Tim Cullen: Planetary Rotation – Atmospheric Corotation

Posted: January 22, 2013 by Rog Tallbloke in Astrophysics, atmosphere, Electro-magnetism, general circulation, Geomagnetism, Tides

Tim Cullen continues his investigation of the secret life of the solar system, and makes a very interesting discovery. To find his previous articles, use this search.

Planetary Rotation – Atmospheric Corotation
Tim Cullen – MalagaBay – January 2013

Atmospheric Corotation is one of those “dark corners” of science where mainstream scientists “fear to tread”. Physics and the Earth sciences seem to [currently] avoid the subject “like the plague”.

Generally, atmospheric corotation is relegated to the fringes of Astronomy and Astrophysics:

Corotation – Joint rotation of the atmosphere and a planet.

http://www.spaceweather.eu/en/glossary

Atmospheric corotation is a very real, everyday phenomenon.

Atmospheric corotation is probably the most [unknowingly] talked about subject on Earth because local variations in atmospheric corotation drive weather systems around the globe.

The spheroid Earth rotates around its axis every day and this causes the surface of the Earth to rotate at a speed of 1,674.4 kilometres per hour at the equator.

However, we do not experience wind speeds of 1,674.4 kilometres per hour at the equator because the atmosphere of the Earth [basically] corotates with the planet.

The corotation of the Earth’s atmosphere extends into the plasmasphere and it is generally agreed that the corotation eventually breaks down at the plasmapause.

Corotation cannot extend to arbitrarily large distances from the planet but must ultimately break down as the result either of external forces or of the inertia of the corotating plasma itself. In the case of earth’s magnetosphere, external stresses imposed by the solar wind impede corotation beyond the plasmapause at about 5 earth radii distance [e.g., Brice, 1967].

Inertial Limit on Corotation - T. W. Hill

Space Physics and Astronomy Department, RiceUniversity, Houston, Texas

Journal of Geophysical Research – 1979

Adapted from: N M Brice, Bulk motion of the magnetosphere, Journal of Geophysical Research – 1967

http://pluto.space.swri.edu/image/glossary/convection.html

The mainstream scientific literature states [very directly and very boldly] that the rotating surface of a planet drives the corotation of the atmosphere.

In a first step, the planetary rotation is transmitted to the neutral atmosphere through viscous stresses.

Basics of Rotating Magnetospheres: Equilibrium and Stability – K. M. FERRIÈRE

Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, 14 avenue E. Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France

Astrophysics and Space Science – 2001

The role of the atmosphere is to provide a viscous transfer of momentum from the rotating surface of the planet up into the ionosphere, where the plasma is set into corotation by the collisional friction between the ions and the neutral particles (see, for example, Hines [1960]).

Inertial Limit on Corotation – T. W. Hill

Space Physics and Astronomy Department, RiceUniversity, Houston, Texas

Journal of Geophysical Research – 1979

image1

This “first step” is pivotal to our understanding of the Earth and Solar System.

The mainstream literature does not indicate this “first step” is an assumption.

The mainstream literature does not support this “first step” by reference to a paper.

The mainstream literature does not support this “first step” with direct evidence.

The mainstream literature simply takes this “first step” as an established “fact”.

Therefore, let’s examine this “fact” to see if it can withstand serious scrutiny.

The “viscous transfer of momentum” from a planet’s surface into the atmosphere depends upon the viscosity of the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, for the mainstream, the viscosity of the Earth’s atmosphere is very low:

If the viscosity is very high, such as in pitch, the fluid will seem to be a solid in the short term.

Air   [at 15 C]: 1.81 × 10−5 Pa.s

Water [at 25 C]: 8.90 × 10−4 Pa·s

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

Basically, the Earth’s atmosphere would need to be as thick as pitch to enable the Earth’s surface to transfer sufficient momentum into the atmosphere so that it could corotate with the planet [in the short term].

Additionally, any momentum transferred from the surface into the Earth’s atmosphere has limited potential for upward propagation because the [already low] viscosity of the atmosphere will decrease as the atmospheric temperatures decease with altitude.

If you have enjoyed the cooling “breeze” generated by a rotary fan then you probably know the “breeze” dissipates with distance.

If you have looked at the design of rotary fans and propellers you should understand that a solid sphere is a very inefficient mechanism for transferring momentum.

If you have studied aerodynamics you should appreciate that the momentum of rotating air [wake turbulence] is usually dissipated within a minute.

image2

Therefore, the Earth’s surface cannot drive “bottom up” atmospheric corotation.

Evidently, the mainstream avoids drawing this conclusion simply by avoiding the issue altogether. This is hardly surprising because they have no science that explains this phenomenon.

An alternative “electric universe” approach has the potential to provide a “top down” explanation for atmospheric corotation because the mainstream literature associates the phenomenon with “planets that have both atmospheres and magnetospheres”.

Planets that have both atmospheres and magnetospheres (Earth and Jupiter for example) are expected, and observed, to exhibit the phenomenon of corotation, whereby the magnetospheric plasma rotates with essentially the angular velocity of planetary rotation.

Inertial Limit on Corotation – T. W. Hill

Space Physics and Astronomy Department, RiceUniversity, Houston, Texas

Journal of Geophysical Research – 1979

The mainstream literature also provides a corotating “electric” connection between the ionosphere and the magnetosphere:

The rotating ionospheric plasma polarizes so as to produce a corotation electric field…

This electric field is then transmitted outward to enforce the corotation of the magnetospheric plasma, under the assumption that the magnetic field lines are perfect conductors [Ferraro, 1937].

Inertial Limit on Corotation – T. W. Hill

Space Physics and Astronomy Department, RiceUniversity, Houston, Texas

Journal of Geophysical Research – 1979

However, the low viscosity of the Earth’s atmosphere [again] provides a stumbling block for this “top down” approach. The rotational velocity of the ionosphere is higher than that of the Earth’s surface but the mass of the ionosphere is very significantly less than that of the lower atmosphere.

Therefore, the “top down” transfer of momentum can’t propagate corotation all the way down to the surface. Even an ardent “top down” advocate would have to develop some miraculous mathematics to explain how the downward propagation [from the ionosphere] resulted in a corotating atmosphere with a velocity that exactly synchronised with Earth’s rotation at the surface.

Atmospheric corotation is a fundamental problem without a real solution.

The geocentric “bottom up” and “top down” solutions both founder upon atmospheric viscosity.

However, if we examine the Gas Giants [in the Solar System] we discover that the axial rotation periods of these large planets [which have atmospheres and magnetospheres] may be related [in some unknown way] with their diameters.

image3

This raises the possibility that “planetary rotation” [and the associated “atmospheric corotation”] may be directly controlled by a single [yet to be identified] facet of the Solar System.

The “R squared” value of “0.9921” indicates that this potential merits further investigation.

Additionally, for those so inclined, the derived formula includes the value “1.6146” which is extremely close to the value of the Golden Ratio:

The golden ratio is also called the golden section (Latin: sectio aurea) or golden mean.

Other names include extreme and mean ratio, medial section, divine proportion, divine section (Latin: sectio divina), golden proportion, golden cut, golden number, and mean of Phidias.

In mathematics and the arts, two quantities are in the golden ratio if the ratio of the sum of the quantities to the larger quantity is equal to the ratio of the larger quantity to the smaller one.

image4

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

Intriguingly, Wikipedia references a 2010 report by the journal Science which indicates “that the golden ratio is present at the atomic scale in the magnetic resonance of spins in cobalt niobate crystals.”

Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter

When applying a magnetic field at right angles to an aligned spin the magnetic chain will transform into a new state called quantum critical, which can be thought of as a quantum version of a fractal pattern. Prof. Alan Tennant, the leader of the Berlin group, explains “The system reaches a quantum uncertain – or a Schrödinger cat state. This is what we did in our experiments with cobalt niobate. We have tuned the system exactly in order to turn it quantum critical.”

By tuning the system and artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty the researchers observed that the chain of atoms acts like a nanoscale guitar string. Dr. Radu Coldea from OxfordUniversity, who is the principal author of the paper and drove the international project from its inception a decade ago until the present, explains: “Here the tension comes from the interaction between spins causing them to magnetically resonate. For these interactions we found a series (scale) of resonant notes: The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618…, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture.” Radu Coldea is convinced that this is no coincidence. “It reflects a beautiful property of the quantum system – a hidden symmetry. Actually quite a special one called E8 by mathematicians, and this is its first observation in a material”, he explains.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/haog-grd010510.php

TO BE CONTINUED…..

Tim Cullen

MalagaBay

January 2013

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    Very very interesting. The ratio between polar diameter and rotation speed of the gas giants is not far off y=1/2Phi*x^Phi

  2. vukcevic says:

    Very informative, I still have to follow some of the links.
    thanks.

  3. michael hart says:

    Thanks, Tim (Cullen).
    A related question: I’ve been wanting to ask someone about how oceanic tidal-forces dissipate (or do not dissipate) energy for some time. That is, how is it estimated and/or measured? I never see it discussed as an issue, so I assume it is dismissed as an insignificant contribution to oceanic heat fluxes.

  4. Richard says:

    Hmm.

    If you take a large, smooth, rotating plate at the bottom of a wide, air filled, cylinder then I suspect that, even with a very poor coupling between the plate and the air, the whole mass will assume a constant rotation throughout within a fairly short time period.

    The exact profile will depend on the losses that oppose the rotation and where they occur.

    Therefore the whole atmosphere will rotate with the planet (actually the surface directly below it) unless there are some losses to slow it in particular places/heights.

    [Reply] The word ‘therefore’ is usually reserved until after the experiment. ;)

  5. Nice topic, will have to follow up the links

  6. Bloke down the pub says:

    My guess would be that the coriolis effect has a net effect that produces a westerly rotation of the atmosphere. The corotation is therefore likely to be driven by pressure differences caused by differential heating by the sun.

  7. Bloke down the pub says:

    That might be circuitous thinking, but that seems appropriate for a post on corotation.

  8. oldbrew says:

    ‘This raises the possibility that “planetary rotation” [and the associated “atmospheric corotation”] may be directly controlled by a single [yet to be identified] facet of the Solar System’

    Re planetary rotation, see here…

    http://milesmathis.com/angle.html

    [Quote]: According to my new corrected equations, a greater radius should give us a lesser velocity. What do we find?

    velocity of Mercury 48
    velocity of Venus 35km/s
    velocity of Earth 30km/s
    velocity of Mars 24km/s
    velocity of Jupiter 13km/s

    Need I go on?
    [end quote]

  9. Stephen Wilde says:

    Any ideas how to relate this to climate phenomena ?

