[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

All that has happened is windmills are taking the place of  trees,  mountains oceans in the particular direction but the wind in the opposite direction will still hit the above listed features, thus cancelling out. Wind energy makes waves waves make sound and heat, wind bends trees, trees make sound heat etc.

Do you think that if windspeed in all points on earth surface are measured and vectorially summarized, the result is always zero?

[Bored chemist]

It's not an analogy because, in this case, something actually leaves the earth.

In my analogy above,  the ball represents the earth,  while the pool water represents solar wind.
The water molecules that once touch the ball will move away from it, taking away some of the momentum.

Do you know that, by normal standards, the "solar wind" is a very good vacuum?

"Ultra-high vacuum (UHV) is the vacuum regime characterised by pressures lower than about 100 nanopascal (10−7 pascal, 10−9 mbar, ~10−9 torr)"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high_vacuum


"The wind exerts a pressure at 1 AU typically in the range of 1–6 nPa ((1–6)×10−9 N/m2), although it can readily vary outside that range."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Pressure
Any effect is going to be tiny.

[Bored chemist]

Do you think that if windspeed in all points on earth surface are measured and vectorially summarized, the result is always zero?

Averaged over any reasonable time frame and measured WRT the Earth, yes.
If it wasn't then the atmosphere would all have left the Earth.

[Petrochemicals]

All that has happened is windmills are taking the place of  trees,  mountains oceans in the particular direction but the wind in the opposite direction will still hit the above listed features, thus cancelling out. Wind energy makes waves waves make sound and heat, wind bends trees, trees make sound heat etc.

Do you think that if windspeed in all points on earth surface are measured and vectorially summarized, the result is always zero?

No the net wind is in all directions is actually in the direction that the earth rotates but faster. The atmosphere rotates faster than the solid body of the planet. Could not tell you of the core.

As for vectors of wind, the net direction energy of the wind with wind mills is the same as without windmills, just the same as a dam removes energy from water by water exerting force on it rather than the water in the river bed. 

As for gravity, it's all about barycentre, so as the water in whatever moves one way the planet moves the other.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No the net wind is in all directions is actually in the direction that the earth rotates but faster. The atmosphere rotates faster than the solid body of the planet. Could not tell you of the core.

Do you have the source? Or at least a reasoning for that? Is it because the atmosphere is further than the crust, from the earth center?
Since the crust is continuously slowed down by the tide, the earth core should rotate faster.

[Halc]

I've not had much time to keep up, but some comments:

I mean that when the windmills collectively reduce windspeed in one direction while not significantly reduce windspeed in the opposite direction. So if windspeed in all points on earth surface are measured and vectorially summarized, the result is non-zero.

The sum is rarely zero, yes, and that is the primary factor in small variations from one day to the next, which they do measure.  If you plant trees in areas of prevailing easterly winds and put up car parks in areas of prevailing westerly winds, the spin rate of the planet would be measurably different.  I think that's what you're trying to convey. Trees are no different than windmills. The generation of electricity from it makes no difference.

That's true if you only throw the ball once and then stop throwing, also assuming the ball doesn't reach orbital velocity. 
If you continuously throwing many balls, and the balls just fallen are immediately thrown again by other ball throwers, then you will have a stream layers of balls rotating in one direction, and the earth crust rotating in the opposite direction (relative to without ball throwings).

Remember that a windmill isn't a fan. It doesn't throw balls, it catches them, and that just moves the catching of the ball a short time sooner. The ball is going to stop even if nobody is catching them, even if there is a continuous stream. But the time delay does introduce a temporary momentum to the ball when comparing the two scenarios.

Let's have a still water in a pool. A rotating basket ball is dropped and float on it. Water molecules hit the ball equally on one side and the other, but nonetheless the ball's rotation slows down, and finally stop.

That transfers angular momentum to the water, so a poor analogy for dust in space which does not get angular momentum transferred to it by losing some dust to Earth.  Also, that dust probably already has more angular momentum before than after hitting Earth.  It is spinning the same way for the same reason all the planets orbit in the same direction, and it well might increase the spin.  Still, it constitutes friction of a form, and that is an external force. I cannot assert that it doesn't exert at least some torque.

Do you think that if windspeed in all points on earth surface are measured and vectorially summarized, the result is always zero?

Probably never. Due to variations of levels of friction between here and there, the equilibrium state will average a state of equal force between surface and atmosphere, and that might result in a rotation rate (of both the air at the surface and the entire atmosphere) that is different than the rotation rate of Earth (23:56 hours).

No the net wind is in all directions is actually in the direction that the earth rotates but faster. The atmosphere rotates faster than the solid body of the planet.

Reference please.  It well might, but I've not heard this. It certainly is eastbound where I live, but not everywhere.
Looking at today's map, it's looks pretty dang westbound.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-23.18,15.62,495/loc=-34.263,51.134

[Petrochemicals]

]
Reference please.  It well might, but I've not heard this. It certainly is eastbound where I live, but not everywhere.
Looking at today's map, it's looks pretty dang westbound.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-23.18,15.62,495/loc=-34.263,51.134

I believe it is East bound, just like the earth, sun rises in the east sets in the west.

www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-with-the-earth

No the net wind is in all directions is actually in the direction that the earth rotates but faster. The atmosphere rotates faster than the solid body of the planet. Could not tell you of the core.

