Would a specific change in earth's rate of precession mean no seasons?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the implications of a hypothetical change in Earth's axial precession on the existence of seasons. Participants consider scenarios where the precession period matches the Earth's orbital period and the effects of altering the axial tilt.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if Earth's axial precession had a period of one year, the tilted axis would always point towards the sun, potentially eliminating seasons.
  • Another participant suggests that this scenario would result in one continuous season.
  • Some participants argue that having the Earth's axis perpendicular to its orbital path would be a more effective way to eliminate seasons.
  • There is a semantic debate regarding the definition of seasons, with some asserting that without variation, the concept of seasons may not be necessary.
  • One participant humorously suggests that if semantics are involved, there could be two seasons, one for each hemisphere.
  • Another participant agrees that if the precession period matches the revolution period, it aligns with the earlier claims about seasons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether a change in precession would lead to no seasons, one season, or two seasons, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need to consider the implications of transitioning from current conditions to proposed scenarios, including angular momentum conservation and safety concerns, which remain unresolved.

DocZaius
Messages
365
Reaction score
11
This is not a homework question. This is the result of trying to think of a way to remove seasons.

Imagine a case where the Earth's axial precession had a period of exactly one year (instead of about 26,000 years) and that such a precession was counter clockwise (matching the direction of the Earth's orbit around the sun). Would it be fair to say that then there would be no seasons?

The image that would result would be one of the Earth's tilted axis of rotation being constantly pointed towards the sun. This would mean that the sun's path in the sky would remain constant for each point on Earth throughout the year.

Let me know if/where I go wrong! Thanks.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
There would be one season.
 
A much safer way to get rid of seasons is to have the Earth's axis perpendicular to its path around the sun.
 
chemisttree said:
There would be one season.

I think this argument is semantic. The definition of a season involves the presence of others. A season is defined by its relativity to others. As such, I think saying there would be no season would be more reasonable than saying there would be one season. Consider Occam's razor. If climate is no longer a function of Earth's position around the sun, why is the concept of a season necessary?

mathman02 said:
A much safer way to get rid of seasons is to have the Earth's axis perpendicular to its path around the sun.

Perhaps this would be a simpler way. How exactly would it be safer? I assume that when mentioning the concept of safety, you are imagining a transition from our current state to the proposed one. In your response, please consider the safety issues related to a transition from a) our current state of tilt and precession to no tilt and no precession (your proposed state) and b) our current state of tilt and precession to same tilt and different precession (my proposed state). Since you are now considering whether one transition is safer than another, please conserve angular momentum in your proposed scenario showing increased safety.
 
Last edited:
DocZaius said:
I think this argument is semantic. The definition of a season involves the presence of others. A season is defined by its relativity to others. As such, I think saying there would be no season would be more reasonable than saying there would be one season. Consider Occam's razor. If climate is no longer a function of Earth's position around the sun, why is the concept of a season necessary?

Well if you are going to bring semantics into it then I get to say that there will be TWO seasons. One for the northern hemisphere and one for the southern. You can tell the difference by travel.

Isn't semantics wonderful?
 
Yes, if the period of precession is the same as the period of the Revolution around the Earth.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Milancovitch cycles and how they relate to seasons
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Help with formula to calculate the precession rate change
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
High School E=0. What Does That Mean for the Seasons?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Trying to grok the draconic year
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School The Sun's Influence on the Moon's Orbit: Is it Negligible?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Seasons due to Earth's elliptical orbit
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Graduate What is the cause of lunar nodal and apsidal precession?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
19K
Undergrad Why does the sun appear to move eastwards from Earth?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Undergrad Time series and why would we remove seasonality and trend?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Graduate Derivation of Earth's Precession: Sun's Torque & Causes
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K