    At first glance I would think it a contributor to background chaotic variability rather than the cause of any specific measurable observation.

  10. pochas says:

    If space has a viscosity of zero then the planet and its atmosphere will rotate as a unit.

  11. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    The viscosity is relevant if shear forces are applied, but where is the physical resistance to the motion of the atmosphere in space? Gravity comes into this as well, holding the atmosphere against the planet, which happens to be rotating. This stops the atmosphere from continuing its motion in a straight line or tangent. The same is true of the oceans.

    I agree that there must be a motion gradient somewhere, but that may be academic if it lies at the edge of space.

  12. tallbloke says:

    The viscosity is relevant if shear forces are applied, but where is the physical resistance to the motion of the atmosphere in space?

    Solar wind/magnetosphere?

  13. tallbloke says:

    If the golden ratio is relevant here, then it puts the Earth in a ‘special place’ insofar as phi is relative to the speed of Earth’s rotation. This may not be a problem, given that Earth and Venus’ relative orbital periods are also in the golden ratio, and the inverse of jupiter’s orbital period 1/11.86 Earth orbitals happens to give the average rotation period of the Sun.

    But I wonder what we might find if we related the axial rotation periods of the gas giants to their own orbital periods. Did Tim Cullen look at that?

  14. suricat says:

    Tim Cullen.

    “The corotation of the Earth’s atmosphere extends into the plasmasphere and it is generally agreed that the corotation eventually breaks down at the plasmapause.”

    ??? :(

    Tim, the region of Earth’s atmosphere that ‘co-rotates’ most closely with Earth’s rotation is ‘The Boundary Layer’. Even here there are ‘discrepancies’ (fluctuations in wind direction). At atmospheric altitudes above the Boundary Layer there are ‘lags’ and ‘leads’ between the atmosphere’s and Earth’s rotation rates, but we label these ‘Weather’ and ‘Climate Cells’ respectively.

    Are you speaking of the ‘mid Stratosphere and above’ altitudes only?

    Best regards, Ray.

  15. pochas says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 22, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    “Solar wind/magnetosphere?”

    To these I would add tides, with two question marks. If anyone can quantize any of these, please speak up.

  16. Tim Folkerts says:

    “Basically, the Earth’s atmosphere would need to be as thick as pitch to enable the Earth’s surface to transfer sufficient momentum into the atmosphere so that it could corotate with the planet [in the short term].”

    But this is not a “short term” situation. The earth has rotated about 1.6 TRILLION times since it formed.

    Furthermore, air near the surface that is “spun up” to co-rotation speeds (by viscous drag and by collisions with mountains, trees, etc) and then heated will rise by convection, which will carry its angular momentum with it high into the atmosphere. So it is not only viscosity that transfers angular momentum, but also convection.

    Finally, the gases that were out-gased from the rotating planet (ie most of the early atmosphere) would already be co-rotating with the planet when it was released from volcanoes, geysers, etc. Any water cycling between the oceans and the atmosphere would already be co-rotating with the planet. There is no need to “spin up” the gases to co-rotating speeds because most of them started at such speeds.

    In other words, any atmosphere pretty much always has been and always will be co-rotating with its planet.

  17. Brian H says:

    Bloke down the pub says:
    January 22, 2013 at 11:39 am

    That might be circuitous thinking, but that seems appropriate for a post on corotation.

    I don’t think circuitous means what you think it means. LOL Look it up for a good laugh.

    Tim;
    So, what’s the deal with planets with atmospheres but no magnetospheres, like Mars and Venus?

  18. Tim Cullen says:

    michael hart says: January 22, 2013 at 10:42 am
    How oceanic tidal-forces dissipate (or do not dissipate) energy…

    The subject of tides is fascinating… and the mainstream science regarding tides is even more fascinating… but [I’m afraid] that is a topic for another day.

  19. Tim Cullen says:

    Stephen Wilde says: January 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    Any ideas how to relate this to climate phenomena?

    The concept of “viscosity” is associated with “friction” and that implies “heating”.
    This topic is introduced in the final section of this posting… so it seems appropriate to delay this discussion for a couple of days…

  20. Tim Cullen says:

    TB The word ‘therefore’ is usually reserved until after the experiment.

    Excellent suggestion!

    To get a better understanding of some of the issues associated with “viscosity” and “corotation” you may find some practical experimentation informative while you are drinking a beverage today… a cup of tea or coffee… a glass of water… even a tequila sunrise.

    Experiment 1
    Dip a plastic drinking straw into the middle of your beverage and simply rotate the drinking straw using a finger and thumb – this is not a stirring motion but a simple axial rotation of the drinking straw. You might like to repeat the experiment using a wooden paddle [like you get at MacDonalds or Starbucks with you coffee], the wrong end of a teaspoon and the right end of a teaspoon. You might also like to experiment with different speeds of rotation [because the Earth only rotates once a day].

    The objective of this experiment is to understand how easy [or difficult or impossible] it is to get the whole beverage to corotate using a plastic drinking straw [or paddle or spoon].

    Remember, that corotation means that the fluid spins around as if it was a solid – like an old fashioned long playing record on a turntable [or like a modern CD or DVD].

    Experiment 2
    Place a spoon in the middle of your beverage and begin to stir BUT keep the spoon as close to the centre as possible while you stir. Repeat this stirring experiment BUT this time keep the spoon against the side [wall] of you cup or glass.

    The objective of this experiment is to observe any differences in rotation patterns [in your beverage] while you stir. Additionally, you might like to see how easy [or difficult or impossible] it is to get your beverage to corotate using these two stirring techniques.

    BOTTOM LINE
    Do some simple experiments with a cup of coffee… it will only take about five minutes of your time… then you can decide whether I have a point or I am just plain barking mad.

  21. Tim Cullen says:

    suricat says: January 22, 2013 at 11:24 pm
    Tim, the region of Earth’s atmosphere that ‘co-rotates’ most closely with Earth’s rotation is ‘The Boundary Layer’. Even here there are ‘discrepancies’ (fluctuations in wind direction).

    There are definitely “discrepancies” that effect atmospheric corotation… most of these discrepancies are not fully understood [just like weather systems]… and there may be confounding electromagnetic factors that need to be addressed.

    For example:
    Excess [“super”] rotation has been observed at altitudes ranging from 200 to 300 kilometres where the atmosphere rotates up to 1.25 faster than the Earth.

    http://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the-rotational-speed-of-the-upper-atmosphere.gif?w=640&h=476

    However, the atmosphere corotates at the surface of the Earth… this is best experienced on a calm summers day in England… sometimes a sea breeze help on a really hot summers day. Yes there are winds and weather systems. BUT even the fiercest hurricane [or jet stream] pales into insignificance when compared to the Earth’s equatorial rotation speed of 1,674.4 kilometres per hour.

    So: There is corotation at the surface, the boundary layer and up to the plasmapause.
    There are discrepancies encountered with altitude… some of these discrepancies are transitory [just like weather system] and some of these discrepancies are very variable… so it is not a perfect corotation… but I think “corotating” is a very reasonable characterisation of the Earth’s atmosphere.

  22. Sera says:

    Gravity holds everything in place. The coffee cup is a solid, and will produce friction with the coffee swirling inside thus slowing it down to a halt (gravity/friction). Looking at it another way, there is nothing to prevent the atmosphere from co-rotating, so it does.

  23. Tim Cullen says:

    Tim Folkerts says: January 23, 2013 at 2:07 am

    Perhaps you would like to confirm your views with a few experiments…
    Perhaps experiment with something really viscous [like mixing a bucker of plaster] to see how easy it is to get the mixture “corotating”.

  24. Tim Cullen says:

    Brian H says: January 23, 2013 at 4:25 am
    So, what’s the deal with planets with atmospheres but no magnetospheres, like Mars and Venus?

    Mars, Earth and Venus are discussed in the final section of this posting… so it seems appropriate to delay this discussion for a couple of days…

  25. Tim Cullen says:

    Sera says: January 23, 2013 at 7:36 am
    Gravity holds everything in place…
    there is nothing to prevent the atmosphere from co-rotating, so it does.

    The question to be addressed is WHAT [and how] enables atmospheric corotation.
    Gravity may constrain the vertical movement of the atmospheric gases but the horizontal [orbital] corotation of the atmospheric requires a little more explanation in my opinion.

  26. Sera says:

    A planet, with no sun (heat source), rotating in empty space with an atmosphere. There is nothing to prevent the atmosphere from co-rotating with the planet because the atmosphere is a solid bound to the planet by gravity. Introduce a heat source (sol) and thermodynamic reactions with the atmosphere will take place. In some places, this force will overwhelm the gravity constant and produce local/global circulation patterns within the atmosphere. As for the atmosphere itself, there is no friction on the outside to prevent it from ‘staying in place’. You ask “What (and how) enables atmospheric co-rotation?”, but the ‘null’ would be “Is there anything that could prevent this co-rotation”? I don’t know of anything that would prevent it.

    I will wait politely for the second installment- maybe I’m not reading this properly (lack of coffee).

  27. Tim Cullen says:

    Sera says: January 23, 2013 at 8:42 am
    the atmosphere is a solid bound to the planet

    That is indeed what is effectively observed.

    However, the atmosphere is a fluid [not a solid] so a lot of momentum has to be transferred into the atmosphere so that it can corotate like a solid.

    Transferring sufficient momentum into the Earth’s low viscosity atmosphere so that it corotates with the planet’s surface is not easy to achieve… and it is even harder to achieve when the mainstream’s chosen “driver” is the Earth’s surface which is rotating at a rate of “once a day”.

    Stirring a cup of coffee is one thing… stirring a cup of air is another thing altogether… especially when the gas particles up in the atmosphere have “six degrees of freedom”.

    I will wait politely for the second installment- maybe I’m not reading this properly (lack of coffee).

    And maybe I am wrong…
    Or maybe I am not articulating my points very well.

    PS: I hope you are looking closely at your coffee when you stir it :-)

  28. I think the whole process can be explained with homopolar generator effects (HPGE) and the semi permanent magnetic fields of the planets that co-rotate with the interior. Standing electromagnetic fields suspend ions above the surface all the way to the plasma-sphere, mutual static repulsion (MSR) between separate charged ions, that would be condensation nuclei, and with sufficient available moisture to be close to the dew point, forms clouds. Large areas of the atmosphere would be statically neutral, or having the total available charge carriers equal to the number of ions that the electromagnetic field strength, needs to maintain itself, as one cannot exist with out the other.

