Talk:Northern Hemisphere

Untitled

i am doing a science project and i need to know why is the sun stronger in summer then in the winter in the Northern Hemisphere -- unsigned comment

Because of the Earth's axial tilt with respect to the sun (sike). So when it's summer in the northern hemisphere it is because the earth is leaning toward the sun (and the sun shines on the northern hemisphere more during the day); when it's winter it is leaning away from the sun (and the sun shines on the southern hemisphere more during the day).

Look at this picture. When the earth is on the left (leaning away from the sun) then it's winter; when the earth is on the right (leaning toward the sun) then it's summer. (The arrow going through the earth is the axis of the earth and goes from the south pole to the north pole. Cburnett 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

==Nothern Hemisphere or northern hemisphere== and the Southern is down the bottom! 2006-07-20 this was moved to "Northern hemisphere" [1] but article since 2002-01-16 was at "Northern Hemisphere". What is right? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 08:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider it a proper noun. Since the moving user didn't even do one of the following:

• change the article text from "Northern Hemisphere" to "northern hemisphere"
• change the template to point to northern hemisphere
• rename the three remaining cardinal direction hemispheres

Since the move merely served to make this article inconsistent (even if arguably correct) with the rest, I moved in back. I welcome dialogue of course. Cburnett 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those cases in which the distinction between proper and common noun seems problematic to me, so it would be good to see some authoritative input on the grammar. Note that within the body text of the four cardinal-direction "hemisphere" articles, the hemisphere names are usually in lower case. Thus, although the titles are now consistently capitalized among the four articles, they are mostly inconsistent with the predominant usage within the articles proper. -rich<Rich Janis 01:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)>

hemisphere-Help!

i need a good description of hemisphere for school!!!! please help by posting some -thanx if u do-

                                         thank you,
                                             Angelina77  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.38.232 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 

Cleanup

The titles are a little long. Auroranorth (sign) 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should it be 'Northern Hemisphere', Northern hemisphere' or 'northern hemisphere'? All three variants are found in the text. - Hordaland (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

"The North Pole faces away from the galactic centre of the Milky Way, this results in there being far fewer and less bright visible stars in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere, making the northern hemisphere more suitable for deep-space observation as it is not 'blinded' by the Milky Way."

I dispute this on two points: since few people live near either the north or south poles, most of the world's people can see most of both celestial hemispheres - there is relatively little that is visible from, say, South Africa, that is not visible from the southern United States. I would say that there are "somewhat" fewer bright stars visible from the northern hemisphere than from the southern, rather than "far fewer". At my latitude of +34 degrees, all but two of the ten brightest stars in the night sky are sometimes visible (those two being Alpha Centauri and Alpha Eridanii).

Secondly, the northern hemisphere is definetly NOT "more suitable for deep-space observation" as compared with the southern - for precisely this reason, most large observatories are now being built in the southern hemisphere (particularly in Chile and Australia). The Milky Way is a prime target for telescopic observation and not a significant light pollution source. While the Milky Way is indeed capable of casting a shadow as seen from very dark sky sites in the southern hemisphere, it most certainly does not cause 'blinding' (interference with astronomical observation) to any extent that it does not do so as seen from the northern hemisphere.

12.77.138.170 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)concerned amateur astronomer

Northern Hemisphere → Northern hemisphere

There is a move discussion at Talk:Southern Hemisphere#Requested move that calls for lowercasing "hemisphere". Such a change would apply to this article as well. Please voice your support, opposition, or general comments at the linked discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Not moved.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Southern Hemisphere which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Not moved.

List of continents errors

fiji is in europe? croatia is not mainly in the north? these are probalbly mistake. Noambarsh (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Information about Southern Hemisphere

I moved information comparing the two hemispheres to the article Earth. It was restored here and deleted thete!

Of course, we don't place non-WP:TOPIC material in articles because it would then need to be maintained in both places (or multiple places. My favorite was the article Hoboken, New Jersey which once insisted it's major airport was Kennedy International Airport!)

