What would our geology be like If Earth "rolled" on it's orbit like Uranus?

[MtheInsomniac]

Imagine Earth is at an angle similar to Uranus' 97 degree spin. With Australia is the northernmost continent, what is the effect on geology and climate if the spin maintains it's counter-clockwise (Australia moving north) movement?

Cosmology/Bonus question: Theories on Uranus' unusual rotation? Or what would be the gradual effect of turning Earth on it's side, hypothetically without a cataclysmic event as the cause.

[Moontanman]

If I remember correctly one of the results of the on it's side spin would create an ice band around the equator instead of the poles...

[pears]

If I remember correctly one of the results of the on it's side spin would create an ice band around the equator instead of the poles...

 

Not a permanent band though? Would it be a seasonally melting and freezing band in various places? I find this rotation hard to picture

[EdEarl]

If the spin of the Earth continued to be along the Arctic-Antarctic line, for example with the Antarctic pointing towards the Sun, then the Northern hemisphere would freeze and be in perpetual darkness, and the Southern hemisphere would bake and be in perpetual daylight. Jet streams would carry hot air towards the Equator and low altitude cold winds would carry air towards Antarctic. The winds would spiral because of the Earths rotation. Winds in the north would have similar patterns, except warm jet streams would flow towards the North pole and low altitude cold winds towards the equator. Thermohaline circulation would be from Antarctica to the equator with warm water and cold water from the equator towards Antarctica. Most of life on Earth would die out, but there would be a zone somewhere between Antarctica and the Equator where life would survive.

[Moontanman]

Not a permanent band though? Would it be a seasonally melting and freezing band in various places? I find this rotation hard to picture

Yes quite permanent, each pole would point toward the sun far too long to allow permanent ice but the equator would be have periods of night and day part of the year but be in a position of very low on the horizon sun through most of the year resulting in ICE there not ever melting completely.

If the spin of the Earth continued to be along the Arctic-Antarctic line, for example with the Antarctic pointing towards the Sun, then the Northern hemisphere would freeze and be in perpetual darkness, and the Southern hemisphere would bake and be in perpetual daylight. Jet streams would carry hot air towards the Equator and low altitude cold winds would carry air towards Antarctic. The winds would spiral because of the Earths rotation. Winds in the north would have similar patterns, except warm jet streams would flow towards the North pole and low altitude cold winds towards the equator. Thermohaline circulation would be from Antarctica to the equator with warm water and cold water from the equator towards Antarctica. Most of life on Earth would die out, but there would be a zone somewhere between Antarctica and the Equator where life would survive.

Neither pole would be in perpetual darkness, in fact the poles would receive on average more sun than the equator gets now... Complete darkness would only last a few weeks for each pole...

[swansont]

Neither pole would be in perpetual darkness, in fact the poles would receive on average more sun than the equator gets now... Complete darkness would only last a few weeks for each pole...

 

 

Right. Owing to conservation of angular momentum, the axis will tend to point in the same direction relative to distant stars (i.e. what are, to a reasonable approximation, fixed points in space)

[EdEarl]

 

 

Right. Owing to conservation of angular momentum, the axis will tend to point in the same direction relative to distant stars (i.e. what are, to a reasonable approximation, fixed points in space)

True. A day-night cycle would be a year long. There would be no place where life could survive all the time, but they might migrate to survive. Although, in the deep ocean, for example near black smokers life would probably survive.

 

Since the Moon prevents this condition, can we assume no Moon. In this case, with the Sun being positioned for long periods on one spot (e.g., Antarctica), might the Earth's core shift towards that pole and cause the Earth to lock gravitationally with the Sun, making one side point toward the Sun? If it did not lock, then the Earths surface might become much more geologically active.

Edited September 24, 2013 by EdEarl

[arc]

Cosmology/Bonus question: Theories on Uranus' unusual rotation?

 

Some believe an impact from an asteroid caused the current orbital characteristics. Uranus is the 7th planet from the Sun. Third largest by radius, fourth by mass. Has the coldest planetary atmosphere in the solar system -224 degrees c. Its 3 billion km from the Sun and takes 84 years to orbit it once. Scientists estimate its core of silicate/iron-nickel at a small 0.55 Earth masses with a temperature of 5000 K. (4726 C.) The mantle, comprising of hot dense water and ammonia, makes up the bulk of the planet at 13.4 Earth masses. This fluid is believed to be the source of the planets magnetic field.