    The elasticity of atmosphere due to the charge content of the ions would be dampened by the MSR between like charged ions, the HPGE work like spin orbit couplings, the total magnetic field strength, magnetically permeable content of the planet, and angular momentum, combine to produce the total charger gradient from pole to equator. For the Earth it is about 90 to 120 volts per meter as you measure up from the surface or from pole to equator. Positive at the equator or more appropriately the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), and Negative at the poles. The corotation is the product of the locking of the static fields of the atmosphere holding the suspended magnetic fields to the surface charges due to the same effects because of the connections between the internal fields and the outer layers of the plasma-sphere.

    When the magnetic fields of the HPGE composite increase the charge gradient increases, as well as the rotation rate of the Earth and LOD changes result. So when the intensity/density of the ion flow in the solar wind shifts rapidly the pole to equator charge gradient follows it. The shift in angular velocity/momentum can be/have either rotational or orbital speed affected results. As the long term shift in magnetic coupling between the sun, the earth, and the other planets, as well as the effects of the center of the galaxy being behind the sun or the earth between the two, gives long term LOD shifts, so do the synod conjunctions of the other planets with the earth. All of these electromagnetic coupling shifts give rise to the variation in the composite HPGE charge gradient, which drives most of the severe weather events along the frontal boundaries.

    The jet streams form where the shifts in charge gradient meet as the HPGE increases and decreases the jet stream’s wander more or less poleward, in response. Between the polar jets and the tropical jets lies the air masses that have met in clashes during charge shifts and have become ionically neutral (with regard to the surface charge) and low in aerosol content from the rinsing effects of the recent precipitation of the passing frontal boundaries.

    When the earth has a synod conjunction with one of the outer gas planets sudden pulses in charge up to the point of conjunction ensue commensurate with the decrease in LOD, and outward orbital shift in trajectory ( a triple result of the tidal, gravitational pulls and HPGE of the increased electromagnetic coupling from the increased intensity of solar wind ions we pass through that are being magnetically focused (toward the outer planets presence) by the conduction of the magnetically permeable materials in the outer planet(s) we are passing.

    The lunar orbital and declinational tidal bulges in the oceans and atmosphere modulate the meridional flows of the ions with each crossing of the equator into the the other hemisphere, and at culmination starts back leaving a large set of cyclonic patterns swirling off enhanced by Coriolis effects. Thus generating the pulses in intense precipitations along frontal boundaries resulting in most of the severe weather outbreaks.

    All of this would not be so important if it were not for the dynamic that the North/South declination of the moon relative to the ecliptic and equator is a direct result of the rotation of the magnetic poles of the sun having the same period of 27.32 days and the lunar declinational movement were matched by the canter-levered South/North movement of the COM of the earth trying to match the flopping of the neutral current sheet of the solar wind, so the earth moon barycenter stays on the ecliptic plane.

  29. tallbloke says:

    Tim says: “a lot of momentum has to be transferred into the atmosphere so that it can corotate like a solid.”

    Well, it was spinning along with the solids when the Earth was formed so initial inertia doesn’t need to be overcome.
    Space presents little friction at the top of the atmosphere.
    The atmosphere’s components are being emitted and re-absorbed by processes in stuff going round with the solid Earth.
    Newton says that in the absence of opposing forces, stuff keeps on keeping on.

  30. Richard says:

    I think a more relevant experiment would be to take a 33rpm disc player and surround the turntable with a cylinder to enclose the air above it.

    Leave the truntable running for about an hour or two and see what the movement in the air above the plater looks like.

    My guess is that it will be rotating at about the same velocity as the disc (with losses to the clyinder wall and the bulk air above).

    Give a vertical profile through the atmosphere is very short compared to the width the above should be closer to the answer than using a coffee cup and water.

  31. Tim Cullen says:

    Richard Holle says: January 23, 2013 at 9:29 am

    THANK YOU for your wonderfully detailed explanation.

    I don’t have [so far] any substantial points of disagreement.

    However, personally, I haven’t reached the point where I can draw definitive conclusions regarding the driving force/forces… but the “homopolar generator effect” does looks like a prime candidate.

  32. Tim Cullen says:

    tallbloke says: January 23, 2013 at 9:32 am
    Well, it was spinning along with the solids when the Earth was formed so initial inertia doesn’t need to be overcome.

    That may well be a bit of mainstream “circular logic” because getting the “initial spin” into the mainstream formation theories takes a bit of “spinning” :-) but let’s assume we have some initial spin.

    Newton says that in the absence of opposing forces, stuff keeps on keeping on.

    So he does… but I doubt that he reached that conclusion after playing a game of snooker, billiards or pool. The basic problem with “keeping on” in the atmosphere [especially in the lower atmosphere] is that gas particles have a nasty habit of bumping into each other… and unfortunately these colliding gas particles have “six degrees of freedom” when they are playing “snooker” in the atmosphere.

    Therefore, there is a need for a continuing input of energy [momentum] into the atmosphere if the atmosphere is to remain corotating. Unfortunately, for the mainstream, continually driving this momentum into the atmosphere from the surface of planet Earth is extremely difficult because air has an extremely low viscosity and a lot of freedom to randomly collide.

    Additionally, there is no observational evidence that suggests the planet’s surface is transferring momentum into the atmosphere… there are no continuous “trailing edge” winds [or clouds] associated with hills [and mountains] on the equator as they rotate at 1,674.4 kilometres per hour…. there is no continuous air turbulence [wind speed gradient] near the planet’s surface to indicate the surface is transferring momentum into a very low viscosity gas…. as Wikipedia correctly states “if the viscosity is very high, such as in pitch, the fluid will seem to be a solid in the short term” but even then they use caveats like “seem” and “short term”.

    Personally, the “bottom up” approach seems to be all “spin” an no “science”… whereas the “top down” approach presents some scientific possibilities [like Richard Holle’s earlier comment].

  33. Tim Cullen says:

    Richard says: January 23, 2013 at 10:08 am
    I think a more relevant experiment would be to take a 33rpm disc player and surround the turntable with a cylinder to enclose the air above it.

    Definitely worth a try… perhaps we need to add a bit of smoke into the enclosed atmosphere… and then get the turntable to rotate at one revolution per day….

  34. tallbloke says:

    IERS data shows bidirectional AM transfer. Simple it ain’t. However, six degrees of freedom doesn’t confer a high probability for a particle to lose 1700km/h of forward momentum. Especially considering all the particles it is likely to bump into also have it.

  35. Richard says:

    “Personally, the “bottom up” approach seems to be all “spin” an no “science”…”

    Personally I suspect that the air above the turntable (see previous comment) will rotate with the plater and not remain still.

    Same air/surface weak interaction but it will not take long (in time terms) for the system to stabilse to fully rotating as a nearly cohesive mass.

  36. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    The earth has been rotating since its creation, presumably because there is no opposing force to slow it down. Since space has neglible matter, there is no viscous drag (opposing force) on the top of the atmosphere so the atmosphere and the earth rotate as one.

    The coffee cup experiment is different because the wall of the cup is static as is the fluid layer in contact with it, while the fluid in the centre of the cup is being rotated by a rotor (spoon). The body of the fluid is then torn apart to accomodate this situation. The cohesiveness of the fluid or its resistance to shear is what we call viscosity.

    In the case of the spinning earth with its atmosphere, there is no static matter (coffee cup wall) to create a shear force, only empty space. Imagine the spoon exerted gravity on the coffee to hold it in place and the cup wall was no longer there, and there was no air to exert drag, the coffee would rotate with the spoon with no shear gradient.

    None of this stops us from speculating about how the rotating fluid shell will interact with solar heating, plasma, magnetic fields, external gravity, etc. Certainly, some of the directional influences such as solar radiation and solar gravity might be expected to create an effect on the part of the shell facing the sun and as the shell rotates, a more complex and dynamic situation emerges.

    Furthermore, individual components of the atmosphere may be affected differently, for example whether the molecules have a diplole, their absorption frequencies, whether the are easily ionised, etc. One could imagine physical and chemical changes taking place in the rotaing shell.

    The possible electromagnetic effects are fascinating since we have a large magnet spinning in the solar magnetic field and solar wind.

    In conclusion, I think the rotating shell of fluid is a useful way to think of the atmosphere, but I’m not convinced that the earth is pulling the atmosphere along with some sort of drag on the top of the atmosphere creating shear in between. The atmosphere has momentum so it will continue to move at contant velocity, gravity ensures that this is converted to angular momentum and there is no matter in space to exert friction or drag, i.e. no opposing force.

  37. Tim Cullen says:

    PS
    The same idea might even work using a wrist watch…
    I wonder if you will be able to see the enclosed atmosphere swirl around driven by the hour hand….

  38. Richard says:

    “Definitely worth a try… perhaps we need to add a bit of smoke into the enclosed atmosphere… and then get the turntable to rotate at one revolution per day….”

    Hmm. Only if you let it rotate for a year or more to get to a stable state and then I suspect the answer will be the same.

    The point is that there have to be losses to somewhere (Newton) to drain off any rotation that otherwise is drag input from the surface. Unless there are those losses the system will remain as a cohesive whole and rotate as a block.

  39. Tim Cullen says:

    tallbloke says: January 23, 2013 at 11:16 am

    The “six degrees” include three of “spin”… it’s a bit like the first “break” in snooker when you really “smack” the queue ball into all those coloured balls… it’s amazing how quickly that initial “smack” dissipates… that is why “air” has such a low viscosity.

  40. Tim Cullen says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat says: January 23, 2013 at 11:18 am

    The earth has been rotating since its creation, presumably because there is no opposing force to slow it down.

    That is a basic assumption… an alternative assumption is that there is some opposing force and the system needs an constant input of energy… given that no one has yet discovered the secrets of “frictionless” motion I would suggest your initial assumption is over optimistic.

    Since space has neglible matter, there is no viscous drag (opposing force) on the top of the atmosphere so the atmosphere and the earth rotate as one.

    I am not certain we have quite sorted out how things actually function at the “top of the atmosphere”… we have a corotating plasmasphere surrounded by a magnetosphere which somehow manages to deflect the main bulk of the supersonic solar wind through some form of mysterious “collision free” interaction [so I have been told]. Evidently there is at least one “opposing force” working its magic at the “top of the atmosphere”… we need to learn a lot more… and presume a lot less.

    In the case of the spinning earth with its atmosphere, there is no static matter (coffee cup wall) to create a shear force, only empty space.

