What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans.
Watching a tv show were the moon causes the magma to flow across the planet as the moon orbits above.
I imagine it’s bollocks unless perhaps the magma is just underneath the ground

Cymek said:

What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans.
Watching a tv show were the moon causes the magma to flow across the planet as the moon orbits above.
I imagine it’s bollocks unless perhaps the magma is just underneath the ground

I wonder if the moons gravity effects the Earths atmosphere and magnetic shell?

Cymek said:

What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans.
Watching a tv show were the moon causes the magma to flow across the planet as the moon orbits above.
I imagine it’s bollocks unless perhaps the magma is just underneath the ground

Why would that be bollocks?

The moon and sun create tides in everything. It’s just more visible for the oceans.

The Earth incurs measurable land tides which would still happen if there were no oceans.

There would also still be an effect on the liquid and solid cores.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans.
Watching a tv show were the moon causes the magma to flow across the planet as the moon orbits above.
I imagine it’s bollocks unless perhaps the magma is just underneath the ground

Why would that be bollocks?

The moon and sun create tides in everything. It’s just more visible for the oceans.

As the magma is quite a distance under the surface and it might surge but not actually break though to the surface and act as a magma tide

rushes outside
Postman.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans.
Watching a tv show were the moon causes the magma to flow across the planet as the moon orbits above.
I imagine it’s bollocks unless perhaps the magma is just underneath the ground

I wonder if the moons gravity effects the Earths atmosphere and magnetic shell?

Yes, yes and oceans.

But mostly the energy transfer is in the upper mantle, where the magma is.

>What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans

you and I wouldn’t be here to ask the question

no romantic summer evenings at the beach

no coastal erosion, no coast in the normal sense

a depressing thought

moving all that water dissipates a lot of the energy from moving masses, courtesy gravity

brian cox might have talked about it on his show

transition said:

>What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans

you and I wouldn’t be here to ask the question

no romantic summer evenings at the beach

no coastal erosion, no coast in the normal sense

a depressing thought

Oh what rubbish. Plenty of coastal erosion – that’s waves not tides. In fact, faster coastal erosion without the Moon.

There would even still be tides. From the Sun’s gravity. Twice a day as usual.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans

you and I wouldn’t be here to ask the question

no romantic summer evenings at the beach

no coastal erosion, no coast in the normal sense

a depressing thought

Oh what rubbish. Plenty of coastal erosion – that’s waves not tides. In fact, faster coastal erosion without the Moon.

There would even still be tides. From the Sun’s gravity. Twice a day as usual.

The question wasn’t about what would be the effect of no moon. It was about the effect of no ocean.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>What effect would the moons orbit have on Earth if we had no oceans

you and I wouldn’t be here to ask the question

no romantic summer evenings at the beach

no coastal erosion, no coast in the normal sense

a depressing thought

Oh what rubbish. Plenty of coastal erosion – that’s waves not tides. In fact, faster coastal erosion without the Moon.

There would even still be tides. From the Sun’s gravity. Twice a day as usual.

The question wasn’t about what would be the effect of no moon. It was about the effect of no ocean.

Sorry, misunderstood.

I answered that earlier without realising it. The dominant changes in orbit are due to the moon’s interaction with the upper mantle rather than the ocean. Yes, magma.

If we had no ocean. But still an atmosphere.

>Sorry, misunderstood.

you’re still going to get a spanking

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Oh what rubbish. Plenty of coastal erosion – that’s waves not tides. In fact, faster coastal erosion without the Moon.

There would even still be tides. From the Sun’s gravity. Twice a day as usual.

The question wasn’t about what would be the effect of no moon. It was about the effect of no ocean.

Sorry, misunderstood.

I answered that earlier without realising it. The dominant changes in orbit are due to the moon’s interaction with the upper mantle rather than the ocean. Yes, magma.

If we had no ocean. But still an atmosphere.

We could still be here, but almost certainly not looking as we do now.

No beaches but plenty of mountains to have romantic interludes on. And plenty of sand for sandcastles.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Oh what rubbish. Plenty of coastal erosion – that’s waves not tides. In fact, faster coastal erosion without the Moon.

There would even still be tides. From the Sun’s gravity. Twice a day as usual.

The question wasn’t about what would be the effect of no moon. It was about the effect of no ocean.

Sorry, misunderstood.

I answered that earlier without realising it. The dominant changes in orbit are due to the moon’s interaction with the upper mantle rather than the ocean. Yes, magma.

If we had no ocean. But still an atmosphere.

We could still be here, but almost certainly not looking as we do now.

No beaches but plenty of mountains to have romantic interludes on. And plenty of sand for sandcastles.

Apart from coral sand would there be sand without tides?

