Extreme Planetary Features vs realism

[MarilynA]

On the whole, the balance is probably tilted toward cooling. The year after Penetubo (sp?) erupted was a cold and wet one for much of the northern hemisphere. The year after Krakatoa erupted was known as the year with not summer, with snowfall recorded in the summer in many paces int he United States. A prolonged period of eruptions by multiple volcanoes may allow greenhouse gasses to build up to a greater extent than these isolated eruptions did, but the amount of particulates would be correspondingly greater as well.

Wee small correction here. Krakatoa was in 1883. The "Year Without a Summer" was courtesy of Mount Tambora. The volcanic erruption was in April, 1815,and the YWAS was 1816.

[BlackChakram]

The "Little Ice Age" from about the 1300-1700s was something like this too. Although more nebulous in cause.

[MarilynA]

The "Little Ice Age" from about the 1300-1700s was something like this too. Although more nebulous in cause.

Mixed causes. There was more vulcanism, possibility of reduction in solar activity, possibility of reduction in oceanic circulation, and more.

[Azélor]

I have some questions about astrophysics. They are mainly related to the CWBP2.

One of our planet is tide locked to the star. The star is a G star just like the Sun. I was wondering how close the planet need to be in order to become tide locked. It's about the size of Mercury.

I would also greatly appreciate if you could give me your opinion on this topic : http://www.cartographersguild.com/co...tml#post252715

[BlackChakram]

Hm... the equation for tidal locking is really complicated. But even Mercury isn't tidally locked, so you'd have to do one of two things: 1) Wait longer, as all things tidal lock with time, or 2) get closer.

I'd go with option 2 and do something like 0.2 AU. But this is just a rough estimate. Like I said, the equation is complicated.

[xpian]

@BlackChakram - For tidal locking, you could also use some special circumstances, could you not? I mean, sure, it would take billions of years for a planet like Earth to tidally lock to a star like the sun, but what if that mars-sized object that struck the Earth long, long ago--the one that caused the formation of the moon--had hit us at *just the right angle*? What if it had hit Earth in such a way that it slowed the planet's rotation dramatically, allowing it to settle into a tidally-locked situation.

These things happen. Just look at Uranus: the planet orbits ON ITS SIDE. That's one huge-ass planet, and it didn't start off pointing its pole down near the ecliptic. No, something extremely violent happened to Uranus in the very distant past, and it completely and permanently put the planet in a goofy orientation.

Even if you're not going to invoke gods or aliens as the reason why your planet is tidally locked, you could invoke bizarre circumstance.

[BlackChakram]

@BlackChakram - For tidal locking, you could also use some special circumstances, could you not? I mean, sure, it would take billions of years for a planet like Earth to tidally lock to a star like the sun, but what if that mars-sized object that struck the Earth long, long ago--the one that caused the formation of the moon--had hit us at *just the right angle*? What if it had hit Earth in such a way that it slowed the planet's rotation dramatically, allowing it to settle into a tidally-locked situation.

These things happen. Just look at Uranus: the planet orbits ON ITS SIDE. That's one huge-ass planet, and it didn't start off pointing its pole down near the ecliptic. No, something extremely violent happened to Uranus in the very distant past, and it completely and permanently put the planet in a goofy orientation.

Even if you're not going to invoke gods or aliens as the reason why your planet is tidally locked, you could invoke bizarre circumstance.

This is quite valid. You're right, bizarre situations like this could very easily allow tidal locking for almost anything you want. Hence the joy in creating worlds, eh?

[johnvanvliet]

as above "tidal locking" is complicated
a example might be kepler 10b


a good analogy is all the moons of Saturn
while not "locked" they are in sync
a harmonic sync of 2 to 3 or 3 to 5

the orbits somewhat stabilize out at distances ( relative to mass) into 1:1 or 2:3 or 4:5 periods

[Soloeus]

If a gas planet (like Saturn) migrated close (but not too close) to a star (maybe the size of Alpha Centuari), would it be viable for the moons of this gas planet to absorb gases from the planet similar to the companion effect that impacts stars? If the Gas Planet had plenty of Oxygen and Nitrogen, could it be possible for life to be sustained on these moons? Could the atmosphere of a gas planet comprised of oxygen (primarily) extend beyond the moons, which if solid and contained enough water, produce or sustain life?

I am looking at the creation of a starfield and am looking at details where possible. I don't mind stretching a bit, but I want to be believable, and design something not "too" far fetched from what "could" happen.

[Azélor]

No it's not possible. Put it simply, you need to take in consideration the Roche limit. It's like an invisible soft barrier the moons hit when it get too close to the planet. At that point, the moon start to disintegrate due to the gravitational pull of the planet. I don't have the numbers right now but the Roche limit is located at least at 2 or 3 times the maximum altitude of the atmosphere.