    I am not sure the solar wind would agree with you on that one.

    None of this stops us from speculating about how the rotating fluid shell will interact with solar heating, plasma, magnetic fields, external gravity, etc. Certainly, some of the directional influences such as solar radiation and solar gravity might be expected to create an effect on the part of the shell facing the sun and as the shell rotates, a more complex and dynamic situation emerges.

    We definitely agree on that.

    Furthermore, individual components of the atmosphere may be affected differently, for example whether the molecules have a diplole, their absorption frequencies, whether the are easily ionised, etc. One could imagine physical and chemical changes taking place in the rotaing shell.

    We definitely agree on that

    The possible electromagnetic effects are fascinating since we have a large magnet spinning in the solar magnetic field and solar wind.


    We definitely agree on that

    In conclusion, I think the rotating shell of fluid is a useful way to think of the atmosphere, but I’m not convinced that the earth is pulling the atmosphere along with some sort of drag on the top of the atmosphere creating shear in between. The atmosphere has momentum so it will continue to move at contant velocity, gravity ensures that this is converted to angular momentum and there is no matter in space to exert friction or drag, i.e. no opposing force.

    And I am not convinced that the earth is pulling the atmosphere along with some sort of drag at the bottom of the atmosphere.

  41. Tim Cullen says:

    Richard says: January 23, 2013 at 11:26 am
    Unless there are those losses the system will remain as a cohesive whole and rotate as a block.

    That works for a solid [as in rock solid] atmosphere…
    But with a low viscosity gaseous atmosphere you will have problems in my opinion.

  42. Tim Folkerts says:

    Perhaps experiment with something really viscous [like mixing a bucker of plaster] to see how easy it is to get the mixture “corotating”.
    Except that the air has very little viscosity. And there is no “stationary bucket” around the earth. So you analogy fails.

    Actually, the better analogy would be a (lightweight) bucket suspended from a rope on a (nearly) frictionless swivel. And I guarantee that the entire bucket and the plaster in it would almost immediately get co-rotating with a rotating stirrer. Even a bucket of water or air would pretty soon be rotating at the same angular velocity as whatever is stirring it.

    Perhaps you would like to confirm your views with a few experiments…
    So you don’t believe the atmosphere was created by out-gassing?
    Or maybe you don’t believe in conservation of angular momentum?
    Or maybe you don’t believe that a low viscosity gas stirred a few trillion times would eventually get spinning?
    Or maybe you don’t believe in Newton’s 1st Law (you have already been arguing against this one with Tallbloke)?

    ** Which of these did you want experimental confirmation for?

    “it’s a bit like the first “break” in snooker …
    Except that the table and the snooker balls ALREADY had angular velocity when the balls were set out. And that over time there have already been 2 trillion previous breaks.

    “The mainstream literature does not support this “first step” by reference to a paper….
    Yes it does. You even cite it for us — “(see, for example, Hines [1960])” !
    Have you read it? Or any of the other “mainstream literature” on the topic? If not, how can you make any claims about what the “mainstream literature” may or may not say?

  43. Max™ says:

    Tim Folkerts has a good point: “In other words, any atmosphere pretty much always has been and always will be co-rotating with its planet.“, but there is a bit more to it than just that.

    As for what source of shear there is, well, inertia comes to mind, the atmosphere is being accelerated as it rotates around with the planet.

    Turn off the acceleration and the atmosphere will fly out in straight lines along the tangent of the orbital trajectory it originally followed.

    As for other effects, the atmosphere on the sun facing side of a planet is heated and as a result expands.

    This heating does not exactly occur at nadir, it is offset somewhat in the direction of rotation, if you get an image in your mind of a lobe on a camshaft, you’re thinking the same thing I was.

  44. Max™ says:

    Oh, the turntable experiment is not very good.

    To do this properly we need to use the ISS.

    Put a sphere inside a container of stilled gas, spin the sphere, observe the gas.

    See if changing the illumination and thus heating of the sphere changes the resulting motion in the gas.

    See if charging the sphere and gas changes the resulting motion of the gas.

    Etc, etc, etc…

  45. Greg says:

    Co-rotation – Joint rotation of the atmosphere and a planet.

    This definition does not make sense in the case of the gas giants where the atmosphere IS the planet. There’s nothing “co” about it.

    While there is speculation that Jupiter has a solid core its very existence is doubted so we cannot talk about co-rotation in this sense. It certainly does not seem to have a surface that can be rotating in or out of sync with the atmosphere.

    TB:
    Well, it was spinning along with the solids when the Earth was formed so initial inertia doesn’t need to be overcome.
    Space presents little friction at the top of the atmosphere.
    The atmosphere’s components are being emitted and re-absorbed by processes in stuff going round with the solid Earth.
    Newton says that in the absence of opposing forces, stuff keeps on keeping on.

    I agree in principal. However, Newtons laws explain that rotation gives rise to Coriolis forces that drive atmospheric and ocean currents. These will cause turbulence (weather) that will dissipate energy by friction. This would tend to slow down and dissipate atmospheric angular momentum precisely because it is viscous. ie it will be slowed down to the extent that it is viscous.

    If the atmosphere is still rotating 4bn years later something must be transferring momentum to it.

    Tropical evaporation is one mechanism. I think Tim would agree that water is viscous enough to be driven by the solid earth. So water is moving in co-rotation when it evaporates. The mass of water that moves out to higher radius is significant and carries kinetic energy and momentum.

    This plot which I did last week shows the change in LOD coincides with El Nino events.

    BTW I mislabelled this when I plotted it , “LOD” was angular momentum data , not length of day, so the LOD–diff1 here is the change in angular momentum and happened about 0.7 years after the warm surge started in El Nino regions 1 and 2. (Just in passing: this correlation is a lot less clear in other Nino zones which would seem contrary to the usual explanation evaporation right across nino and tropics. Not sure what to make of that yet.)

    As this warm wet air rises it will interact with the atmosphere thus accelerating it. It then travels polewards thereby reducing its radius and experiencing Coriolis forces (simply conservation of momentum in a non rotating frame) which will drive it in the co-rotational direction in BOTH hemispheres.

    I don’t have the time to do this properly and put quantitative estimates on it but it looks like there is a mechanism there that could be replacing the dissipation due to turbulence. I would have thought that the Himalayas and the Andes would be capable to pushing air around quite a bit as well.

  46. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    Thanks for your feedback.

    The points I have been making relate to Newtonian mechanics where the bodies have atomic or molecular mass and force is defined as mass times acceleration.

    The solar wind consists of electrons and protons and I doubt if Newtonian mechanics will apply. I’m not suggesting that the solar wind does not interact with our earth system – I’m sure it does.

    I’m not sure that we can assume that subatomic partices will exert force in the classical sense. For example, an atom will appear as 99% empty space to an approaching electron.

  47. Skeptikal says:

    Tim Cullen says:
    January 23, 2013 at 6:57 am

    Experiment 1
    Dip a plastic drinking straw into the middle of your beverage and simply rotate the drinking straw using a finger and thumb……

    The objective of this experiment is to understand how easy [or difficult or impossible] it is to get the whole beverage to corotate using a plastic drinking straw [or paddle or spoon].

    Tim, I can see a problem with this experiment. In proportion to its own diameter, the earth is dragging a relatively thin atmosphere. Your experiment calls for a thin straw with low surface area to drag a relatively large amount of fluid with it. For a fair comparison, your experiment should use a cylindrical object with a diameter somewhere around 90%~95% of the diameter of the test cup or glass.

  48. Greg says:

    “The objective of this experiment is to understand how easy [or difficult or impossible] it is to get the whole beverage to corotate using a plastic drinking straw”

    Given about 4.3 bn years I’m sure you could get it to turn. But as TB pointed out the atmosphere was turning as the planet formed, the only question is why doesn’t it slow due to turbulence dispersing the energy. I think I covered some more realistic ideas on that.

    The case of gas giants is more interesting but since we don’t know the composition it’s all rather arbitrary discussion.

  49. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:

    Tim,

    Your on the right track.
    But your NOT going deep enough to understand all that is going on.
    Tim Cullen says:
    January 23, 2013 at 6:57 am
    Your experiment neglected the fact that every mm of liquid has a different pressure exertion on it.
    In an enclosed container like a coffee cup, the liquid also wants to cling to the outside by the same force that keeps liquid together.

    You may not have read these in the suggestion section but it also will help:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-2/#comment-39291

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-3/comment-page-1/#comment-41065

  50. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    The idea of turbulence or other factors within the atmosphere affecting the rotation of the atmosphere seems unlikely to me. Man, like the surface of the earth and the shell of atmosphere is also travelling through space. Whether we jump up and down, fly through the air or try to blow each other up makes little difference to the angular momentum of the earth, its atmosphere or the laws of motion that govern our human endeavours.

  51. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:

    Schrodinger’s Cat,

    Your right.
    The planet itself is a different story, since it is on liquid base with a thin coating of a shell. A powerful enough earth quake can shift the “shell” slightly but does NOT effect the actual axis.

  52. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    The cenrifugal force is counteracted by gravity otherwise we would fly off at a tangent.

  53. oldbrew says:

    Tim Cullen says (11:55):
    ‘we have a corotating plasmasphere surrounded by a magnetosphere which somehow manages to deflect the main bulk of the supersonic solar wind through some form of mysterious “collision free” interaction [so I have been told].’

    Magnetic repulsion?

  54. Tim Cullen says:

    oldbrew says: January 23, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    Magnetic repulsion?

    It’s difficult to imagine that electromagnetic effects are not in the mix…

    I’m not sold on “collision free” where the incoming “supersonic solar wind” encounters a cross wind of “supersonic corotating particles”… sounds more like a “war zone” that a “collision free” haven of peace and tranquillity… not surprising this region produces a few x-ray emissions… which leads me back to the measurement of TSI… comparing real observation from SOHO [at L1] with SORCE/TIM [at 645km] should be very interesting….

  55. oldbrew says:

    The graphic at the start of this paper may be of interest.

    http://milesmathis.com/pause.html

  56. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 22, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    “The viscosity is relevant if shear forces are applied, but where is the physical resistance to the motion of the atmosphere in space?

    Solar wind/magnetosphere?”

    There’s a lot more here than ‘meets the eye’ TB. You’ve not included the ‘inertial impact’ that the troposphere imparts to the lower stratosphere (the “Brewer Dobson” circulation) for example. However! What is the co-rotation of atmospheric altitudes above this? I don’t have a clue because this doesn’t relate to ‘Climatology’ per se :( , but also doesn’t mean that I’m uninterested.