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

The question wasn’t about what would be the effect of no moon. It was about the effect of no ocean.

Sorry, misunderstood.

I answered that earlier without realising it. The dominant changes in orbit are due to the moon’s interaction with the upper mantle rather than the ocean. Yes, magma.

If we had no ocean. But still an atmosphere.

We could still be here, but almost certainly not looking as we do now.

No beaches but plenty of mountains to have romantic interludes on. And plenty of sand for sandcastles.

Apart from coral sand would there be sand without tides?

Sure. Sand is made by erosion and redeposition of igneous rocks, mainly, and there’s plenty of sand lain down in large lakes that are not much affected by tides.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

Sorry, misunderstood.

I answered that earlier without realising it. The dominant changes in orbit are due to the moon’s interaction with the upper mantle rather than the ocean. Yes, magma.

If we had no ocean. But still an atmosphere.

We could still be here, but almost certainly not looking as we do now.

No beaches but plenty of mountains to have romantic interludes on. And plenty of sand for sandcastles.

Apart from coral sand would there be sand without tides?

Sure. Sand is made by erosion and redeposition of igneous rocks, mainly, and there’s plenty of sand lain down in large lakes that are not much affected by tides.

Fairynuff, I always thought it was from the action of waves.

AwesomeO said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Apart from coral sand would there be sand without tides?

Sure. Sand is made by erosion and redeposition of igneous rocks, mainly, and there’s plenty of sand lain down in large lakes that are not much affected by tides.

Fairynuff, I always thought it was from the action of waves.

Waves play a big role in making the sand grains round.

Note, though, that there’d be some waves even without tides.

OP doesn’t say if there’s a lot more inland water, more lakes

going to be a very modest hydrological cycle if all the present sea area were land

transition said:

OP doesn’t say if there’s a lot more inland water, more lakes

going to be a very modest hydrological cycle if all the present sea area were land

on that subject, when does a body of water become a sea?

I read about puddles, ponds etc once, way back, a discerning moment, one quiet evening you know

transition said:

transition said:

OP doesn’t say if there’s a lot more inland water, more lakes

going to be a very modest hydrological cycle if all the present sea area were land

on that subject, when does a body of water become a sea?

I read about puddles, ponds etc once, way back, a discerning moment, one quiet evening you know

And when does a sea become an ocean? Checks Google.

Arctic is the smallest ocean, 1.5 times as big as the USA. 12 million km2.

Coral is the largest sea, 5 million km2.

Cortez (gulf of california) is the second smallest sea at 0.16 million km2.

Superior is the second largest lake at 0.08 million km2.

You’re welcome.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanorsea.html

Many people use the terms “ocean” and “sea” interchangeably when speaking about the ocean, but there is a difference between the two terms when speaking of geography (the study of the Earth’s surface).

Seas are smaller than oceans and are usually located where the land and ocean meet. Typically, seas are partially enclosed by land.

The Sargasso Sea is an exception. It is defined only by ocean currents.

The other exception is the Caspian Sea. It is technically a lake because it is not connected to the wider ocean. But being a sea rather than a lake means different rules apply to navigation and exploitation of resources. So far all parties seem to be content with the “sea” rules.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

transition said:

OP doesn’t say if there’s a lot more inland water, more lakes

going to be a very modest hydrological cycle if all the present sea area were land

on that subject, when does a body of water become a sea?

I read about puddles, ponds etc once, way back, a discerning moment, one quiet evening you know

And when does a sea become an ocean? Checks Google.

Arctic is the smallest ocean, 1.5 times as big as the USA. 12 million km2.

Coral is the largest sea, 5 million km2.

Cortez (gulf of california) is the second smallest sea at 0.16 million km2.

Superior is the second largest lake at 0.08 million km2.

You’re welcome.

I thought the unmentioned smallest sea and largest lake was shrinking away to nothing?

anyway I was wondering of the proposition in the OP, the essence of it, abstracted, seems to be a much smaller mass of water on the surface of the earth, which doesn’t necessarily mean just taking out oceans.

so the question really is of the effects of much less H2O in liquid form, across the surface of the earth

tides really are deformation, part of larger deformation of earth i’d expect. The energy dissipation has got to be substantial, not just tides but agitation/turbulence/friction in water masses too (keeping with just water, for simplicity)

it’s difficult to consider really, because other near large masses to earth are the pump, the earth’s orbit around the sun, and moon’s orbit around the earth, these pump the hydrological cycle (gravitational pump), + day/night cycles are a thermal pump, and there’s the obliquity of the ecliptic.

I can’t imagine higher life forms would have evolves at this time (or any life got started), without serious pumping of a substantial hydrological cycle

the large wash is a massive random events generator, and the thermal cycles are the structure forming force