Coriolis effect drives climate

[Robert W]

He did not say that the Coriolis Effect was driving or creating global warming.

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.

It is due entirely to the spin of the 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.

Again, far, far, far too slowly to be involved in this issue.

You seem to be catching onto my lessons about weather and climate.

 

[Crick]

You seem to be catching onto my lessons about weather and climate.

What would I do without you Robert?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Robert W]

What would I do without you Robert?

Well we finally agreed that man does not manage climate. I believe I got us that far.

 

[Crick]

Well we finally agreed that man does not manage climate. I believe I got us that far.

Well, no one ever suggested that he did, so it wasn't that long of a trip, was it.

 

[Robert W]

Well, no one ever suggested that he did, so it wasn't that long of a trip, was it.

Democrats whole idea is making man control climate. But as you say they are nuts to think that.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

We only ascribe the direction of rotation to these fictitious forces ... see post #2 for the definition of cyclonic motion ... and absolutely yes, it is caused by the Earth's rotation ... without that rotation, cyclones would spin in random directions ... as we've all noticed, large "mesoscale" cyclones all spin one direction per hemisphere ...

Maybe in 100 million years, the Earth will have slowed down some, days might be 24-1/2 hours long ... months might be the full thirty days God promised us ... and the Solar Constant is due to be higher, maybe much higher ... and the Earth will be vaporized long before the Sun expands to engulf our orbit ...

But here we're only discussing the next 100,000 years ... how and why we break out of this current Ice Age cycle is for the next species to figure out ...

=====

Notice I used the word "fictitious" above, and not "fake" ... both the Coriolis effect and the centrifugal force are obvious from a rotating frame-of-reference ... so they exist ... however, they are defined as pseudo-forces ... we can treat them as real forces, just as long as we remember they are not real forces in some small way ... and here they can perform no work, which is what forces do ...

What's a real force? ... gravity and electromagnetism ... there are no others in this universe ...

 

[Robert W]

We only ascribe the direction of rotation to these fictitious forces ... see post #2 for the definition of cyclonic motion ... and absolutely yes, it is caused by the Earth's rotation ... without that rotation, cyclones would spin in random directions ... as we've all noticed, large "mesoscale" cyclones all spin one direction per hemisphere ...

Maybe in 100 million years, the Earth will have slowed down some, days might be 24-1/2 hours long ... months might be the full thirty days God promised us ... and the Solar Constant is due to be higher, maybe much higher ... and the Earth will be vaporized long before the Sun expands to engulf our orbit ...

But here we're only discussing the next 100,000 years ... how and why we break out of this current Ice Age cycle is for the next species to figure out ...

=====

Notice I used the word "fictitious" above, and not "fake" ... both the Coriolis effect and the centrifugal force are obvious from a rotating frame-of-reference ... so they exist ... however, they are defined as pseudo-forces ... we can treat them as real forces, just as long as we remember they are not real forces in some small way ... and here they can perform no work, which is what forces do ...

What's a real force? ... gravity and electromagnetism ... there are no others in this universe ...

The coriolis effect is real alright. As you mention tornados and we will include hurricanes, but for that force there would not be either. Watch the weather pattern from Alaska and notice the swirling. Of course since the effect causes winds to circle, it is not fictitious. When we studied this in becoming a pilot nothing I ever read said the effect is fictitious.

 

[Crick]

The coriolis effect is real alright. As you mention tornados and we will include hurricanes, but for that force there would not be either. Watch the weather pattern from Alaska and notice the swirling. Of course since the effect causes winds to circle, it is not fictitious. When we studied this in becoming a pilot nothing I ever read said the effect is fictitious.

The magnitude of the Coriolis Effect is dependent on the scale of the motion. Tornadoes are too small and short-lived to be influenced by it. The physics you got as a pilot was not the physics a student gets in college. Reiny Days explanation of fictitious forces was correct but differences between reference frames can be a difficult thing to follow. Just think of his example of the child on the carousel throwing a ball and what the ball's path would look like to someone on the carousel and to someone standing on the ground. Once that ball leaves the child's hand, there is nothing affecting its motion except gravity and a little air drag. No force is making it take a curved path but from the perspective of someone on the carousel, it will seem to take a curved path which would seem to require an applied force; an imaginary force.

 

[ReinyDays]

The coriolis effect is real alright. As you mention tornados and we will include hurricanes, but for that force there would not be either. Watch the weather pattern from Alaska and notice the swirling. Of course since the effect causes winds to circle, it is not fictitious. When we studied this in becoming a pilot nothing I ever read said the effect is fictitious.