    I’ve often thought on how the upper atmosphere relates to lower atmospheric activity, but not WRT ‘co-rotation’. However, as Earth orbits Sol, the ‘dark side’ of Earth must encounter more mass from Sol’s ‘solar wind’ than the ‘lit side’ (dependant on the planet’s diameter), and looking from the top of Earth’s NH, would provide a ‘clock-wise’ impetus from the ‘inertial contact’ with the ‘solar wind’.

    These are just ‘musings’ TB and the vector trajectory may well prove to show the opposite. :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  57. wayne says:

    I think you are correct Ray to bring up the solar wind. Pure friction. I just did a lengthy calculation over a billion year scale to get a rough estimate of the momentum imparted by Venus’s 35,000 m/s revolution velocity rubbing against the approrx. 300,000 m/s solar wind, 2.5 protons/cm^3, and it seems it is adequate to cause the high speed winds in the upper atmosphere. The higher you go, the higher the velocity, implying the top-down angular momentum being fed in from above.

    The specific angle of the helio sheath at Venu’s orbit was the only rather loose parameter I couldn’t seem to tie down.

  58. Tim Cullen says:

    wayne says: January 25, 2013 at 1:50 am
    The higher you go, the higher the velocity, implying the top-down angular momentum being fed in from above.

    A very interesting implication….

  59. Greg says:

    I made similar suggestions to explain the r^4 relation I fitted in the other threads on this topic. If Wayne has a mechanism and numbers that makes it very interesting.

  60. Greg says:

    Wayne , could you give a quick explanation of the mechanism? I don’t quite follow the “revolution velocity rubbing against the solar wind”.

  61. wayne says:

    Sure Greg, here is a line-by-line display from my little physics calculator (for ease). If you have better numbers, change them at will and for sure let me know of any mistakes I might have made. By these it seems it would take somewhere between two and three billion years if all else stays constant. Also that is using Earth’s orbit density of the solar wind, not Venus’s; at Venus it seems it would be more dense so that estimate might be too long. I was just looking if it was even a possibility… not necessary a proof of cause. Also the solar wind is assumed radial from the sun without any magnetic curvature.

    The ‘revolution velocity’ would have been better termed the ‘orbital speed’.

    //! radius of Venus
    R.v = 6050 ‹km›
    6.0500e+006
    ————————————————
    //! orbit velocity of Venus
    V.v = 35 ‹km/s›
    3.5e+04
    ————————————————
    //! area of Venus as a disk
    A.v.disk = π * R.v² ‹m²›
    1.1499e+014
    ————————————————
    //! mean mass of venus's atmosphere
    m.v.atm = 5E+20/2 ‹kg›
    2.5000e+020
    ————————————————
    //! velocity of the solar wind
    V.sw = 300 ‹km/s›
    3e+05
    ————————————————
    //! proton density of the solar wind
    ρ.protons = 2.5 ‹1/cm³›
    2.5000e+006
    ————————————————
    //! period being considered
    t = 31.5E06 ‹s/yr› * 1e9 ‹yr›
    3.1500e+016
    ————————————————
    //! mass hitting Venus's disk every billion years
    kg = ( ρ.protons * V.sw * A.v.disk * t ) / ‹NA› * 0.5 ‹kg/mol›
    2.2555e+018
    ————————————————
    //! momentum of friction at interface at angle of intersection
    angle.ratio = atan(V.v / V.sw)
    0.1161
    ————————————————
    r2d(angle.ratio) //degrees
    6.654
    ————————————————
    Ns = ( kg * V.v * angle.ratio ) ‹kg•m/s›
    9.1687e+021
    ————————————————
    //! ratio of momentum to the mass of 1/2 of the atm
    ratio = Ns / m.v.atm
    36.67
    ————————————————
    //! velocity in three billion years
    v = ( ratio * 3 ) ‹m/s›
    110
    ————————————————
    //! as mi/hr
    v / ‹mi/hr›
    246.1
    ————————————————
    
    
  62. wayne says:

    I just noticed one huge mistake myself. The seconds per year is way out of line. I shouldn’t have placed units behind that line — the automatic conversions to SI takes over. So…. if there are no further corrections to that line of thought just use it to prove that it CANNOT be solely from the friction with the solar wind.

    I was just looking for a rough estimate to that question anyway, yes, no, or maybe, but the logic is laid out if anyone wants to look further.

  63. wayne says:

    Brother !! Wait a minute, excuse my missing right peripheral vision. ;) I always doubt myself too much. That is seconds per one billion years and is correct.

    Well, have some fun with that calculation!

  64. suricat says:

    suricat says: January 25, 2013 at 1:22 am

    “However, as Earth orbits Sol, the ‘dark side’ of Earth must encounter more mass from Sol’s ‘solar wind’ than the ‘lit side’ (dependant on the planet’s diameter), and looking from the top of Earth’s NH, would provide a ‘clock-wise’ impetus from the ‘inertial contact’ with the ‘solar wind’.”

    Oops! :( Looks like I had a total lapse of logic here TB!

    What I meant was: If a planet was stationary, the solar wind would strike equally over the entire Sun-facing ‘disc’ of the sphere. However, the planet has an orbital velocity, thus, collects more solar wind impacts to the leading face ‘disc’ than the trailing face ‘disc’ of its orbital vector. The result from the ~90 degree impact of solar wind WRT the orbital vector on the sphere is that the leading face of an orbiting planet receives, on balance, more thrust away from the Sun at its leading face than at its trailing face. This can only result in a ‘torque’ (turning force) momentum at the top of the planet’s atmospheric ‘sheath’.

    Does that make more sense? :)

    However, there may also be forces at play from magnetic influences that inhibit the movement of electrical charges that make up the solar wind!

    Best regards, Ray.

  65. tchannon says:

    What about the Right Hand Rule?

  66. wayne says:

    If I may add to what you are saying to TB.

    “However, the planet has an orbital velocity, thus, collects more solar wind impacts to the leading face ‘disc’ than the trailing face ‘disc’ of its orbital vector. The result from the ~90 degree impact of solar wind WRT the orbital vector on the sphere is that the leading face of an orbiting planet receives”

    Right, the orbital speed is important as compared to the much higher solar wind speed.

    The only thing I see you leaving out is that the solar wind is ~300,000 to 400,000 m/s and the orbit speed is ~35,000 m/s. Even though the planet does “run into” a portion of the particles, on the leading side, the sunward facing side receives the brunt of the collision and that collision is at a small angle atan(35/300) that imparts torque that would spin Venus counter-clockwise viewed from the north. Venus has little or no magnitic field to protect it from that rubbing, the Earth does. Does that make any sense?

    I might be wrong on that calc but it is an interesting thought, if the fast rotation of just the atmosphere could be from a huge number of years of simple friction, always with a small compnent in one direction.

  67. suricat says:

    wayne says: January 25, 2013 at 1:50 am

    Correct, or not. Planetary mechanics is new to me and when it comes to astrophysics, this engineer is ‘blown away’! :)

    “The specific angle of the helio sheath at Venu’s orbit was the only rather loose parameter I couldn’t seem to tie down.”

    An introduction into 1st/2nd year engineering insight may help:

    http://webphysics.iupui.edu/JITTworkshop/152Basics/vectors/vectors.html

    I’ll explain this, if your need is such, but I think your understanding is above this level. Perhaps you needed a reminder (I did! It’s been so long since I learned this stuff). ;)

    Best regards, Ray.

  68. suricat says:

    tchannon says: January 25, 2013 at 11:57 pm

    “What about the Right Hand Rule?”

    Hmm. What about the ‘Left Hand Rule’?

    If you’ve something to say about the ‘electrostatic properties’ of particles within a magnetic field I’m ‘all ears’. ;)

    Please take the ‘stage’. :)

    Just ‘cut loose’ TC. :)

    Your input is valuable to me, and to others.

    Best regards, Ray.

  69. tchannon says:

    I’d make a fist of it. Just an aroma.

    left/right hand rules are endemic when rotation, magnetic fields, conductive medium, sparks are around.

    Snoop

    http://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture8.html

    And reminding me of a name Lorentz.

    http://www.land-of-kain.de/docs/spaceweather/

  70. tallbloke says:

    wayne says:
    January 25, 2013 at 1:50 am
    I think you are correct Ray to bring up the solar wind. Pure friction. I just did a lengthy calculation over a billion year scale to get a rough estimate of the momentum imparted by Venus’s 35,000 m/s revolution velocity rubbing against the approrx. 300,000 m/s solar wind, 2.5 protons/cm^3, and it seems it is adequate to cause the high speed winds in the upper atmosphere. The higher you go, the higher the velocity, implying the top-down angular momentum being fed in from above.

    Careful. Density is lower high up so although velocity is high, momentum isn’t.

  71. wayne says:

    “Density is lower high up so although velocity is high, momentum isn’t.”

    Momentum units do not have volume. You must be speaking of momentum per volume, like (kg.m/s)/m3 and stated that way you are exactly right there, it is extremely tiny and takes millions of years worth of seconds to even start to be even of any large effect.

    The mass density is extremely diffuse, ~2.5 protons (thing H) per cubic centimeter, see NASA space weather real-time charts, but the velocities are huge. Momentum calculations such as above have nothing to do with volume unless you word the problem that way, I didn’t. There just the mass they are colliding against that is 1/2 the mass of Venus’s atmosphere.

    You might say the collisions are occurring high in the atmosphere, true, but unless the majority of the atoms and molecules collided with are being accelerated past the escape velocity that momentum will eventually diffuse into all of the atmosphere and if consistently on one side of nadir will impart a rotation, that is the way I attacked it.

    You should find that all of those factors are already in that stream of calculations.

  72. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Wayne, that all makes sense. So with the ‘right hand rule, and the solar wind, we have a mechanism for the rotation of the atmosphere. For it to co-rotate with the surface, and for there to be two way exchanges of angular momentum with the solid Earth, as evidenced in IERS length of day data, there must be frictional coupling I think.

    The size and strength of the magnetosphere will relate to the mass, diameter and spin rate too, hence Tim’s discovery of a relationship for planets with magnetosphere’s which Venus doesn’t fit.

    Could it be that Venus’ atmosphere is too thick, and the top down propogated AM is lost in turbulence before it reaches the surface to assist the rotation? Someone was saying there doesn’t seem to be erosion on the surface consistent with high winds.

