Talk:Earth

Other data

NOAA ETOPO1 Global Relief Model lists the surface area as 510,082,000 Km which would equate to a radius of 6371.109 467 Km, to an excessive number of digits. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The Earth's Surface of 510,064,472 km is based on a Radius of 6371.0 Km. This would imply an average circumference of 2*pi*R = 40,030.17359 km, but this number is not Equatorial. The WGS 84 Equatorial Circumference would be 2*pi*6378.137 =40,075.01669 km which would be rounded to 40,075.017 Km. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A little typographical error in article (in unit conversion): 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) 1.7 AU (255,000,000 km) Total surface of the Earth: 510,064,472 km². Equatorial circumference: 40,030.2 km. Source: NASA.

Heat

Two suggestions regarding the table "Present-day major heat-producing isotopes":
1) Add a column at the right side containing the percentages of the total internal heat from each isotopes Heat release measured in W/(kg*mantle).
2) Sort the table by descending percentage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandcenter (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)‎

Oddly precise species count

Currently in intro includes: "It is home to about 8.74 million species." This is absurdly precise. The uncertainty is estimates of the species count is in the millions: there is no point in expressing it to three significant figures. Ordinary Person (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That claim has two references. One is a book published in 1988, so way out of date. The other is an article with the headline "8.74 Million Species on Earth", but which, upon reading further, highlights how imprecise that figure is. How about we go with "...at least 8 million species"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. I just changed the article to say "... over eight million species." I believe "over" is the best usage as "at least" implies a strict floor of precisely eight million which is not the case. Jaywilson (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Perhaps a separate page linking to this.
A list of all the names for 'Earth' in as many languages as possible.
I'll get it started:
Arabic: الأرض، الكُرة الأرضيّه
Chinese (Simplified): 地球
Chinese (Traditional): 地球
Czech: Země
Danish: Jorden; jordkloden; verden
Dutch: aarde
Estonian: maa
Finnish: maa
French: terre
German: die Erde
Greek: γη
Hungarian: a Föld
Icelandic: jörðin
Indonesian: bumi
Italian: terra
Japanese: 地球
Korean: 지구
Latvian: Zeme; zemeslode
Lithuanian: Žemė
Norwegian: jorda, jordkloden, verden
Polish: ziemia
Portuguese (Brazil): terra
Portuguese (Portugal): terra
Romanian: pământ
Russian: Земля
Slovak: Zem
Slovenian: zemlja
Swedish: jord
Turkish: dünya
Spanish: Tierra
Catalan: La Terra
Esperanto: La Terro
Afrikaans: Aarde
Suomi: Maa
Euskera: Lurra
Ido: Tero
Latin: Tellus
Vietnamese: Trái Đất
Hebrew: כדור הארץ
Yiddish: דרערד
Irish Gaelic: Talamh
Mongolian: газар дэлхий
Croatian: zemaljska kugla
Bulgarian: земя
Persian: (فارسی) : زمین
Locrin Iksandr Donnachaidh (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This does not belong in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree it does not belong, but implicitly a much longer list is already there, in the form of links to WP in other languages. The names can be seen in the URL when hovering over one of the languages.−Woodstone (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gravity of Earth is wrong

For some reason, the value quoted for surface gravity is the equatorial value, and not the mean value. The nav box says not to change anything without discussion here, but I was bold and changed it anyway. If someone wants to know the strength of gravity of Earth, they want the mean value, not the value at the equator. Having this in the navbox is useless, and worse, misleading. The fact that the previous value had a cite is irrelevant, it was citing the wrong value. No-one uses equatorial gravity in equations unless they're doing experiments that are specifically going to be conducted at the equator. Please do not change it back to the useless value. Quantum Burrito (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So I went to the cited article (no. 17) and found the information: g = 980.665 cm/s^2, consistent, with round-off, with the result Quantum Burrito has entered. The result, however, is not on page 5 as indicated in the article, but on page 52. Strangely, I can't seem to locate the reference when I pull up the editor for the References section. It seems, somehow, to be hidden. So I can't fix this small problem. DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, that seems to be due to me being unfamiliar with the new-fangled way of doing references round here> I've changed the page number on your recommendation and I think I did the cite properly this time. Quantum Burrito (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Earth smoother than a cue ball?

