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

[DocZaius]

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.

 

[chemisttree]

There would be one season.

 

[mathman]

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

 

[DocZaius]

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?

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.

 

[chemisttree]

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?

 

[Dickfore]

Yes, if the period of precession is the same as the period of the Revolution around the Earth.