  73. wayne says:

    Could it be that Venus’ atmosphere is too thick, and the top down propogated AM is lost in turbulence before it reaches the surface to assist the rotation? Someone was saying there doesn’t seem to be erosion on the surface consistent with high winds.

    Absolutely. I was assuming zero (or near) wind velocity at the surface and maximum wind velocity near the ToA. That is why I cut the mass that had to absorb the momentum over a long geological time to one half. However, I haven’t checked to see if the real wind velocity profiles like that, linear with height. If it is just a very thin slice at those high velocities is would seem so say those calcs are way off or not even real. I left that open, just wanted others to play with the figures or even rearrange the logic, just wanted to say that was easily calculable, though roughly.

    I did question how much the velocity would change over just a one year span… like 0.00000008 m/s or even less! That is assuming it could reach current velocity in one billion years. Now I’d call the solar wind quite weak. ;)

  74. wayne says:

    That is also saying that if there are ANY sizeable forces that are also affecting corotation that solar wind factor, even if if hitting directly, and at a higher angle, no magnetic shield protection, would be blown away in a blink.

  75. tchannon says:

    Ventura report wind speed of a few metres a second. However, given the air density is a good way to that of water, I doubt you could stand up on Venus.

  76. tallbloke says:

    Wayne: “That is also saying that if there are ANY sizeable forces that are also affecting corotation that solar wind factor, even if if hitting directly, and at a higher angle, no magnetic shield protection, would be blown away in a blink.”

    But for me the big question is:

    Is it the lack of a magnetosphere which is the main reason for the slow rotation of Venus? Is there a ‘motor effect’ from the solar wind energising the magnetosphere and exciting the ‘coils’ produced in the convection loops of magnetically active material within the molten interior of Earth?

    Motors are dynamos in reverse… :)

  77. Max™ says:

    In Manifold: Space, by Stephen Baxter, it was proposed that a race came to the solar system nearly a billion years ago on little rocky worldlet ships. They selected a planet with a moon or moons and enough spin for their purposes.

    Then they wrapped the planet in superconducting cables, despun it, and used the energy extracted that way to launch a new fleet of worldlets outwards into the galaxy.

  78. suricat says:

    Tim.

    Those links supply info on how the local EM field affects Earth, but, due to the ‘whispy’ nature of Earth’s atmosphere there, seems to have little bearing on the ‘mass movement’ (co-rotation) of Earth’s atmosphere.

    Can we come up with something of a more ‘bottom up’ approach than a ‘top down’ approach?

    How about ‘Climate Cell’ propagation and how they are ‘formed’?

    Best regards, Ray.

  79. Tim Cullen says:

    suricat says: January 29, 2013 at 3:10 am
    Can we come up with something of a more ‘bottom up’ approach than a ‘top down’ approach?

    Ray,
    There appears to be a basic problem of physics because corotation can’t be achieved when the rotation is “driven” from the centre [“bottom up”]… the viscosity and the increasing circumference [as you move out from the centre] always results in rotational dissipation – as seen [below] in the image of plaster being mixed:

    If you take the view that momentum [somehow] accumulates [over time] then the rotation will accelerate towards corotation and then continue to accumulate until super-rotation is achieved… then it would move towards disintegration…

    However, the concept of momentum accumulation [from a “bottom up” or “top down” driver] is fictional [even in a closed system] because the rotating system must generate a “return” [or “back flow”] that continually feeds the “driver”… in other words… a vortex flow… this is very much like using an electric mixer in the kitchen when the spinning blades are positioned at the centre of the dish [or when mixing plaster].

    Basically, as far as I can see, the ONLY way that corotation can be achieved is via a “top down” driver that effectively focuses the momentum towards the centre in a “forced” vortex… this “forced” vortex flow [incidentally] generate a centripetal flow [force] which I suspect is the mysterious “force at a distance” that is commonly called gravity… this is why I think corotation is such an important issue… that is why I encouraged a bit of experimentation [whilst preparing a cup of coffee] because gravity may be just a simple “kitchen sink” phenomenon.
    Regards – Tim

  80. suricat says:

    Tim Cullen says: January 29, 2013 at 8:26 am

    “Ray,
    There appears to be a basic problem of physics because corotation can’t be achieved when the rotation is “driven” from the centre [“bottom up”]… the viscosity and the increasing circumference [as you move out from the centre] always results in rotational dissipation – as seen [below] in the image of plaster being mixed:”

    Sorry Tim, but your analogy is totally inappropriate. When taking Earth’s atmosphere as an example, the gaseous ‘mass’ is extremely ‘fluid’. Thus, the inertia it collects at the surface sets it into a vector that only gravity can, and does, alter.

    This inertia is easily carried to the tropopause, and above the tropopause, the Brewer Dobson Circulation co-rotates as it pushes atmosphere towards the Polar Vortexes (central to the Polar Climate Cell distribution system) until inertia is ‘lost’ to ‘electrostatic/electromagnetic’ forces within the Ionosphere.

    IMHO, the ‘shear’ forces between ‘mass circulation’ and ‘electrostatic/electromagnetic circulation’ are ‘key’ to the ‘dynamic’ of a co-rotating atmosphere. Not a ‘plasterers mixing apparatus’.

    “If you take the view that momentum [somehow] accumulates [over time] then the rotation will accelerate towards corotation and then continue to accumulate until super-rotation is achieved… then it would move towards disintegration…”

    No. Accumulation of momentum isn’t an issue. It’s the force of inertia against the gravity constant. We currently see stability, but (in the case of Earth’s atmosphere), historically, atmosphere has already been lost to achieve the current stability.

    “However, the concept of momentum accumulation [from a “bottom up” or “top down” driver] is fictional [even in a closed system] because the rotating system must generate a “return” [or “back flow”] that continually feeds the “driver”… in other words… a vortex flow… this is very much like using an electric mixer in the kitchen when the spinning blades are positioned at the centre of the dish [or when mixing plaster].”

    Again Tim, your ‘analogies’ just don’t ‘fit’ the scenario. It’s all about (for an Earth scenario) Earth’s centrifuge and the Coriolis effect.

    “Basically, as far as I can see, the ONLY way that corotation can be achieved is via a “top down” driver that effectively focuses the momentum towards the centre in a “forced” vortex… this “forced” vortex flow [incidentally] generate a centripetal flow [force] which I suspect is the mysterious “force at a distance” that is commonly called gravity… this is why I think corotation is such an important issue… that is why I encouraged a bit of experimentation [whilst preparing a cup of coffee] because gravity may be just a simple “kitchen sink” phenomenon.”

    I think we need to be reminded that the major percentage of atmospheric mass is located beneath the tropopause. The historical prognosis that explains the current scenario is mostly attributed to the history of the planet ‘to date’. Thus, as I said above:
    “IMHO, the ‘shear’ forces between ‘mass circulation’ and ‘electrostatic/electromagnetic circulation’ are ‘key’ to the ‘dynamic’ of a co-rotating atmosphere.”
    ‘Mass : Ionised mass’ is the ‘shear point’.

    I’ll not comment further just now, until you get your response together. :(

    Best regards, Ray.

  81. Tim Cullen says:

    suricat says: January 30, 2013 at 4:19 am
    It’s all about (for an Earth scenario) Earth’s centrifuge and the Coriolis effect.

    Ray,
    If the corotation is driven form the surface then the atmospheric particles would tend towards a tangential trajectory: slowly rising at the curvature of the Earth falls away during rotation. The tangential velocity tends to reduce due to the viscosity of the atmosphere [friction/collisions]… therefore, the tangential velocity cannot remain corotating because a) velocity is being lost and 2) the rotational circumference increases with altitude. In other words any surface driven corotation dissipates.
    Thus, my analogy was perfectly appropriate if you attempt to drive corotation from the centre.

    Personally, I can’t imagine any situation where an optical illusion [the Coriolis Effect] has any effect on atmospheric corotation [or any other mechanical process]:

    http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/inventions-and-deceptions-coriolis-effect/

    Regards Tim

  82. Greg says:

    Tim Cullen says:
    Personally, I can’t imagine any situation where an optical illusion [the Coriolis Effect] has any effect on atmospheric corotation [or any other mechanical process]

    Coriolis is not an optical illusion. The author of site you linked has confused himself and apparently others such as yourself.

    Coriolis “force” is nothing more than the moment of inertia. It is a convenience ‘fictitious force’ that allows the application of simple Newtonian mechanics in a rotating frame of reference. The frame is rotating which means everything tied to it is accelerating. If you explain this acceleration by a fictitious force you can pretend that Newtons laws apply within your earth bound coordinate frame.

    The problem can also be expressed in matrix algebra which allows transforming coordinated from one frame to another. When you transform straight line, inertial movement to a rotating frame the result is a circular acceleration. Thus it ‘appears’ that a force is at work. It is the frame which is accelerating, not water or atmosphere but the relative motion is the same.

    If you are uncomfortable with this “optical illusion” you can do all your work in a coordinate frame bound to the fixed stars and get the same answers. The maths gets a couple of orders of magnitude more complicated and it is more difficult for our earth-trained brains to conceptualize the movement of weather systems and ocean currents form a fixed point in space.

    But if you want to try working that way go ahead. Please post back if you get results different from those based rigorous mathematical coordinate transformations.

    As a simple exercise, perhaps you could try working out the Coriolis force on a geostationary satellite. This may help explain the ‘optical illusion’ of it staying in one place when referenced in our earth bound coordinate system.

  83. Tim Cullen says:

    Greg says: January 30, 2013 at 10:01 am
    Coriolis “force” is nothing more than the moment of inertia. It is a convenience ‘fictitious force’ that allows the application of simple Newtonian mechanics in a rotating frame of reference. The frame is rotating which means everything tied to it is accelerating. If you explain this acceleration by a fictitious force you can pretend that Newtons laws apply within your earth bound coordinate frame.

    The Coriolis Effect describes the visual illusion that can be created when an object [travelling in a straight line] is viewed [or tracked] in relation to another object that is rotating.

    The Coriolis Effect does not describe the movement of two objects that are corotating [by definition].

    Further analysis to required to discover why the mainstream needs to deploy a “fictitious force” so regularly… further analysis is required to discover why the mainstream wants to [as you say] “pretend that Newtons laws apply”…

    Evidently something is going on… it just isn’t the Coriolis Effect.
    It looks like a real theory is needed – not an optical illusion.

