During the last few days anxious questionings have been heard respecting the next spring tides. A certain naval officer, who conceives that he can trace in the relative positions of the sun and moon the secret of every important change of weather, has described in the columns of a contemporary the threatening significance of the approaching conjunction of the sun and moon. He predicts violent atmospheric disturbances; though in another place he tells us merely that the conjunction is to cause ‘unsettled weather,’ a state of matters to which we in England have become tolerably well accustomed.

But people are asking what is the actual relation which is to bring about such terrible events. The matter is very simple. On October 5, the moon will be new—in other words, if it were not for the brightness of the sun, we should see the moon close by that luminary on the heavens. Thus the sun and moon will pull with combined effect upon the waters of the earth, and so cause what are called spring tides. This, of course, happens at the time of every new moon, but sometimes the moon exerts a more effective pull than at other times; and the same happens also in the case of the sun; and on October 5, it happens that both the sun and the moon will give a particularly vigorous haul upon the earth’s waters. As regards the sun, there is nothing unusual. Every October his pull on the ocean is much the same as in preceding Octobers. But October is a month of high solar tides—and for these reasons:—In September, as everyone knows, the sun crosses the equinoctial; and, other things being equal, it would be when on the equinoctial that his power to raise a tidal wave would be greatest. But other things are not equal; for the sun is not always at the same distance from the earth. He is nearest in January; so that he would exert more power in that month than in any other, if his force depended solely on distance. As matters actually stand, it will be obvious that at some time between September and January the sun’s tidal power would have a maximum value. Thus it is that October is a month of high solar tidal waves.

But it is the lunar wave which will be most effectively strengthened at the next spring tide. If we could watch the lunar tidal wave alone (instead of always finding it combined with the solar wave) we should find it gradually increasing, and then gradually diminishing, in a period of about a lunar month. And we should find that it was always largest when the moon looked largest, and vice versÂ. In other words, when the moon is in perigee the lunar wave is largest. But then there is another consideration. The lunar wave would vary according to the moon’s proximity to the equinoctial; and (other things being equal) would be largest when the moon is exactly opposite the earth’s equator. If the two effects are combined, that is, if the moon happens to be in perigee and on the equinoctial at the same time, then of course we get the largest lunar tidal wave we can possibly have.

Now this ‘largest lunar wave’ occurs at somewhat long intervals, because the relation on which it depends is one which is, so to speak, exceptional. Still the relation does recur, and with a certain degree of regularity. When it happens, however, it by no means follows that we have a very high tide; because it may occur when the tides are near ‘neap’; in other words, when the sun and moon exert opposing effects. The largest lunar wave cannot stand the drain which the solar wave exerts upon it at the time of neap tides. Nor would the large lunar tidal wave produce an exceptionally high tide, even though it were not the time of ‘neap,’ or were tolerably near the time of ‘spring’ tides. Only when it happens that a large lunar wave combines fully with the solar wave, do we get very high tides. And when, in addition to this relation, we have the solar wave nearly at a maximum, we get the highest of all possible tides. This is what will happen, or all but happen, on October 5 next. The combination of circumstances is almost the most effective that can possibly exist.

But, after all, high tides depend very importantly on other considerations than astronomical ones. Most of us remember how a predicted high tide some two years ago turned out to be a very moderate, or, if we may use the expression, a very ‘one-horse’ affair indeed, because the winds had not been consulted, and exerted their influence against the astronomers. A long succession of winds blowing off-shore would reduce a spring tide to a height scarcely exceeding the ordinary neap. On the other hand, if we should have a long succession of westerly winds from the Atlantic before the approaching high tide, it is certain that a large amount of mischief may be done in some of our riverside regions.10

As for the predicted weather changes, they may be regarded as mere moonshine. A number of predictions, founded on the motions of the sun and moon, have found a place during many months past in the columns of a contemporary; but there has been no greater agreement between these predictions and the weather actually experienced than anyone could trace between Old Moore’s weather prophecies and recorded weather changes. In other words, there have been certain accordances which would be very remarkable indeed if they did not happen to be associated with as many equally remarkable discordances. Random predictions would be quite as satisfactory.

A very amusing misprint has found its way into many newspapers in connection with the coming tide. It is interesting as serving to show how little is really known by the general public about some of the simplest scientific matters. The original statement announced that the sun would not be in perihelion by so many seconds of semi-diameter, in itself a very incorrect mode of expression. Still it was clear that what was meant was, that the earth would be so far from the place of nearest approach to the sun that the latter would not look as large as it possibly can look, by so many seconds of semi-diameter. In many papers, however, we read that the ‘sun will not be in perihelion by so many seconds of mean chronometer!’ Who first devised this marvellous reading is unknown.

(From the Daily News for September 27, 1869.)