 

 

Uranus has the lowest internal heat of the four outer planets. Neptune, which is 1.5 billion km farther out from the Sun and is considered Uranus’ twin in size and chemistry has a heat flux of 2.61 in contrast Uranus barely emits more heat than it receives from the Sun. Uranus has fully functioning magnetic field despite being tilted out of alignment with its rotational axis by 59 degrees. The axis is in line with its orbital plane. It spins like a football not a toy top. It rolls around the sun on its side, giving each polar region a direct exposure during each solstice.

 

 

The rotational axis misalignment with the magnetic field leads me to think Uranus was not directly hit by an asteroid. It came in instead at a polar trajectory and hit Uranus’ single large moon, which would have been in a conventional equatorial orbit, converting both masses into what later formed into approximately 27 moons and multiple ring systems. The gravitational pull of this polar orbiting mass of debris pulled Uranus’ atmosphere into rotational alignment with the accretions. Its iron core stayed in gyroscopic alignment with its orbit around the sun.

 

The mantle of heavy water – ammonia was probably pulled into rotation with the outer planetary atmosphere, generating the observed spiral magneto tail extending out opposite the sun. The core, of which the magnetic poles emanate, presently resides in the South Pole 1/3rd of the planets radius in the direction of the magneto tail at 59 degrees to the axis of rotation. In comparison Neptune has a core-mantle-atmosphere in closer rotational alignment with its magnetic poles, 46 degrees out of axis.

 

 

The lack of heavier (denser) outer core (mantle) material may account for the core's off center position of both planets. (Remember when you were a kid spinning on one of those playground merry-go-rounds, you were the core.) Since it takes Uranus 84 years to orbit the Sun and our observations of the unique magnetosphere is rather recent, I believe the core will stay in the proximity of the spiral magneto tail throughout Uranus’ orbit.

 

The 1.1 heat flux of Uranus is interesting, hardly any heat over the solar input. Uranus has the lowest atmospheric temperature – 224 degrees C. (-371 F.) in the solar system. It also has a strong magnetic field and a rather small core. The small core has less surface area thus less drag resistance. The hot dense water-ammonia mantle is the most fluid core of all the planets. So this could mean there is less rotational resistance to create heat. The magnetic resistance between an inner core and outer core (mantle) is probably reduced by the 59 degrees of departure of the two field generating components. I’m picturing a sort of magnetic equilibrium between the cross rotating mantle and its magnetic coupling to the core. As the mantle moved into rotational alignment with the orbiting debris, the core moved to equilibrium between its gravitational resistance from Uranus’ center of mass and magnetic resistance from the mantle. Moving the core 1/3 of the planets diameter away from the high pressure center of mass would greatly reduce rotational friction on the core thus possibly allowing higher generating efficiency. But I'm just speculating.

[pears]

Yes quite permanent, each pole would point toward the sun far too long to allow permanent ice but the equator would be have periods of night and day part of the year but be in a position of very low on the horizon sun through most of the year resulting in ICE there not ever melting completely.

 

Aaah yus. Of course. I can picture it now. Thank you.

[Ophiolite]

 

Some believe an impact from an asteroid caused the current orbital characteristics.

 

No astronomer believes that. The impact, if it occured, would have been a by a substantially sized proto-planet, possibly another ice giant, not a miniscule asteroid.

 

 

 

The rotational axis misalignment with the magnetic field leads me to think Uranus was not directly hit by an asteroid. It came in instead at a polar trajectory and hit Uranus’ single large moon, which would have been in a conventional equatorial orbit, converting both masses into what later formed into approximately 27 moons and multiple ring systems.

 

This is just silly. It is clear that the moons of Uranus have multiple origins. Your speculation falls at the first hurdle.

[arc]

 

No astronomer believes that. The impact, if it occured, would have been a by a substantially sized proto-planet, possibly another ice giant, not a miniscule asteroid.

 

 

 

This is just silly. It is clear that the moons of Uranus have multiple origins. Your speculation falls at the first hurdle.

 

. . . . . . . . . . As the mantle moved into rotational alignment with the orbiting debris, the core moved to equilibrium between its gravitational resistance from Uranus’ center of mass and magnetic resistance from the mantle. Moving the core 1/3 of the planets diameter away from the high pressure center of mass would greatly reduce rotational friction on the core thus possibly allowing higher generating efficiency. But I'm just speculating.

I said I'm just speculating. MY APOLOGIES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus

The reason for Uranus's unusual axial tilt is also not known with certainty, but the usual speculation is that during the formation of the Solar System, an Earth-sized protoplanet collided with Uranus, causing the skewed orientation.^[50]

^ Bergstralh, Jay T.; Miner, Ellis; Matthews, Mildred (1991). Uranus. pp. 485–486.ISBN 0-8165-1208-6.

 

Oops, bad memory. SCRATCH asteroid, replace with proto planet.