The "fact" that the earth is smoother than a cue ball (in this article under Composition and Structure/Shape) has been circulated in reputable articles and books for years, but has been shown to be false. See http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf Note that the citation in the Earth article is to the World Pool-Billiards Association rules in regard to the allowable size of a cue ball, not the shape or uniformity of a cue ball, and there is no citation to any source about the shape of the earth. I will remove this text soon if there is no dissenting discussion. If anyone has suggestions as to text that could be used instead, please discuss. Jaywilson (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So I used the numbers for the elevation of Mt. Everest and the depth of the Mariana Trench, this gives a difference in altitude-depth of 8.848 + 10.911 km = 19.759 km. I suppose this should be divided in half for a deviation about a "mean", giving 9.879 km. If we divide this by the mean radius of the Earth, 6371.0 km, we get 0.16%, which is pretty much the result quoted in the article (0.17%) and both are less than the 0.22% quoted for the cue ball. Of course, there might be more sophisticated ways to do the calculation, using the standard deviation of topography or something, but one might ask why that would be necessary.I remember hearing this comparison when I was a student. It isn't a really "profound" issue, but it is something that people can kind of relate to. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From the infobox we have equatorial radius 6378.1 km and polar radius 6356.8 km, so from that alone, the deviation from a sphere is 0.34%. Mountains close to the equator are higher than close to the poles, so that will add up. However the real question is: how round is a billiards ball, for which no verified data seem to be available. −Woodstone (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I see, so there are kind of two issues: roughness AND roundness! Thanks, DoctorTerrella (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of our discussion, there are THREE issues: roughness, roundness, and size. The WPA web site is apparently only defining the limits on the size of the cue ball, as defined by its (spherical) diameter. It is not attempting to define how round it is or how rough it is. Read the Colorado State link I provided to see that a cue ball is actually much rounder and smoother than the earth. So, DoctorTerrella, your calculation is correct, but the 0.22% is not the number to compare to. A typical cue ball is actually smooth within 0.01% (1 part in 10,000 or as measured, around 1-3 microns variation in a cue ball 5.625 cm across.) As to roundness, Woodstone, the Colorado State article covers that, too, in its final paragraph, where it says that a cue ball is spherical to within 0.001 inch or 0.05%

A piece of clear tape is 50-100 microns thick, so a bit of clear tape stuck to a cue ball (a variation of 0.1-0.2%) is about the right scale to represent Mt Everest. You could feel it if you ran your finger over it. And it would definitely be disqualified from use in a match. It would probably get you beat up in some pool/billiards halls.  :-) Jaywilson (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jaywilson, personally, I find all of this interesting. It puts a few issues in perspective, and into terms that the layperson would find interesting. I don't think the issue should be removed from the Wiki article, but, instead, augmented. Can you do this for us? Thanks very much! DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

While I will accept the compliment and invite you to read my latest blog post on this (http://jayblogwilson.com), I will decline your invitation to grace an encyclopaedia article with the debunking of a persistent science myth. I started my research on this because of Neil deGrasse Tyson's reference to the cue ball earth in The Pluto Files, then in the course of research found a reference to the wikipedia entry. I agree it is a fascinating subject to research, as I have discovered billiard rules, bowling ball scanning technology, and some science blogs that I never knew existed. But it is frustrating how persistent a myth can be when it is disproved with easily known facts and a calculator in five minutes. (Height of Everest/diameter of earth ≈ thickness of clear tape/diameter of cue ball)

As for the wikipedia article, the problem remains that the current text has no scientific reference and is wrong. Currently the only course I can suggest besides deleting "which is less than the 0.22% tolerance allowed in billiard balls" is replacing it with "which is rougher than a billiard ball" and cite the Colorado State article. I would like to say "which is about as rough as a billiard ball with pieces of clear tape stuck on it" but I don't have a source to cite besides my own blog. Jaywilson (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm advocating writing something interesting and accurate, not just removing content. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following text to replace that sentence: "Local topography deviates from this idealized spheroid although on a global scale these deviations are small: The maximum deviation of only 0.17% is at the Mariana Trench, while Mount Everest represents a deviation of 0.14%. If Earth were shrunk to the size of a cue ball, some areas of Earth such as mountain ranges and oceanic trenches would feel like small imperfections, while most of the planet, including the Great Plains and the Abyssal Plains, would actually feel smoother than a cue ball." (cite Colorado State article http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf). Jaywilson (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jaywilson, I like what you've written! Sincerely, Grandma (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cute! Maybe too cute for an encyclopedia. And, no, we are not trying to capture the hearts of readers. Just minds! Capturing hearts is a media aspiration. Let's leave that objective to them. Having said that, the wobble doesn't sound bad and the figures put it into perspective. Oblateness has been exaggerated for adults, it would seem. More round than oblate to the eyeball, apparently. Maybe that part could be emphasized a bit, but I don't have any suggestions other than what is there to emphasize this. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Student7, I don't understand your hearts and minds comment. I'm trying to build consensus to still illustrate how smooth or rough the Earth's topography is, but with a statement that is accurate and has a source that can be cited. I have suggested specific language. I will go ahead and make the edit, as I believe what I've suggested satisfies DrTerella and Grandma. Jaywilson (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