Do you have the source? Or at least a reasoning for that? Is it because the atmosphere is further than the crust, from the earth center?
Since the crust is continuously slowed down by the tide, the earth core should rotate faster.

Super rotation in venus
www.space.com/amp/venus-atmosphere-super-rotation-mystery-solved.html

[Colin2B]

No the net wind is in all directions is actually in the direction that the earth rotates but faster. The atmosphere rotates faster than the solid body of the planet.

This is incorrect. I think you are confusing with the Coriolis effect.
The actual wind movement is N-S, S-N, but this gets deflect by the Coriolis effect. So, for Polar areas (latitude 60°-90°) the prevailing winds are Easterlies (from the East), between 30° and 60° they are Westerlies, 0° to 30° N Easterlies.
These are only the prevailing directions, at any time and place the local wind depends on the weather system passing overhead and the local terrain.

[Petrochemicals]

No the net wind is in all directions is actually in the direction that the earth rotates but faster. The atmosphere rotates faster than the solid body of the planet.

This is incorrect. I think you are confusing with the Coriolis effect.
The actual wind movement is N-S, S-N, but this gets deflect by the Coriolis effect. So, for Polar areas (latitude 60°-90°) the prevailing winds are Easterlies (from the East), between 30° and 60° they are Westerlies, 0° to 30° N Easterlies.
These are only the prevailing directions, at any time and place the local wind depends on the weather system passing overhead and the local terrain.

Yes Colin, that is the meterological. If the earth is rotating and we are discussing the slowing of the rotation, North South does not factor, they are judged to have rotated inline with the planet ?

BUUUUUUUTTTT,  The ns balances out because of pressures that create wind jet streams etc. N S in the northern hemisphere are at a low altitude  level, S N in the northern hemisphere is high altitude, hot If rises and descends as low after super chilling in the upper atmosphere to cryogenic temperatures that descend on the pole, if this where not the case the poles should be quite balmy, as is seen when hot air pushes in to the actic circle.

[Halc]

I believe it is East bound, just like the earth, sun rises in the east sets in the west.

www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-with-the-earth

The entire content of that page (besides ads and links to unrelated pages with probably equally terse content):

Bound to the Earth by gravity, most of the atmosphere spins along with it as a result of friction with the ground and the viscosity or ‘stickiness’ of the different layers of air above it.

Above 200km, however, the incredibly thin atmosphere actually spins faster than the Earth. The cause of this bizarre ‘super-rotation’ effect remains unclear, but has also been detected on Venus.

Not saying it's wrong, but that's just a headline, not an article.

FYI, the link I gave shows current (live) surface air speeds, not momentum of the atmosphere.  So it is what the Earth 'feels', and I would think that would have to have no net speed east or west over time, else momentum would be transferred from one to the other until equilibrium is reached.  By all means, the net speed of the atmosphere doesn't need to be similar to the speed at the surface, but I'd have personally guessed that it would rotate slower, due to the same reasons the mantle rotates slower than the core below it, and for the same reasons.
OK, so my guess might be wrong, but that article didn't even begin to discuss it, only saying the reason is 'unclear'.

[gem]

Hi all
Halc just a bit of housekeeping

   The atmosphere does change momentum due to the weather, and as has been pointed out somewhere, the daily variation (microseconds was it?) of length of day is quite measurable.

The values of change to length of day tend to be in the millisecond range, you could quote them in microseconds but the values are 10^-3 millisec and 10^-6 microsec so quoting microsec a little misleading as to the range of daily change occurring to the rotational kinetic energy and angular momentum to the solid earth.

However given your above statement it seems you may be shifting your opinion slightly ?

Are you now agreeing that the motions of the atmosphere generated by buoyancy/acceleration due to change in density in a gravitational field due to solar energy input to the system generating heat, cause changes to the momentum of the atmosphere

If so you may like to look a little closer at the other link petrochemicals provided;

www.space.com/amp/venus-atmosphere-super-rotation-mystery-solved.html

The scientists discovered the Venusian atmosphere received angular momentum though thermal tides, which are variations in atmospheric pressure driven by solar heating near the planet's equator.

[Halc]

as to the range of daily change occurring to the rotational kinetic energy and angular momentum to the solid earth.

Just like to point out that Earth isn't solid, and doesn't rotate at one rate. Its kinetic energy isn't a simple function of its moment and spin rate.

However given your above statement it seems you may be shifting your opinion slightly ?
...
Are you now agreeing that the motions of the atmosphere generated by buoyancy/acceleration due to change in density in a gravitational field due to solar energy input to the system generating heat, cause changes to the momentum of the atmosphere.

What I said is completely in line with my initial reply to this topic. There's nothing in that post that says that the windmill has no immediate effect.