Whoa ... we're only taking about direction ... not why cyclones spin ... I know what they teach pilots, and I know what they teach to Atmospheric Science majors in college ... the difference is college physics and calculus ...

Spoiled because I don't care if you understand ...

Spoiler

Consider an atmosphere without rotation of any kind ... however, if we move the atmosphere "up" in latitude, the Earth's rotation will impart a rotation to this atmosphere ... and it is the forces at work in that instant that determines which direction an eventual cyclone would spin ... and once set, direction of spin never changes ...

For a cyclone to form, we first need saturated air, RH=100% or near-abouts ... that's important because an intrinsic property of this rotation is that pressure is lowest along the axis of rotation ... except we're saturated with water, that can't be, we gotta condense that water for pressure to fall and that's a lot of energy released into the environment ... 2,300 J/g ... some of which is used as torque on the rotation ... lowering pressure, condensing water, which makes even more torque ... run-away thermodynamics ... ALL in the direction of that initial rotation ...

Coriolis effect cannot provide torque ... that's fundamentally wrong because of the definition of torque ... which I understand in it's math form and that involves some vector multiplication and anti-communicativeness ... the important part is we need two vectors to be able to multiply two vectors ... one of which is the convective force, and the cross product with the Coriolis effect gives the wrong answer ... it's math, no arguments ...

 

[Robert W]

Whoa ... we're only taking about direction ... not why cyclones spin ... I know what they teach pilots, and I know what they teach to Atmospheric Science majors in college ... the difference is college physics and calculus ...

Spoiled because I don't care if you understand ...

Spoiler

Consider an atmosphere without rotation of any kind ... however, if we move the atmosphere "up" in latitude, the Earth's rotation will impart a rotation to this atmosphere ... and it is the forces at work in that instant that determines which direction an eventual cyclone would spin ... and once set, direction of spin never changes ...

For a cyclone to form, we first need saturated air, RH=100% or near-abouts ... that's important because an intrinsic property of this rotation is that pressure is lowest along the axis of rotation ... except we're saturated with water, that can't be, we gotta condense that water for pressure to fall and that's a lot of energy released into the environment ... 2,300 J/g ... some of which is used as torque on the rotation ... lowering pressure, condensing water, which makes even more torque ... run-away thermodynamics ... ALL in the direction of that initial rotation ...

Coriolis effect cannot provide torque ... that's fundamentally wrong because of the definition of torque ... which I understand in it's math form and that involves some vector multiplication and anti-communicativeness ... the important part is we need two vectors to be able to multiply two vectors ... one of which is the convective force, and the cross product with the Coriolis effect gives the wrong answer ... it's math, no arguments ...

I don't sense you mean bad. But you keep the discussion headed the wrong way. Nobody mentioned torque. Winds blowing is not referred to as torque.

 

[Crick]

I don't sense you mean bad. But you keep the discussion headed the wrong way. Nobody mentioned torque. Winds blowing is not referred to as torque.

Robert, what do you think Lindzen is saying in this video?

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't sense you mean bad. But you keep the discussion headed the wrong way. Nobody mentioned torque. Winds blowing is not referred to as torque.

Whoa baby ... this is all about torque ... what did they teach you in Ground School? ... I didn't want to get involved with second-order tensors here ... but dude ... these are second-order tensors we're dealing with ...

All rotation comes with torque, or there's no rotation ... cyclones rotate, therefore they have torque ... we can define a cross product operation that'll give us a simple vector ... but that vector must exist or there's no rotation, no cyclones, basically no weather ...

This is what's taught to Atmospheric Science majors in core meteorology class ... and it's all physics at it's heart ... Newton's laws of gravity and motion ... i.e. torque = mass times curl ... no torque, no curl (= rotational acceleration) ...

Here's my math:

Navier–Stokes equations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... like I remember any of this math ... I honestly don't anymore ... carpenters use the cross product exclusively ...

 

[Robert W]

Robert, what do you think Lindzen is saying in this video?

He spent a several minutes discussing the Coriolis effect. What happens to weather due to this effect. What do you think Lindzen is saying in this video?

 

[Robert W]

what did they teach you in Ground School?