To "the" or not to "the"

So, I often go back and forth, writing one essay with "the Earth" and the next with just "Earth", but trying to be consistent within each article, if not amongst them all. This article, however, mixes up the two usages. Is there some usage guidance on this eternal issue? Curious, DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! Better go with "Earth" or we'll have to change the name of the article as well. Also see my comment (inspired by you) on the talk page of Moon. Jaywilson (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think that common usage should prevail, and that most often, common usage is "the Earth". I also think that both forms can be used in the article. There are certain situations where "Earth" is appropriate and there are many others where "the Earth" is more commonly used. I don't agree with User:JorisvS's recent edit removing every last "the" before "Earth". Calling our planet just "Earth" is following the model of our naming of the other planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc., but it's almost as if we were from another galaxy and were speaking about "Earth" as just another planet. Referring to our planet as "the Earth" is following the model of our naming of the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the solar system. Unless there is consensus to force a change in the way we call our planet, then I think both forms can be used in the article, and which one would depend on the context. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally prefer "the Earth", and that is what I use in my own writing. For this article, I simply advocate consistency (with exception given for the title "Earth", and exception that I can understand. Taking care of things, Grandma (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I prefer "the Earth". CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think professionals tend to use "Earth", whereas layman often tend to use "the Earth" (or even "the earth"). I think the reason why the definite article is now often dropped from "Earth", but not from "the Moon" or "the Sun", is because "moon" and "sun" are used to mean 'natural satellite' and 'a planet's host star', whereas no such word exists for "Earth" in the same context. This means that the definite article is not necessary for clarity for "Earth", whereas it is for the Moon and the Sun (of course the cap would be sufficient in the written language, but not in the spoken language). --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using "the Earth" in prose within the article. The idea that all instances of "the Earth" must be excised from the article is absurd and rather goes against good English usage. Use "the Earth" when it makes a sentence read better and just "Earth" when that reads better. No one is calling for the article title to be changed. This 'pedia is not written for "professionals", but for "laymen" (ordinary folk) and to suggest that we must drop <underline>all</underline> instances of "the" because "professionals" do it is rather absurd. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was under the impression that Featured Articles had to be consistent. Serendi^podous 13:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ah, but rules that require poor writing should perhaps best be ignored. So write for the reader and not for the rule makers. Vsmith (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try our best, though, Grandma (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant for everyone (professionals and laymen alike). This means that it is important that we be understandable to the layman, but does not mean we can't use professional language. Who decides when something reads better with or without the definite article? --JorisvS (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@JorisvS, professionals don't have a convention on the use of "Earth" versus "the Earth". Just do a google search, for example, on "AGU" AND "the Earth", or "USGS" AND "the Earth", etc. Furthermore, in the spirit of cooperation, we've been discussing how to proceed, here, even as you've jumped in and started changing things. That doesn't seem very polite. Please play along, thank you, Grandma (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather than going through and changing some, or many, of the instances of "Earth" back to "the Earth", and having to argue about each one, I'd like to suggest that User:JorisvS undo his/her own edits. Before those edits, it was mostly "the Earth" with some instances of "Earth". Then we can read through the article and decide whether each instance is appropriate and sounds right for that particular place, as User:Vsmith suggested. I think that will result in only a few changes. CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes with, sometimes without. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Grandma. I wasn't suggesting that there is some sort of "convention". I was only saying that it was more common among professionals, which does not mean there are no professionals who do use the definite article. --JorisvS (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@JorisvS, okay, but I, at least, used to be a "professional" and I'm not aware that "Earth" without "the" is, as you assert, "more common". Right now the essay jars with "the Moon". Let's unwind the edits you made, and, then, in good Wikispirit, try to develop a consensus. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that they have long since completed their discussion on Wiktionary:earth. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:earth. Their conclusion, with fewer people, was to use "the Earth" for the planet.

