does this help?
Look for desert islands in the dry regions to the left of the deserts. If there are very few, that will be interesting in itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
No attempt has ever been made to quantify rain.
Thanks for that. I rather thought the scales on the charts that go up to 8+ mm per day denoted quantities. |
I meant re OGRE theory. We only got as far as deserts or no deserts, not how much rain in general. Though of course it must explain all this eventually if it is to stand up. Prolly the best way to proceed is to look at monsoon areas, ie where it pisses down some of the year and is bone dry the rest, and see what changes seasonally. What really changes of course.
That is why we always use deserts, it allows us to explore the absolute case.
What, deserts absolutely defined as getting less than 10 inches of unquantified rain per year, you mean? |
No, I mean absolute in the sense of no-rain, or nearly so. But, as it happens, deserts are also useful because they tend to stand out discretely from surrounding areas which is useful in parts of the world where statistics are iffy.
| Indeed, but a) I assumed no such thing, b) it's not heat per se and orthodoxy seems to be catching on, since they taught my son a few years ago that the rising hot air draws all that transpired water high up to where it cools and rains back down again (rainforests water themselves) |
Don't follow. That's the orthodox version, taught to me when I went to school and uses heat as the determining feature (hot air rising). Even when I was a kid I wondered why they were saying this when in fact equatorial rain-forests are cooler than deserts (because of all that cloud cover).
| and c) you're assuming on the basis of OGRE that a different layout would put deserts on the Equator, while the rain belt all the way across the centre of the low-OGRE Pacific rather suggests it would rain on/near the Equator anyway. |
I don't know about this Pacific rain-belt (post a map) but OGRE's explanation for a wet equator is that
-- north-south mountains gives rain to equatorial South America
-- equatorial South America provides rain to equatorial Africa
-- eastern effect gives rain to the Indonesian archipelago. Presumably all this together would account for rain in the equatorial Pacific.
However I am prepared to listen to 'heat' arguments eg vegetation gives up moisture quicker in the heat or whatever. Or some other 'equatorial' argument eg air tends to go round and round the world at the equator more than at other latitutes or whatever.
| Besides, a thorough SLOT model might demonstrate the limits of the layouts that are actually possible -- and since water is now implicated as a lubricant in Plate Tectonics, a proper model of rain and deserts might demonstrate the limits of the layouts that are actually possible there, too. |
I will pass over this for now. If you can restate the idea without invoking plate tectonics you may be onto something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| We only got as far as deserts or no deserts, not how much rain in general. |
There lies the weakness. You forgot your SLOT mantra and only looked at the land.
| But, as it happens, deserts are also useful because they tend to stand out discretely from surrounding areas which is useful in parts of the world where statistics are iffy. |
I agree. Wiki has 7 discrete explanations for 8 desert areas, but if you look at global precipitation charts, the detail is painted over by a simple pattern.
| That's the orthodox version, taught to me when I went to school |
Oh OK. I thought "rainforests water themselves" was a new development.
Still, it does allow them to be consistent: hot (enough) and wet... hot but dry... the water can't get away from the middle and the (now-)dry, high pressure air keeps other rain out of the desert latitudes. Shame about the Eastern effect... and the multiple desert latitides.
| I don't know about this Pacific rain-belt (post a map) |
What, again?
| However I am prepared to listen to... some other... argument |
That's a first.
See SHREK, Son of OGRE.
Oh... it hasn't been reproduced over here.
| I will pass over this for now. If you can restate the idea without invoking plate tectonics you may be onto something. |
I did. I said "a thorough SLOT model might demonstrate the limits of the layouts that are actually possible."
i.e. under SLOT or PT, we should look at rainfall patterns. D'ya think Gaia goes to all that trouble for nothing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
Look here again:
More stuff living in the cold up north than the cold down south. And notice more rain overall up top than down below. Nutrient run-off...? Clearly some interaction twixt land and sea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wireloop
In: Detroit
|
|
|
|
Can we determine the average temperature for any location on earth? Frinstance, weather.com has the average daily temperature in Detroit charted for each day in 2011. So, summing all 365 days of temp and dividing by 365 should give us the mean temp for Detroit in 2011, correct? In fact it did, 50.3 degrees. Now the next question should be, "What day(s) of the year does that 'mean temp' fall on?" Detroit is April 18th and October 24th. But let's do this for several, even hundreds, of locations across the globe in order to chart the day which the 'mean temp' for each location arises.
After this we'll have hundreds of 'mean temps' each associated with a particular day, some may share the same day. Let's call this the 'mean temp day for each location (MTDL). Then we'll take these hundreds of MTDLs and assign them each a number based upon where they fall on the calendar, frinstance if a MTDL fell on January 1st, then that location would be assigned a #1 becasue January 1st is the first day of the year. If the MTDL fell on May 9th (my birthday), then that location would be assigned #130, because May 9th is the 130th day of the year. Get it?
Afterwards, we would sum all of the assigned MTDL #s and then divide by the number of locations in order to find the the Mean Temp Day for the whole Earth (MTDE), and then pinpoint that MTDE on both the calendar and on the globe.
I began this process a couple of years ago while exploring my Logos Sun finding, but became exhausted after a couple of days. I did start to see some interesting trends and correlation. Anybody care to help me crunch some more numbers? I found an easier way to do it, but it is still a bit tedious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I am more than usually baffled by this. However, club rules insist an uncarping welcome be given to new ideas so, Wireloop, let's assume somebody manages to do all the calculations ... what would the best possible outcome (from your point of view) show?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wireloop
In: Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I am more than usually baffled by this. However, club rules insist an uncarping welcome be given to new ideas so, Wireloop, let's assume somebody manages to do all the calculations ... what would the best possible outcome (from your point of view) show? |
I propose that for any given location the sun is at one point in the sky more than any other point through out the year, and that this along with the precession of the equinox may influence weather.
Do this in your mind's eye:
1) Pretend that the sky is a canvas which you can draw upon.
2) Walk outside at precisely 9:00 am and draw a single point in the middle of the Sun.
3) Do this for 365 days. Same exact time, 9:00 am.
4) After 365 days connect the dots.
Do the connected dots make a shape?
Note:
You can choose any time. It does not have to be 9:00 am, as long as it is the same time every day.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Wireloop wrote: | | Do the connected dots make a shape? |
I would expect something like... 8
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | I would expect something like... 8 |
That is brilliant. Quite brilliant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
It’s a simple mathematical figure, produced in exactly the same way (and with the same predictability) as the plot produced by a child’s spyrograph.
Since the points are taken at the same time each day, the Earth’s rotation can be ignored leaving just two variables… the position of Earth along its eccentric elliptical solar orbit and its varying inclination, relative to Sol.
The size of the lobes and the inclination of the figure would, I expect, depend upon the location on Earth from which the observations where made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
But before Wireloop hares in, Chad, tell us what practical use could be made of this 'effect'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