It is all the nonsense about angular momentum of a system changing without external torque that defies physics, as does 'energy to momentum', asserted by both Alan and you in your respective first posts in what is now the split topic.
If you disagree, keep the discussion in the other topic, not this one.

[Colin2B]

North South does not factor, they are judged to have rotated inline with the planet ?

They are not really true N/S, Coriolis affects both high and low level air movements.

N S in the northern hemisphere are at a low altitude  level, S N in the northern hemisphere is high altitude, hot If rises and descends as low after super chilling in the upper atmosphere to cryogenic temperatures that descend on the pole

This is too simplistic a model.
There is more than one cell of rising/descending air. For example in the northern hemisphere at around Latitude 30° - the Horse Latitudes - high level air is flowing towards this latitude (from both NE & SW - Coriolis effect) and cold air is descending to flow NE and SW near ground level. At ground level, friction causes the winds to flow more directly high to low pressure rather than along the isobars.
The jet streams are just that, streams. As @Halc says, there is no mass movement of air eastwards.

[Petrochemicals]

I believe it is East bound, just like the earth, sun rises in the east sets in the west.

www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-with-the-earth

The entire content of that page (besides ads and links to unrelated pages with probably equally terse content):

Bound to the Earth by gravity, most of the atmosphere spins along with it as a result of friction with the ground and the viscosity or ‘stickiness’ of the different layers of air above it.

Above 200km, however, the incredibly thin atmosphere actually spins faster than the Earth. The cause of this bizarre ‘super-rotation’ effect remains unclear, but has also been detected on Venus.

Not saying it's wrong, but that's just a headline, not an article.

FYI, the link I gave shows current (live) surface air speeds, not momentum of the atmosphere.  So it is what the Earth 'feels', and I would think that would have to have no net speed east or west over time, else momentum would be transferred from one to the other until equilibrium is reached.  By all means, the net speed of the atmosphere doesn't need to be similar to the speed at the surface, but I'd have personally guessed that it would rotate slower, due to the same reasons the mantle rotates slower than the core below it, and for the same reasons.
OK, so my guess might be wrong, but that article didn't even begin to discuss it, only saying the reason is 'unclear'.

Have I gone mad? You asked for evidence of earth's rotation of atmosphere being faster than the crust, you have it.

[Bored chemist]

Have I gone mad?

I'm not qualified to answer that.

ou asked for evidence of earth's rotation of atmosphere being faster than the crust, you have it.

No
That's some evidence that a tiny fraction of the Earth's atmosphere spins faster than the Earth.
On the other hand, we know that, in the log run, the Earth's rotation is synchronised to the atmosphere as a whole, because, if it wasn't there would be a net torque which would accelerate the air until it caught up with the Earth or until the earth caught up with it.

The alternative is that there's some net torque from space acting to accelerate the spin of the Earth in which case...
It's not windmills, and it should be in the other thread. (where I will ask for the millionth time where the torque comes from and the people who don't do science won't be able to answer)

[Petrochemicals]

North South does not factor, they are judged to have rotated inline with the planet ?

They are not really true N/S, Coriolis affects both high and low level air movements.

N S in the northern hemisphere are at a low altitude  level, S N in the northern hemisphere is high altitude, hot If rises and descends as low after super chilling in the upper atmosphere to cryogenic temperatures that descend on the pole

This is too simplistic a model.

Yes simplistic and true, easy to understand indesputable and insurmountable. The fact is that hot air does rise.

[Bored chemist]

The fact is that hot air does rise.

What happens next?

[Colin2B]

N S in the northern hemisphere are at a low altitude  level, S N in the northern hemisphere is high altitude, hot If rises and descends as low after super chilling in the upper atmosphere to cryogenic temperatures that descend on the pole

This is too simplistic a model.

Yes simplistic and true, easy to understand indesputable and insurmountable. The fact is that hot air does rise.

No, simplistic and false, disputable, surmountable. Above all, wrong as it assumes a non rotating earth.

The fact is that hot air does rise.

So what? That neither makes a nett movement relative to earth surface (see @Halc quote), nor does it create a change of angular momentum.
As @Bored chemist  says, what happens next?

[Petrochemicals]

N S in the northern hemisphere are at a low altitude  level, S N in the northern hemisphere is high altitude, hot If rises and descends as low after super chilling in the upper atmosphere to cryogenic temperatures that descend on the pole

This is too simplistic a model.

Yes simplistic and true, easy to understand indesputable and insurmountable. The fact is that hot air does rise.

No, simplistic and false, disputable, surmountable. Above all, wrong as it assumes a non rotating earth.

The fact is that hot air does rise.

So what? That neither makes a nett movement relative to earth surface (see @Halc quote), nor does it create a change of angular momentum.
As @Bored chemist  says, what happens next?

ThTs a contradiction in 2 statements. I've give you links of atmospheric rotation on earth and venus, yet all I'm getting in return is nonsensical statements.

[Bored chemist]

I've give you links of atmospheric rotation on earth and venus,

No you have not.

hat's some evidence that a tiny fraction of the Earth's atmosphere spins faster than the Earth.