To make another point, note that the word is German, not French in derivation; therefore no gratuitous need for an article, like "the hour" (French). In other words, "the" Earth only needed to make the point that it is the planet, not loam. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and for the link, Student7. I'd like to point out, though, that German grammatical rules do not apply to English. When writing English, the grammatical rules and usage customs of English prevail. I get your point about distinguishing between the planet and the soil under our feet, but I thought that distinction was usually made with the use of the capital letter for the former and lowercase for the latter. Even "earth", meaning soil, can be used with or without "the" depending on how it is used. I think the primary reason for using "the" is because there is only one Earth, one of the heavenly bodies with which people in the past were familiar -- thus, "the Sun", "the Moon", "the Earth", and the collective "the stars". CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a bunch of other inconsistencies. In the article, we say "the surface", "the lithosphere", etc., etc., and, yes, etc. So, given this, why not "the Earth"? And, indeed, the Universe uses the for the Universe, but that page (a different subject, I know) make inconsistent use of "the" article for the Earth. ;-( Grandma (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

JorisvS We're kind of awaiting your participation in this discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. But once again, I'd like to see a mixture: all-or-nothing does not reflect how English is used. Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rothorpe, many, if not quite all, of us would agree. It is not a black and white change that needs to be made. See the early section on etymology. I've pretty much left that as it was, just a small change. I also invite you to jump in and contribute! Always wanting the best, Grandma (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Another issue I've become sensitive to is the simple over usage of the word "Earth" in this essay. I've relaxed this a bit in my recent edits, figuring, as is reasonable, that the context is already pretty obvious. Details are so important, Grandma (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks for your replies. It's looking good. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the entire article, mostly replacing "Earth" with "the Earth", although there were a few exceptions, such as allowing "Earth" to be an adjective, and some exceptions in the etymology section. Still, as always, things are likely not perfect, and other editors are free to proof read and correct. Thanks! Grandma (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My 2c - I use "the Earth" when focussing on earth-based topics, but drop article when using it in same sentence as Mars, Jupiter etc. (though keep it if use in same sentence as "the Moon"...)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why, when questions of this sort arise, is it so common to see the answer in terms of either/or? Both forms are used in English, both are acceptable. Not even consistency is required. Sometimes the language just flows more smoothly with one form, sometimes with the other, which is probably why most of these choices are made. But contexts also differ, so language needs can differ also. I think it is far preferable to beg off this question entirely and let the article be free to apply wording that suits each usage. There is no "best"; there is only preference. This is a solution in search of a problem. Evensteven (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit of 6 Dec 2014 by Apipia removed "the" as the first word of the article, a good edit in my opinion, appropriate both under WP:LEAD and in referring to the planet by emphasizing its proper name. But the edit summary lists a reference, [1], which is by no means WP:RS and should not be considered definitive in any way. It's simply an opinion piece posted on the Internet. And whatever its argument, common English usage simply does not follow a consistent pattern. Whatever objections some people may make for "the Earth"-style usage, the planet is, after all, the one-and-only Earth, not an Earth, one among several or many, which no doubt explains the article. Is it really necessary to resort to presenting WP:RSes about this? But if the article is going to have to obey an iron rule, then I think it ought to be because we have sources that say so, not just some agreement among editors. I doubt sufficient ones can be found. Please let it rest. Evensteven (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you say "the Venus" or "the Jupiter", I think not, "...the earth" is the ground we walk upon. Earth is the planet we walk upon ( not "the Earth"). If we were living on Venus we would not say "the Venus". If we are going to use a name for the planet we inhabit then that is Earth (not "the Earth", you surely wouldn't say "the Venus", would you). Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to my last: If we are talking about a planet we do not prefix the planet's name with "the". We don't say "The Jupiter" or "The Saturn". We just say "Jupiter" or "Saturn"; however, if we were inhabitants of those planets we may well say "We were walking on the jupiter" or "I was walking on the saturn" and if we were those inhabitants, and discussing the other planets we would not talk about "the Earth", (as if it were somehow special), but we on Jupiter ot Saturn would refer to the third planet as "Earth", not "the Earth". Jodosma (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We all say simply "Venus" or "Jupiter". Many also say "the Earth" (frequently, but not consistently). It's the way the English language is actually used. No one person decides how it is used, or what is proper. Usage also can shift and change over time. Languages are dynamic in construction, and every language has quirks as well as blatant inconsistencies. Live with it. Evensteven (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It should just be "Earth" if you are going for consistency in this article. "The sun" is not necessarily analogous to "the Earth", and saying "the Earth" is slightly questionable since there is only one, and that usage would seem to be a vestige of expressions like "the world" or "the planet". However, given different sentence structure and meaning, sometimes you might indeed prefer "the Earth" for stylistic reasons. Is there a reason this article should have a consistent usage other than capitalization? If there's some dispute over it, who really cares. I'd get rid of the definite article entirely, personally. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I too recognize Earth sans article as the consistent form, and a reasonable case has been made above for its grammatical "correctness" (mostly based on consistency). I'd personally he happy enough to comply. But I also recognize that common usage is the standard here, and that common usage, if consistent enough, becomes identified (over time) with grammatical correctness. At present, common usage is inconsistent, using both forms. I don't regard that as important to understanding English, or to writing it in a formal way. Thus, I am arguing that inconsistency should also be allowed in the article. To do otherwise is to try to enforce a rule that does not apply to English correctness. Hence, it would be artificial, something to be avoided on WP. There can easily be (and sometimes are) way too many editor cycles wasted on establishing, patrolling, and enforcing artificialities. It's an unproductive matter to argue about, and to worry about. Evensteven (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:original research removed

