|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #1000975 added December 29, 2020 at 12:02am
Restrictions: None
Cold Moon
Dammit.
We really, really need to stop associating full moon names with Gregorian calendar months.
The concept of naming full moons evolved separately from the Gregorian calendar and its predecessor, the Julian. The folklore associated with moon phases was tied to seasons; that is, equinoxes and solstices.
The Cold Moon - or whatever it's called in whatever culture - was the first full moon after the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere (hence "Cold"). This has an approximately 1/3 chance of occurring in our December, and about a 2/3 chance of occurring in January.
I know I've ranted about this sort of thing before, in connection with the "Blue Moon." It's as if the internet just doesn't pay attention to a single word I say...
...which is fair, I suppose, since I'm basically nobody.
It's still the hill I choose to die on.
Once more, with feeling: there will usually be three full moons between equinox and solstice, or vice versa. On those rare occasions when there are four, the third of the four is the Blue Moon. "Rare" meaning about once every three years or so; hence the expression "once in a blue moon."
There was a time, some few years ago, when we had two full moons in January, none in February, and two again in March (January and March having 31 days each by fiat). This all by itself should have been sufficient to stop this "second full moon in a calendar month is a Blue Moon" nonsense, but apparently that was not the case, as the wrongness persists to this day.
And again, the method of naming moons relative to equinox/solstice is independent of whatever calendar is being used, so it is more universal.
An astronomer I'm acquainted with, Phil Plait, accepts that either method is "right," because like it or not, the Gregorian calendar is what we're stuck with, at least for now. I have a great deal of respect for Phil; I spent a week in a cabin in Colorado with him and his wife and a few other people. I think I understand his reasoning for that; as with a dictionary, it's a matter of descriptive versus prescriptive, and from his point of view anything that gets people interested in looking up at the sky is a Good Thing.
I agree with that bit: if you can be arsed to get out of your warm house in December or January (again, I'm being Northern-Hemisphere-centric here) to look up at the Moon in all her glory, that's great. Do it. Or if you spend a week in Colorado looking at the sky, preferably during a time when there is not a full moon because without the competition, and also preferably in the company of a professional astronomer who can show you shit through a telescope that's even more amazing, the rest of the sky can be even more glorious.
Where I disagree with Phil is that I believe we can't just abandon the folklore; trying to fit it into modern timekeeping is, to me, a bit like trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole. Or maybe it's the other way around; whatever. Doesn't matter; point is it's not going to fit right no matter what you do.
And honestly, I'm of two minds regarding calendar reforms. Personally, I think we should either go back to a purely astronomical one, where solstices and equinoxes mark the seasons but the moons are tracked as per one's chosen folklore; or abandon the concept entirely in favor of something like the Tranquility Calendar  .
Still. Go look at the full moon, if weather conditions allow. I know it happens every 29 days or so, but it's still worth noting. |
© Copyright 2020 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