The paragraph was perfect for the article which contained both hemispheres. Student7 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted the paragraph move. Just because a statement mentions the Southern Hemisphere in the context of differences between the Northern and Southern hemisphere doesn't mean it can't be on the page about the Northern Hemisphere. That is an overly simplistic view of WP:TOPIC. Should all mentions of Alexander Hamilton be removed from the Thomas Jefferson article and placed in a general article about early American politics? Also, to use your example, it is entirely possible that Kennedy International Airport is the major airport serving Hoboken, New Jersey-- it is certainly nearby. Dulles International Airport and Baltimore-Washington International Airport are Washington DC's major international airports, but they are in Virginia and Maryland, respectively. A2soup (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Truly, I can't see that there is a single either/or place for the information. Each hemispherical article could easily wish to present contrasts with the other hemisphere, as could Earth itself. I do agree it's a poor idea to go duplicating the information throughout, however. I think the decision that needs to be made is where such contrasts should be placed. To me, a section about contrasts, including this paragraph, makes some organizational sense. It can be placed wherever, and the other articles can make reference to it with a little "more info at" tag, allowing mention to be made in all relevant places. Evensteven (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that literally hundreds of municipalities could claim, not only Kennedy, but Laguardia, and Newark, to say nothing of smaller regional airports. This is why places only include other places that are within their border. But please, put Hoboken on your watchlist. They'd love to have you!

To put it mathematically/logically, a set only includes members within that set. It doesn't include members from another set. That does not preclude defining a new set (Earth) that includes those other memebers.

The material was "The Moon appears the other way up compared to a view from the Southern Hemisphere and the view of the stars is very different. The North Pole faces away from the galactic centre of the Milky Way. This results in there being fewer and less bright visible stars in the Northern Hemisphere compared to the Southern Hemisphere, making the Northern Hemisphere more suitable for deep-space observation, as it is not "blinded" by the Milky Way." I'm sure there are many astronomical comparisons that could be made between the two skies. And geological comparisons and climatic comparisons, and political comparison, and demographic comparisons. Update both? Why, when there is an article which includes both?

For me, this would be like having an article on odd numbers, including many comparisons with even numbers, doing the reverse in the article on even numbers, and then having an article on all numbers which included the preceding information, as well.

Basically, it violates WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It originally said the moon was "upside-down" compared to the Southern Hemisphere but I changed that as it seems weird for the moon to have an upside-down. I think it would be OK to say that the northern hemisphere faces away from the milky way and so deep space observation is possible without any reference to the southern hemisphere at all. Comparison of the two is pretty easy by reading both articles anyway. I agree: stay on topic. Btljs (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Solstice dates

We've just seen another pair of edits, revision and revert, for the dates of the December solstice, something that occurs from time to time. Please see the Solstice article info box for a table of recent times. Note then that the times are given UTC, and that the dates will vary depending upon which time zone you are in. I think one of the reasons we get this type of editing is because the articles are not clear about the timing: dates alone are not specific enough, and even preponderance of dates is relative to time zone. It might help to take a little notice in the various articles this affects, so I've made an edit. There are sure to be other approaches possible also, so feel free to try something you think is better. Evensteven (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it needed stating that it was UTC and that it changes. I think people come along and go "this year it's 22nd - I'll change it". Btljs (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a little more. I realize that this will be repeating other articles which I hate to do, but obviously readers have questions. the 1/4 day annual slippage, corrected by leap year, has something to do with it, right?

Maybe even a table showing which dates in which (of four) years! Student7 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The annual slippage is one aspect, but the bigger (whole day) impact of what people see (for example, in the time of a solstice printed in a newspaper) is due to the time zone in which they live. If a winter solstice occurs at 23:30 on Dec 21 UTC, for example, then it is Dec 22 in every time zone east of the prime meridian. If it occurs only one hour later, at 00:30 on Dec 22 UTC, then it is still Dec 21 in every time zone west of the prime meridian. (Actually, in the most extreme time zones it's actually a worse case, since the easternmost (latest time) on earth is 26 hours ahead of the westernmost (earliest time), because of which side of the dateline various zones choose to be on.) The break-point for the date of a solstice or equinox can occur anywhere on earth, depending upon what time of day it occurs UTC. And that break point does occur somewhere on earth each and every season. So there is no date that can be given uniformly or predictably for all points on earth if it is given only in one time zone. To know the date, one must convert UTC to local time. But in order to make a conversion, the time of day UTC is also required, because you must know that to know if UTC shares your local date or not, at the given time. Evensteven (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about putting a range from minimum to maximum but even that drifts over a 400 year cycle. The trouble is we do talk as if given dates happen at the same time everywhere e.g. new year, Christmas day; even though we know that they don't. Even naming events like the 'Boxing Day Tsunami' or 9/11 imply a global date where none exists. When people say 'this year' or 'this century' I doubt they consider that this is not a precisely defined period, ie. my year is not necessarily your year. Btljs (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, when the latest time zone began celebrating the coming of Jan 1, 2000, it was still Dec 30th in the earliest time zone! But I think people may come to the article to try to make corrections when they recognize a divergence of their local time from the article text, and my thought was to try to quell that impulse, sincere as it may be. The min-to-max range also seems like the way to communicate that we know things vary, but that if someone wants to know precise times for their locale, they'll need to look it up in an almanac or something. But I was a bit hindered by this effect of needing to know the precise timing even to get a date. Perhaps this is a solution:

1. Ignore the 400-year cycle. We just finished one in 2000.
2. Within that, there's the 100-year cycle. Ignore that too. We don't hit that quarter-day shift again for over 84 years.
3. That leaves us just with the 4-year cycle. Get the min/max UTC figures for that cycle. Maybe get them for the next 4-year cycle also, just as a baseline check, but I think we'll be within a few minutes or even seconds. (Precession takes 26,000 years for a cycle.)
4. Convert the UTC min and max times to simple dates, but for both the min and max time zones (± 12 hours should be good enough). Then re-group into min and max dates for the full worldwide span (even if the entire span isn't represented in each and every time zone). Report that as the range of possibilities.
5. Finally, convert also the average of the UTC min and max times for each season. Convert those averages to dates in both the min and max time zones, and report those dates also as the likeliest possibilities.

I'm thinking the ranges and averages will remain valid (even close to precise) for a good 85 years, and WP can repeat the process then and get another 100 years' worth. And I'm betting when people see that, they'll understand (most of the time) that what they know by their local time fits correctly with what they see in the article. Thoughts? Evensteven (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not that simple as you can see here http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jun/21/summer-solstice-data There is a four year cycle but each cycle differs from the last (going back about 50 minutes or so) so that over the century it will presumably go back a whole day only to jump forward by that day when the century year doesn't have a leap year. Not exactly, obviously, so that each century will drift forward until 2400. So you could only put a range for one lot of four years. Probably best to avoid the issue altogether and just say "during June and December, varying each year (and dependent on which time zone)". Btljs (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue is complicated the two solstices drift in opposite directions with respect to the Gregorian calendar viewed once every 400 years. I show here

 Sun 2015-06-21 16:38   Tue 2015-12-22 04:48
 Sun 2415-06-21 07:58   Tue 2415-12-22 06:36
 Sat 2815-06-20 23:09   Tue 2815-12-22 07:39

Karl (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Btljs, you're right of course, that my math was off. Not sure what I was thinking. But it's really not so very complex either. The shift every four years is less than one time zone, but we're talking about identifying a range of dates. One time zone gets you within 4%, and we are talking about making it clear that things vary. "During June and December" is true (for solstices only - don't forget equinoxes), but I think it punts where we ought to go for a field goal. Take the resulting date range for 2016-2019 then. How many of the dates change for 2020-2023? If there are any at all, it won't be much, and the same will hold true each four years. The possibility of significant shift in one 4-year range to the next occurs only every 100 years. So I overstated the durability of 4-year range, and it will need correction more often. But not a lot more often, and not a large correction until 2100. A light manual WP correction every 4 years doesn't sound too onerous to me. If it goes 8 or 12 years, it may pass unnoticed, until enough accumulation builds. I think that's as far as we need to go here.

Karl, the 400-year drift isn't even worth considering unless we want to nail down times to the minute and publish a whole table. Personally, I think that's not an unreasonable thing to do in WP. It just belongs in its own detail article. (Do we have one?) No reason we couldn't point to it from here. Call the play a pass and go for it all; works for me. Evensteven (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Biomes

Biomes for tundra1. animals. bunnies fun fact the tundra only has 6 weeks of summer. 2. plants. cotton grass fun fact trees grow less than 1 min high! 3. water. water for tundra is freshwater. 4.climate. fun facts simple vegetation low precipitation 5. tempertrues .fun facts winter is -34 c (-30 f) summer is 3-12(37-54 f) 6. fun fact low precipitation pullution low in nutrients carbon dioxide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.160.22 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Northern Hemisphere → Northern hemisphere – It seems doubtful that "northern hemisphere" is a proper name, hence it should be in sentence case per WP:TITLEFORMAT. This was discussed over a decade ago at Southern Hemisphere but the result was inconclusive. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:F9D7:AB3D:6F1:36D8 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: This article is about the Northern Hemisphere of Earth. It is not about a northern hemisphere. In this case it is more than a definite article, it is a proper article because it is the specific name of a place. nooa.gov demonstrates this use in this example: Not only was August 2020 the second-warmest August on record, but the Northern Hemisphere had its warmest summer, and the globe as a whole had its third-hottest three-month season, too. Jared.h.wood (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Earth is flat. There are no hemispheres. Showiecz (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title is a proper noun and should be capitalized, as the article is specifically about Earth's Northern Hemisphere, not the general concept of northern hemispheres. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a proper name. Dimadick (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Europe

Nothing needed there since the entirety of Europe is in the northern hemisphere, not just the continental mainland. Overseas are not in Europe. Masterball2 (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at rephrasing things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)