I've removed the following from the hydrosphere section:

(If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km.)<ref group="n">The total surface area of Earth is {{val|5.1|e=8|ul=km2}}. To first approximation, the average depth would be the ratio of the two, or 2.7 km.</ref>

Seems to be someone's calculation. However, it is rather poorly worded and in need of a WP:RS to support it.
I assume it means something like the following:

If all the Earth's lithospheric (or crustal) surface was at the same elevation, the depth of the resulting world ocean would be more than 2.7 km. but it would still require a reference. Vsmith (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that Wiki doesn't want to report original research, I've seen examples of where this prohibition seems to have been take to ridiculous extremes (quoting distances between cities, for example). So, in this case, I kind of feel that these sorts of "calculations" are helpful to many readers. I wonder if we might tolerate some calculations like this -- assuming that they are done correctly and worded well, of course! Thoughts of Grandma (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well - did a bit of googling, found: If it were possible to spread the oceans accross a smooth and perfectly spherical planet, their depth would be more than 2000 meters. Albi, Edward F,, Earth Science Made Simple, Crown Publishing Group, e-book, Apr 28, 2010, p. 56 (also a 2004 paperback isbn ISBN 978-0767917032 )

and Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres (8,812 feet) deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on Earth’s surface. from Britannica

and If the planet was a perfectly smooth sphere, the oceans would cover the entire globe to a depth of 2.8 thousand meters. Third rock from the Sun - restless Earth Vsmith (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Added modified version w/refs to the article. Vsmith (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Great sleuthing, and the sentence is well-worded now. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Climate lag

There is a lag between minimum/maximum exposure to the Sun and local temperature. The maximum exposure is on December 23rd or so, or June 23rd or so, depending on the hemisphere. However, the maximum cold or heat (in an "average" year) is achieved maybe six weeks later on February 15 or August 15, depending on the hemisphere. There must be a thermodynamic or climate way of referring to this lag and documenting it here. Anyone know the name for the condition? Student7 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I have any direct evidence from a formal study, but if you look at average temperatures in various locations worldwide, and include places that are far north (say, Norway - south is less populated), as well as temperate zone, far inland vs coastal (or within 300 miles of sea or ocean), I think you'll find that the timing of seasonal highs and lows varies significantly. Look at record highs and lows as well as averages. This is not to say there isn't term for the lag, but heating and cooling are not uniform processes when looked at on a small scale compared to the size of the whole (Earth, in this case). It's possible that the lag has no term because it has few especially relevant general properties, that most of them are specific and localized. It's just my guess, but have you looked into this? Evensteven (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What Evensteven is saying is correct. The Earth, with oceans, topography, and lots of other complications, will not show a simple temperature response to what I think is called "insolation". Of course, we could, for theoretical purposes, consider an idealized Earth, one with spherically uniform properties. This would show a lag as Student7 suggests, between measured temperature and insolation, this lag being the result of what amounts to a sort-of thermal inertia. Of course, we have ocean tides, they being the response of the ocean to the gravity of the Sun and the Moon and the relative motion between the Sun and the Moon and the Earth. Sometimes scientists describe other periodic phenomena driven by celestial motion (rotation, orbits, etc) as "tides". And we know that there is a lag between the ocean tides and the position of the moon, this being the "age" of the tide. So, while I'm not suggesting that any of this needs to appear in this article on the Earth, there might be some related terminology for the "age" of thermal tides. Just saying, but again, this whole subject is kind of peripheral to the article Earth. Still ticking, Grandma (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Peripheral because it applies to all planets with an atmosphere which are inclined to the ecliptic?

