It has no meaning other than near perigee, it's not like the difference in the apparent moon size is all that noticeable, and we don't say that ISS is a 'superstation' or a satellite in a Molniya orbit is a 'supersatellite' when near perigee.
For example, yesterday I saw a news coverage that discussed the relation between the lunar eclipse, the "supermoon" and the zodiac signs. (Do you know the zodiac signs are changing this night? Or it was yesterday? Anyway I think there are a few zodiac calendars with small differences at the borders.) Even if the zodiac thing makes the new more interesting, it's bad to mix it with the real scientific facts.
When I was in school we had to learn the organs of the body, the parts of a cell, and other seemingly arbitrary terms. This comes from an old tradition where "science" was roughly equivalent to "knowing names."
I also grew up in an area where evolution was a contentious topic. The teacher only covered it for one day. But it's evolution which tied together the individual fields of 'botany' and 'anatomy' and 'bacteriology' into 'biology.' Evolution is what makes Rutherford's views wrong.
Words like "supermoon" and also "blue moon" fall into that category of meaningless terms that sound scientific but are little more than numerology, and not backed by any deeper meaning.
I have no problems getting together for a 'fun celebratory event'. I celebrate on New Year's eve like many others. I've been at fun celebratory events for meteor showers, and for other eclipses.
What I have problems with is justifying it with essentially an arbitrary and meaningless definition. Why is a "supermoon" at the 90% size threshold? Why not 95% Or 99%? By comparison, the New Year is also arbitrary, but not meaningless, as the history of the calendar shows.
* Lunar eclipses are very common. They happen at least every 2 years. Every decade or so, they happen 4 times in two years.
* The term "supermoon" is a painful over exaggeration, since the visible difference between it and the average moon is tiny.
So yeah, enjoy the eclipse, but in the end it's the media trying to make news. :)
* Supermoon lunar eclipses are uncommon. * The visible difference can be up to ~14%, and its significantly brighter too.
But viewing the moon on the horizon will get you a bigger apparent size difference, no supermoon needed.
The "super moon" to me is from last quarter to new moon when it's out of the way and not flooding the sky with its unwanted brightness so I can see the deep sky :)
