Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whythe Coriolis effect cannot be observed from an inertial frame-of-reference ...
Because it is the observer who is rotating, if the observer doesn't take that into consideration, then it will appear the whole world is rotating but not the observer ... think of a rock-fight on a merry-go-round, if you throw straight at your enemy, she will be rotated out of the way before the rock gets there ... everyone outside the merry-go-round will see the rock fly straight ... the difference is the rock-thrower is herself rotating, even though she believes she is stationary ...
The problem is we have to be free of all forces acting on us in order to observe the forces around us ... and this is called the inertial frame-of-reference ... except that standing still on the Earth's surface, we're under the influence of gravity, and thus this "standing still" is non-inertial and we won't observe any forces in their true form ... we like to say "the Sun moves across the sky", but reality is is we who are moving underneath the Sun ...
Therefore ... to observe the Coriolis effect, we ourselves must be rotating, like standing on the Earth's surface ... if we're out in space such that the background stars are stationary, and we're looking down on the rotating Earth, we will NOT see any Coriolis effect ... rocks and cannonballs fly straight ... yet cyclones are obvious ... thus there must be a different explanation to cyclonic motion which must rely on real forces, the pressure force and convection ...
Note also that the pressure force is of equal magnitude but opposite direction from the Coriolis effect ... so the Coriolis effect is pointed the wrong way ... and in vector math, that's important ...
What you described, is not a fictitious force. Obviously, the affect was observed. Hence it can be used to explain.You're not going to get very far with fictitious forces ... there ... not in the natural sciences ... the Coriolis effect cannot be observed from an inertial frame-of-reference ... so it can't be used to explain anything that is observable from this reference, like climate ...
I have brought up the Coriolis effect in the past. The alarmists dispute it. I want this professor to explain why it controls climate. I prefer to hear back from posters who know about the coriolis effect. But scientists can also comment.
After you watch the video, you should learn about that.How has the Coriolis Effect changed over time?
So to you, the Coriolis effect described by scientists is just fiction? We studied it when I studied weather to get my pilot's license. And it was fiction?You're not going to get very far with fictitious forces ... there ... not in the natural sciences ... the Coriolis effect cannot be observed from an inertial frame-of-reference ... so it can't be used to explain anything that is observable from this reference, like climate ...
Often this is confused with the pressure gradient force, which with the convective force produces cyclonic motion ... "counter-clockwise rotation around low pressure systems and clockwise motion around high pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere; clockwise rotation around low pressure systems and counter-clockwise motion around high pressure systems in the Southern Hemisphere" ...
Force and torque are analogous, but they're not the same ...
Robert, how much has the Coriolis force changed over the last century? The obvious answer is very, very close to not at all. Climate, on the other hand, HAS changed quite a bit in the last century. Correlation doesn't guarantee causation, but the lack of correlation refutes it absolutely.After you watch the video, you should learn about that.
I saw a report Saturday that the moon has drifted away.
I will see your proof to evaluate. Also, temperature is not climate. Temperature is weather.Robert, how much has the Coriolis force changed over the last century? The obvious answer is very, very close to not at all. Climate, on the other hand, HAS changed quite a bit in the last century. Correlation doesn't guarantee causation, but the lack of correlation refutes it absolutely.
What you described, is not a fictitious force. Obviously, the affect was observed. Hence it can be used to explain.
As I stated, it is not imagery or a theory, It is a fact that the Coriolis effect, exists.Is it observed from an inertial frame-of-reference? ... like a position stationary to the background stars, where we see the Earth spin? ... it wouldn't be under the normal definition of the Coriolis effect ... like the centrifugal force, they are only apparitions of a rotating frame-of-reference ...
Because I saw who was speaking. Does he answer my question? How does a constant force create a changing climate?I will see your proof to evaluate. Also, temperature is not climate. Temperature is weather.
Why didn't you watch the video?
As I stated, it is not imagery or a theory, It is a fact that the Coriolis effect, exists.
You wish to test if I read what you already stated?... and what does it cause? ...
You wish to test if I read what you already stated?
soMy claim is the Coriolis effect is fictitious, in the sense it performs no work ... you claim it exists, correct? ... I see no discrepancies between those two claims ... the Coriolis effect is readily apparent shooting a gun ... or throwing rocks on a merry-go-round ... Föhn winds at the right angle show a very distinct Coriolis pattern ...
But just like the Sun moving across the sky, these are just apparitions of our rotating frame-of-reference ... we rotate, therefore we exist ...
I have brought up the Coriolis effect in the past. The alarmists dispute it. I want this professor to explain why it controls climate. I prefer to hear back from posters who know about the coriolis effect. But scientists can also comment.
So all that discussion over the Coriolis effect was all for nothing? First about weather. See here today it is 58. Here we normally are having 95 degree temperatures. Were global warming genuine, we would be 40 degrees warmer. The coriolis effect is due primarily to the spin of Earth. Have you seen it slowing down? We are losing the moon however. It is drifting off.Robert, I have now watched your entire video. Lindzen does NOT say that the Coriolis effect is responsible for global warming or climate change. If you'd like to discuss what he actually does say, I'm perfectly willing to chat.
He did not say that the Coriolis Effect was driving or creating global warming.So all that discussion over the Coriolis effect was all for nothing?
No, Robert. Temperatures still vary regionally and over time and in a chaotic manner, all over the planet. It is the average of all those temperatures that are rising. Anytime you say "today it is" or "yesterday it was" or "tomorrow it will be" you're not talking about the climate but about your local weather.First about weather. See here today it is 58. Here we normally are having 95 degree temperatures. Were global warming genuine, we would be 40 degrees warmer.
It is due entirely to the spin of the Earth.The coriolis effect is due primarily to the spin of Earth.
The world's rotation is slowing down and has been for hundreds of millions of years but it is taking place far, far, far too slowly to be discernible to you and I. And it is occurring far, far too slowly to be responsible - via Coriolis or any other mechanism - for the warming observed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.Have you seen it slowing down?
Again, far, far, far too slowly to be involved in this issue.We are losing the moon however. It is drifting off.