You're right about "insolation." I would have thought there would be a thermodynamic term... See seasonal lag. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just suggesting that in the mix of all of the many, many topics that only get the barest discussion in this widely-encompassing article on the Earth, that this particular issue probably doesn't merit discussion in the article itself. Right now, for example, we barely have an adequate discussion of the ionosphere. Still, I know that other editors might have opinions different from mine.

As for the article on seasonal lag, yes, that is relevant to the annual "thermal tide" and its "age", but there are lots of other periods here, including diurnal, as you certainly already recognize. There might be thermodynamic terminology for all of this, or maybe not. For now, Grandma (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

More of the same

Would you say "the Venus" or "the Jupiter", I think not, "...the earth" is the ground we walk upon. Earth is the planet we walk upon ( not "the Earth"). If we were living on Venus we would not say "the Venus". If we are going to use a name for the planet we inhabit then that is Earth (not "the Earth"; you surely wouldn't say "the Venus", would you). If we are talking about a planet we do not prefix the planet's name with "the". We don't say "The Jupiter" or "The Saturn". We just say "Jupiter" or "Saturn"; however, if we were inhabitants of some planets in our solar system we may well say "We were walking on the jupiter" or "I was walking on the saturn" or even "If I were walking on the earth" and if we were those inhabitants, and discussing the other planets we would not talk about "the Earth", (as if it were somehow special), but we on Jupiter or Saturn would refer to the third planet as "Earth", not "the Earth". We might say something like "I saw a gibbous earth today" ( or a half earth or even a full earth) Jodosma (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that you're looking for consistency where it doesn't exist. "Earth" is both a proper noun—what we now know is 'our' planet among who knows how many others—and the term we use for the surface of the planet, synonymously used for 'soil' or 'dirt'. For the vast majority of its history, the noun earth and its semantic values have not developed in the same environment as modern observations such as the pedosphere or the lithosphere, and its usage shouldn't expected to entirely conform with our modern knowledge of these systems. For a very long time, we existed solely on (the) Earth and everything around it was understood in relation to it, and in some ways that are difficult for us to comprehend now (theonymically, for example).

In short, I wouldn't get hung up on the definite articles; like all aspects of language, they're subject to change over time. Near relations and linguistic ancestors (see Proto-Indo-European) didn't have them at all. Consider the Moon or the Sun or any number of the [book titles], for example; we may as well say the Jupiter or the Venus if we're going to go try to artificially curate and prescribe article usage in celestially bodies. Personally, I don't think that we should insert arbitrary prescriptivism here but rather stick to natural, if specialized, usage. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bloodfox, many participants on this talk page probably agree with you. I suppose my opinion is that the issue is that we need to encourage (1) a bit of talk before making changes that have already been talked about (recently) on this (yes) very-same talk page, (2) a bit of process, and, (3) even, a slight amount of consistency (note the word "slight") on what is otherwise the mountainous landscape of the English language. Still living on "the" Earth, my favorite planet, Grandma (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We all say simply "Venus" or "Jupiter". Many also say "the Earth" (frequently, but not consistently). It's the way the English language is actually used. No one person decides how it is used, or what is proper. Usage also can shift and change over time. Languages are dynamic in construction, and every language has quirks as well as blatant inconsistencies. We must live with it. But actually, it sometimes makes a language richer. This item about "the", however, is just a nit. No one is stopping you from using "Earth" exclusively, for yourself. But on WP, it's general use that prevails. Evensteven (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Tellus

Add Tellus to the "also known as" list, first paragraph. Both Tellus and Terra are the latin words for the Earth and are both more common than the greek Gaia. Also, for clarification I'd suggest adding that "the earth" is sometimes labeled as ⊕ (which is shown in the title above the image). Lastly, I think that we should add which languages the different words for earth come from. So it could read something like:

Earth, also known as the World, Tellus or Terra (Latin) and Gaia (Greek), sometimes labeled as ⊕, is the third planet......