Been many years but it was a hell of a lot. Examples are how to talk on the radio. What to say to Ground, then the Tower and also those you talk to in transit. And how to start the airplane, how to verify everything is as factory set things up. See this is the elements of a super long tome I could lay out just to put into words how to take off, how to fly in the pattern, how to land and so many more things I will put you to sleep telling this story. my instructor did most of my ground school and I bought books to study to help me become a good pilot. My instructor did a fine job. I was less than happy with the instructor who trained my daughter Linda for 12 hours.

 

[ReinyDays]

Been many years but it was a hell of a lot. Examples are how to talk on the radio. What to say to Ground, then the Tower and also those you talk to in transit. And how to start the airplane, how to verify everything is as factory set things up. See this is the elements of a super long tome I could lay out just to put into words how to take off, how to fly in the pattern, how to land and so many more things I will put you to sleep telling this story. my instructor did most of my ground school and I bought books to study to help me become a good pilot. My instructor did a fine job. I was less than happy with the instructor who trained my daughter Linda for 12 hours.

When you fly ... say under visual flight rules ... you maintain the Earth's surface as your reference? ... i.e. the Earth is stationery ... or do you have to take into account the 700 mph speed of the Earth at 45º latitude? ... and that's both surface and air mass ...

The answer is the Earth is stationery ... your flight orientation is always referenced to the Earth surface ... and that's fine, and safe, but you do understand you, the air mass, and the Earth below are all whipping round the Earth's axis at 700 mph @ 45º latitude (South Island, New Zealand) ... it doesn't matter to your airplane, but it does matter to continent sized weather systems ... and how they start spinning ...

I can pass the FAA written exam ... just no left-seat experience ... still they won't give me a license ... so rude !!! ...

 

[Crick]

He spent a several minutes discussing the Coriolis effect. What happens to weather due to this effect. What do you think Lindzen is saying in this video?

Do you have some recollection of him saying that the Coriolis Effect is responsible for changing climate?

 

[Robert W]

Do you have some recollection of him saying that the Coriolis Effect is responsible for changing climate?

I am nor sure. As to changing, why would you think that? Coriolis effect can shift around.
Does this make you assume man is in charge of climate? Isn't that what alarmists believe that we can manage climate?

 

[Robert W]

When you fly ... say under visual flight rules ... you maintain the Earth's surface as your reference? ... i.e. the Earth is stationery ... or do you have to take into account the 700 mph speed of the Earth at 45º latitude? ... and that's both surface and air mass ...

The answer is the Earth is stationery ... your flight orientation is always referenced to the Earth surface ... and that's fine, and safe, but you do understand you, the air mass, and the Earth below are all whipping round the Earth's axis at 700 mph @ 45º latitude (South Island, New Zealand) ... it doesn't matter to your airplane, but it does matter to continent sized weather systems ... and how they start spinning ...

I can pass the FAA written exam ... just no left-seat experience ... still they won't give me a license ... so rude !!! ...

Bear in mind how fast the Earth spins. Around 1,000 mph. Why isn't the plane flying faster? Because the wind also spins around Earth around 1,000 mph. Man only notices on Earth where he stands a minor addition or reduction to the speed of the wind.

about 1,037 mph

If you estimate that a day is 24 hours long, you divide the circumference by the length of the day. This produces a speed at the equator of about 1,037 mph (1,670 km/h). You won't be moving quite as fast at other latitudes, however.Oct 19, 2023

How fast is Earth moving? - Space.com​

Space.com
https://www.space.com › 33527-how-fast-is-earth-movi...

First you need a Flight Physical and get the license to use radios. This will handle the health problems. But to pilot, you would have to be trained. I soloed in maybe 10 hours. The instructor was constantly adding to my flying knowledge. Once he signed off on me flying solo, I could rent the planes and practice to attain skills. I at times found out after that I had flown as pilot to locations my instructor told me I was not authorized to go to. A few years back I called him in Ca from Idaho to chat with him. He said I was a hot rod type of pilot. (he taught me in 1980, so his memory was outstanding when I called him around 2023) But I got congratulations by the FAA Flight inspector who licensed me. If I made errors, I always had the idea to study them. And not to repeat them. If you want a license, check a local flying school. Pilots must constantly be completely aware so they do not mistake on landing for example and end up in a wreck.

 

[ReinyDays]

This produces a speed at the equator of about 1,037 mph (1,670 km/h).

At the equator ... the speed at any latitude is 1,037 mph multiplied by the cosine of latitude ... thus in my example 1037 mph (cos 45º) = 1037 mph x 0.717 = 733 mph ...

The cosine of 90º is zero ... we don't move through space at the poles ... stationary in place but we are rotating ...