  84. Greg says:

    Further analysis to required to discover why the mainstream needs to deploy a “fictitious force” so regularly… further analysis is required to discover why the mainstream wants to [as you say] “pretend that Newtons laws apply”…
    ===

    Look, regard it as an international conspiracy if you wish. I’ve tried to explain that it is just pure maths. A coordinate transfomation, no more. It is “deployed so often” because we so often wish to work within the convenient terrestrial frame and would like to use simple Newtonian mechanics rather that than rocket science.

    I, like most here, am not against putting the orthodoxy into question but it may be useful to limits this to things that could be wrong.

    If you don’t like Coriolis you are going to have to try to work out how the atmosphere of a planet will move on account of it’s inertial in fixed frame accounting for gravity etc. and how the surface of the planet will move, then subtract the vectors to find the movement of the atmosphere relative to the surface, which it seems is what you are trying to do.

    Just as a warming up exercise I again suggest you try to work out the Coriolis force on a simple point mass , like a geostationary satellite viewed in earth coordinates (ie stationary, magically floating) and compare it to how you would explain the orbit in a non rotational frame.

    I don’t think I can help you more than that, so good luck with all the maths.

  85. Tim Folkerts says:

    “Further analysis to required to discover why the mainstream needs to deploy a “fictitious force” so regularly… ”

    Because lots of reference frames (like the rotating earth) and not inertial reference frames. Object on a rotating earth do NOT go in straight lines (as viewed by observers in that reference frame). The do indeed curve (as viewed by observers in that reference frame). An observer who IS on an inertial reference frame watching the motion of objects would not need to invoke the “fictitious” Coriolis force.

    Watch these for a good introduction:

  86. Tim Cullen says:

    Greg says: January 30, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    I have no problem with the Coriolis Effect as defined…
    I have no problem with a “coordinate transformation”.

    My problem arrives when this “coordinate transformation” is deployed as a magical “force” or mythical “acceleration”.

  87. Tim Cullen says:

    Tim Folkerts says: January 30, 2013 at 5:19 pm

    My original comment was [and still is]:

    Personally, I can’t imagine any situation where an optical illusion [the Coriolis Effect] has any effect on atmospheric corotation [or any other mechanical process]:

    The mathematics of the Coriolis Effect enables the observer on a rotating platform perform a “coordinate transformation” – no problem… but [as I stated] there is no Coriolis Force.

  88. oldbrew says:

    For what it’s worth, here’s how Miles Mathis puts it :

    ‘Well, we can go to either pole of the Earth and look at weather from there. We can take planes and helicopters well above the poles, or put cameras in high flying balloons or satellites. Do they see curves in weather straighten out? Do they see cyclones and hurricanes stop spinning? No, these curves are real curves whose curves do not depend on your perspective. The various vortices in weather and drains are not caused by relativity or by position or by pseudo-forces like the Coriolis Effect. They are caused by something else entirely.’

  89. tallbloke says:

    I wonder if cyclonic weather systems miight get their spin from the Makarieva effect. I told Tim Cullen about noticing the way milk powder starts a spinning vortex as it dissolves in your coffee. Maybe the condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere has a similar effect, sucking wind in and starting a spinning weather system.

  90. Greg says:

    tallbloke says:
    January 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    I wonder if cyclonic weather systems miight get their spin from the Makarieva effect. I told Tim Cullen about noticing the way milk powder starts a spinning vortex as it dissolves in your coffee. Maybe the condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere has a similar effect, sucking wind in and starting a spinning weather system.
    ===

    In a way that would seem to be along the lines of what she is proposing. Precipitation and Makarieva effect would explain the movement towards the centre. However, the air rushing towards the centre of such a system only starts spinning because of the Coriolis effect. Once a particular packet of air aquires a velocity it has momentum (additional to that of the rotation of the atmosphere in general, which can be dealt with separately and vector added later).

    Consider air moving northwards at about the latitude of Leeds, for example. Moving north also implies moving to a smaller radius. By conservation of angular momentum this implies a corresponding increase in angular velocity. As it is now rotating faster it will get a bit ahead of where Leeds is on the map as well as moving north. ie it has also moved (accelerated) to the east. The opposite applies to air moving south from Glasgow, which has reduced angular velocity and gets deflected to the west. Do the same all the way around and you see the anticlockwise cyclonic pattern starting to form.

    The effect is that simple to understand and physically real. It is nothing more than the conservation of momentum. Cyclones are not ‘optical illusions’. You can either do all the maths on those vectors in a stationary frame of reference, (an inertial frame in the relativistic jargon), or you can see the acceleration to the east as being the result of a fictitious force called Coriolis. This is the non existant force that _would_ create the same movement as that caused by the interaction of the Earth’s rotation and the momentum vector of the moving air.

    There’s no ‘magic’ or cheating going on here, it’s just a convenient short-cut. If you don’t like you are not forced to accept or use it. Just do it all long hand until you’ve convinced yourself you get the same results (or proved that you don’t ;) ).

    This does not have much to do with your cup of Yorkshire tea which is spinning because you stirred it. Though I suspect you will find that you do have the parabolic velocity profile that I meantioned in attempting an explanation for the r^4 relation I found fitting co-rotation data. Except with the outside being stationary in this case.

  91. Greg says:

    “The various vortices in weather and drains are not caused by relativity or by position or by pseudo-forces like the Coriolis Effect. They are caused by something else entirely.”

    Yes, that something is conservation of momentum.

  92. suricat says:

    Tim Cullen says: January 30, 2013 at 8:01 am

    “Ray,
    If the corotation is driven form the surface then the atmospheric particles would tend towards a tangential trajectory: slowly rising at the curvature of the Earth falls away during rotation.”

    Correct (odd inclusions permitted). The particle ~maintains its inertia, thus, ascends ‘retrograde’ WRT Earth’s surface. ~No inertia is gained/lost as the particle rises, so the particle can’t keep up with Earth’s rotational speed at this ‘greater radius/altitude’. Why does the particle ‘rise/gain altitude’ when it leaves the Boundary Layer? I think we need you to understand how to ‘map’ the Coriolis Effect before we can get into the ‘force’ that’s at work. :(

    “The tangential velocity tends to reduce due to the viscosity of the atmosphere [friction/collisions]… therefore, the tangential velocity cannot remain corotating because a) velocity is being lost and 2) the rotational circumference increases with altitude. In other words any surface driven corotation dissipates.”

    There’s confusion here! The velocity of the particle remains ~unchanged!

    An ‘ascending’ particle within an atmosphere shall ‘always’ display a ‘retrograde’ motion towards the ‘rotating’ planet it’s ‘ascending from’ because its vector is ‘~a straight line’ while ‘the planet’ continues to rotate beneath. Please look at your ‘graphic’ link and realise this. The ‘clue’ is in ‘angles’, as in ‘angular momentum/linear momentum’. :)

    Think of the ‘whole thing’ as ‘current flow’ within a non viscous ‘fluid’, but ‘not’ an egg beater, or plaster mixer. They’re too viscous/thixotropic! :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  93. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: January 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm

    “I wonder if cyclonic weather systems miight get their spin from the Makarieva effect. I told Tim Cullen about noticing the way milk powder starts a spinning vortex as it dissolves in your coffee. Maybe the condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere has a similar effect, sucking wind in and starting a spinning weather system.”

    Well noted Rog. ;)

    Best regards, Ray.

  94. suricat says:

    Greg says: January 31, 2013 at 12:04 am

    Thanx Greg. I just hope this ‘turns on a light bulb’ for Tim Cullen. The ‘transmission’ of understanding can be ‘really’ frustrating at times. :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  95. Tim Cullen says:

    suricat says: January 31, 2013 at 3:49 am
    The ‘transmission’ of understanding can be ‘really’ frustrating at times.

    That’s the truth…
    So it’s probably best that we “agree” to “disagree” at this stage…
    The diversity in perspective is very healthy as it opens up many paths of investigation… and the process of investigation and discovery is fascinating.
    Regards Tim

  96. Greg says:

    Just thought I ought to correct my example of geostationary satellite. It anyone had followed my suggestion of looking at the coriolis force in this case they would have quickly pointed out that it is zero, since it is stationary in the earth reference frame. What stops the satellite from falling is another “optical illusion” called the centrifugal force.

    Again this is totally fictitious and again is in reality just conservation of momentum.

    Viewed from outside the earth gravity provides a force towards the centre which produces the circular motion of the satellite’s orbit. If we regard it with reference to the earth bound coordinates it ‘floats’ despite gravity pulling it towards Earth. Thus we need to introduce a ‘fictitious force’ called the centrifugal force.

    There is no real force repusing an object from the centre in circular motion, it is just the tendance of the object to continue in a straight line: intetia.

    If anyone wishes to reject Coriolis they need to reject centrifugal as well.

    If you can understand and accept the latter, it should not be hard to understand the former.

  97. Tim Cullen says:

    Michele Casati says: January 30, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    Very interesting… thank you.

    tallbloke says: January 30, 2013 at 8:27 pm
    I wonder if cyclonic weather systems miight get their spin from the Makarieva effect. I told Tim Cullen about noticing the way milk powder starts a spinning vortex as it dissolves in your coffee. Maybe the condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere has a similar effect, sucking wind in and starting a spinning weather system.

    Another fascinating line of investigation… thank you.

    Greg says: January 31, 2013 at 12:04 am

    Another fascinating line of investigation: conservation of momentum.
    That sounds like the beginnings of a real mechanical explanation….

    From my perspective conservation of momentum is a very different concept to the Coriolis Effect which describes an optical illusion [for the observer] and a coordinate transformation [for the mathematician].

    Overall, these are wonderful contributions [from my perspective] because they don’t stop at a mathematical explanation [like the Coriolis Effect] but actually advance into the realm of real world mechanics [like the spin of cyclones]… and it is real world mechanics that provides the most rewarding line of inquiry [from my perspective].

  98. oldbrew says:

    Greg says: ‘If anyone wishes to reject Coriolis they need to reject centrifugal as well.’

    RP Singh says: ‘It is convenient but not necessary to invent pseudogravity (centrifugal force) to cancel the centripetal force in order to avoid radial motion. Centripetal force is real; centrifugal force is fictitious.’

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/r-p-singh-a-constructive-model-of-gravitation/

    [See para 13.3]

  99. suricat says:

    *Tim Cullen says: January 31, 2013 at 9:59 am

    Tim, that remark wasn’t aimed at you, but at myself. I’m not a tutor and often find it hard to find the best way to offer a universally understood ‘explication’. :)

    *Greg says: January 31, 2013 at 10:25 am

    I immediately took that as a ‘logic slip/typo’ Greg. :)

    Are you an engineer like myself? Just curious.

    *Tim Cullen says: January 31, 2013 at 10:38 am

    “From my perspective conservation of momentum is a very different concept to the Coriolis Effect which describes an optical illusion [for the observer] and a coordinate transformation [for the mathematician].”

    For Earth’s atmosphere, the two are the same. The Coriolis ‘Effect’ is a “coordinate transformation” for what an observer within an ‘Earth reference frame’ would see happening to the ‘mass flow’ in Earth’s atmosphere. Do we really need to get into Relativity here? :(

    “Overall, these are wonderful contributions [from my perspective] because they don’t stop at a mathematical explanation [like the Coriolis Effect] but actually advance into the realm of real world mechanics [like the spin of cyclones]… and it is real world mechanics that provides the most rewarding line of inquiry [from my perspective].”

    Then you shouldn’t have posted on “Planetary Rotation – Atmospheric Corotation”, because you describe your main interest as ‘weather’.

    *tchannon says: January 31, 2013 at 11:10 am

    “Here we are, this will do”

    Thanks TC. This is a good link to ‘weather’. :)

    *oldbrew says: January 31, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    “Greg says: ‘If anyone wishes to reject Coriolis they need to reject centrifugal as well.’

    RP Singh says: ‘It is convenient but not necessary to invent pseudogravity (centrifugal force) to cancel the centripetal force in order to avoid radial motion. Centripetal force is real; centrifugal force is fictitious.’

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/r-p-singh-a-constructive-model-of-gravitation/

    [See para 13.3]”

    On reading para 13.3 I’ve a problem with the first three statements there.

    “A force normal to a body’s uniform velocity keeps the body in a circular orbit; that force is called centripetal force.
    A satellite around the earth is under the centripetal force of the earth’s gravity. The centripetal force is being ‘used up’ in keeping the satellite in orbit; a body in it gets no reaction force and feels weightlessness.”

    Mass ‘in a vacuum’ is uniformly acted upon by the force of gravity! That goes without saying, but how is the ‘centripetal force’ “used up” in keeping the satellite in orbit?

    Its ‘rate of changing vector direction’, or controversially, its ‘centrifugal component’. The ‘centrifugal component’ is nothing more than its resistance to a changing directional vector and is summed as the ‘inertia force’ required to alter it’s directional vector to the ‘observed’ deviation.

    IMHO, this guy ignores ‘reactionary’ forces, thus, ignores half of ‘the system’. :)

    This seems to be an ‘old chestnut’ between mathematicians and engineers. As soon as ‘Pi’ enters an equation there are sides drawn for the better explanation. Do we use Pi*D, or 2Pi*r? :)

    This is ‘so far away’ from what I wanted to contribute here, but that’s democracy for you.

    Best regards, Ray.

  100. Greg says:

    Tim: From my perspective conservation of momentum is a very different concept to the Coriolis Effect which describes an optical illusion [for the observer] and a coordinate transformation [for the mathematician].

    No, Tim. You have been mislead by the site you linked to written by someone who did not understand it either. Coriolis IS conservation of momentum, nothing more nor less. Just in the same way that ‘centrifugal’ force is.

    The ocean gyres of all the worlds oceans really do turn. Cyclones really do turn. There is no optical illusions here. That is just one of those bits of stupidity the internet is full of. You need to be ready to question that idea as well.

    You need to get enough understanding to either prove or disprove coliolis to your own satisafaction, since you will not get far in your examination of planetary atmopheres until you do.

  101. tallbloke says:

    For what it’s worth, I think ‘coriolis force’ is a lazy answer to a complex set of issues with a lot of input factors when it comes to explaining the circulation of ocean gyres and weather systems.

    For example, this analysis of he cause of sudden stratospheric warming and blocking patterns involves coriolis force, and much else besides.

  102. oldbrew says:

    This site calls coriolis an ‘apparent deflection’. Surely no-one is saying rotating cyclones are due to apparent deflections?

    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml

  103. oldbrew says:

    TB 9:04 am – is the link wrong?

    Another site (link below) discussing SSW refers to Coriolis. This seems even more tortured as they say the winds can reverse and ‘The stratospheric polar vortex can completely disintegrate.’

    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml

    I suggest references to Coriolis are thrown in as a makeweight to try and get a weak explanation to sound scientific ;-)

  104. suricat says:

    *tallbloke says: February 1, 2013 at 9:04 am

    I think your link is bad too. :(

    Personally, I wouldn’t refer to ‘Coriolis’ as a ‘force’ because it isn’t. I would call it an ‘effect’, or even ‘configuration of forces’, but not a ‘force’ per se. For an ‘energising’ effect/configuration the forces involved are Gravity and Centrifugal forces. For an ‘energy dissipating’ effect/configuration the forces involved are Gravity and Centripetal forces. In each case, a changing ‘radius/diameter’ is involved. :)

    *oldbrew says: February 1, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    That’s the second time you’ve made that link in two posts. It would be nice to see the link you intended. ;)

    As for Merry-go-rounds, I think they just confuse the issue (as in this link, which only describes a dissipating scenario): :)

    http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/?ar_a=1

    As for ‘centrifugal force’ being fictitious guys, what happens to a body’s ‘inertia’? Think on this the next time you’re in an auto-mobile collision. It’s all ‘Relative’. ;)

    Best regards, Ray.

  105. Tim Cullen says:

    Greg says: February 1, 2013 at 8:40 am
    The ocean gyres of all the worlds oceans really do turn. Cyclones really do turn.
    There is no optical illusions here.

    Cyclones and gyres rotate.
    What causes the spin?
    Definitely not a “coordinate transformation”.
    Definitely not an “optical illusion”.

    tallbloke says: February 1, 2013 at 9:04 am
    For what it’s worth, I think ‘coriolis force’ is a lazy answer to a complex set of issues.

    Exactly to the point.

  106. suricat says:

    Tim Cullen says: February 2, 2013 at 7:43 am

    Hmm. As TB says, “a complex set of issues”! It doesn’t help when sites like Wiki insist that mass doesn’t have ‘inertia’ because centrifugal force is ‘fictitious’!!! This makes it hard to find a ‘link that explains’ what’s going on, and it’s hard to say this in longhand. :( See this link:

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

    Is this confusing, or what? Centrifugal Force is never ‘fictitious’, it’s a property of mass/matter that always possesses ‘inertia’. When the ‘inertia’ of a mass encounters a force that deflects the mass/matter from its ‘rest frame, or vectored direction’, the mass’/matter’s inertia always ‘resists’ the force and is always classed as a ‘reactive force’.

    Now take a look at the definition of a ‘Centrifugal Pump’ at the same site:

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

    They claim that (and this is long) “The transfer of energy from the mechanical rotation of the impeller to the motion and pressure of the fluid is usually described in terms of centrifugal force, especially in older sources written before the modern concept of centrifugal force as a fictitious force in a rotating reference frame was well articulated. The concept of centrifugal force is not actually required to describe the action of the centrifugal pump.”

    They then go on to say that “The outlet pressure is a reflection of the pressure that applies the centripetal force that curves the path of the water to move circularly inside the pump. On the other hand, the statement that the “outward force generated within the wheel is to be understood as being produced entirely by the medium of centrifugal force” is best understood in terms of centrifugal force as a fictional force in the frame of reference of the rotating impeller; the actual forces on the water are inward, or centripetal, since that’s the direction of force need to make the water move in circles. This force is supplied by a pressure gradient that is set up by the rotation, where the pressure at the outside, at the wall of the volute, can be taken as a reactive centrifugal force. This was typical of nineteenth and early twentieth century writings, mixing the concepts of centrifugal force in informal descriptions of effects, such as those in the centrifugal pump.”

    There’s something wrong here when they claim that the ‘Archimedes Scroll’ “can be taken as a reactive centrifugal force.” (meaning a fictitious ‘centripetal force’) when it is ‘plainly’ ‘a FIXED BOUNDARY’ (the material of its manufacture was designed with ‘containment’ in mind) and not a part of the ‘system’ at all. A Centrifugal Force is ‘always reactive’.

    Obfuscating ‘contracting configurations’ with ‘expanding configurations’ can only add ambiguity.

    Heck, “On the other hand, the statement that the “outward force generated within the wheel is to be understood as being produced entirely by the medium of centrifugal force” is best understood in terms of centrifugal force as a fictional force in the frame of reference of the rotating impeller; the actual forces on the water are inward, or centripetal, since that’s the direction of force need to make the water move in circles.” means the ‘casing’ is rotating around the ‘impeller’!!!

    Where to go from here? :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  107. tchannon says:

    It is a force created by acceleration. Not sure that helps.

  108. suricat says:

    tchannon says: February 5, 2013 at 4:04 am

    “It is a force created by acceleration. Not sure that helps.”

    Thanks for the affirmation TC. :) Yes, it’s a ‘reactionary’ force that ‘opposes’ a force that tries to alter the ‘rest frame/direction vector’ of a ‘mass/matter’ object. Thus, it’s the ‘reaction force’ against ‘acceleration’ (I’m talking about ‘inertia’). :)

    Best regards, Ray.

  109. tallbloke says:

    Ray ask’s: “Where to go from here? ”

    When I worked as a test engineer in the centrifugal pump industry we usually found that the best place to go when arguing about centrifugal/centripetal forces…

    … was the pub. ;)

  110. suricat says:

    tallbloke says: February 5, 2013 at 7:20 am

    “… was the pub. ;)

    If that was the case I’d be the first to get a round in, but it isn’t. It’s about ‘Planetary Co-rotation’ and the, ‘retrospective’, “lazy answer to a complex set of issues”. ;)

    tallbloke says: February 1, 2013 at 9:04 am

    “For what it’s worth, I think ‘coriolis force’ is a lazy answer to a complex set of issues with a lot of input factors when it comes to explaining the circulation of ocean gyres and weather systems.”

    If you’re thinking ‘Beaufort Gyre’, it’s ‘tidal’ in origin. Weather systems are generated by the ‘Makarieva et al’ effect (collapsing systems) and ‘Climate Cells’ are something else (expanding systems). Thus, a need to understand the ‘inertia’ of a centrifuge as a reactive, but ‘relativistically real’ ‘force’.

    I was attempting to ‘disambiguate’ the influence of the Coriolis Effect on the ‘Co-rotation of an Atmosphere’, but this seems to be too much disambiguation for one thread. I’m off to the Pub! What’s your poison? ;)

    Sorry Tim Cullen. :(

    Best regards, Ray.