[gem]

Hi all
So petrochemicals, No your not going mad
you provided the information requested, only problem is it disagrees with a few of the previous posts;

like this from BC

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.

So petrochemicals has shown evidence of a layer of earth and venus atmosphere that maintains a phenomenon of atmospheric super-rotation  How is it the atmosphere has not departed ?

Also Halc you specifically requested this information from petrochemicals so it may be pertinent you address the diagram explanation, as to how this angular momentum is generated in the link that was provided, because Colin and BC seem to be struggling to understand it.

"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?

I think that was already answered
http://www.space.com/amp/venus-atmosphere-super-rotation-mystery-solved.html

[Bored chemist]

I think that was already answered

As has so often been the case, you are wrong.

What happens after the hot air rises is that it cools and falls.
Did you not know that?

Do you know that the comparable effect on Earth exists above 200Km
Do you know that the conventional  definition of the start of  "space" is 100 Km?
So, what you are talking about is, at best, a tiny effect- so small that it's fair to say it's not even part of the atmosphere.

So petrochemicals has shown evidence of a layer of earth and venus atmosphere that maintains a phenomenon of atmospheric super-rotation  How is it the atmosphere has not departed ?

You forgot to read what I said.
You quoted it
"Averaged over any reasonable time frame"
But you forgot to understand it.

[Petrochemicals]

Hi all
So petrochemicals, No your not going mad
you provided the information requested, only problem is it disagrees with a few of the previous posts;

like this from BC

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.

So petrochemicals has shown evidence of a layer of earth and venus atmosphere that maintains a phenomenon of atmospheric super-rotation  How is it the atmosphere has not departed ?

Also Halc you specifically requested this information from petrochemicals so it may be pertinent you address the diagram explanation, as to how this angular momentum is generated in the link that was provided, because Colin and BC seem to be struggling to understand it.

"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?

I think that was already answered
http://www.space.com/amp/venus-atmosphere-super-rotation-mystery-solved.html

Thank goodness for that. Perhaps a better way of understanding it would be ,"why is the crust not keeping up with the core and atmosphere" to which I would suggest it's because of heat making wind that causes friction on the crust, which after all is on a liquid  core, if you blow on a boat it does tend to drift, but it's only a hypothesis. Perhaps we should start a thread on weather the whether can affect the rotation of the earth The drift is something to be reckoned with.

[gem]

HI all
so BC to this;

"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?

I think that was already answered
http://www.space.com/amp/venus-atmosphere-super-rotation-mystery-solved.html

BC States;

As has so often been the case, you are wrong.

So as to hot air rising and "what happens next" is postulated in the link, so not me your disagreeing with I"m afraid, I would suggest you study it and review where it contradicts a lot of what you have posted on this thread. (including the posts moved to new theories )

BC You also state:

What happens after the hot air rises is that it cools and falls.
Did you not know that?

So this maybe is where your struggling to grasp the reality of the position of your argument, this occurs because the atmosphere of the earth and similarly the atmosphere of venus are not in inertial reference frames.

Which means the conditions of the laws of conservation of momentum are not met, you previously dismissed this fact as lies we tell children,

So to help you, consider what would be the physical reality of one of these tealight mobiles lit in an inertial reference frame like the international space station ?
 

[Colin2B]

So petrochemicals has shown evidence of a layer of earth and venus atmosphere that maintains a phenomenon of atmospheric super-rotation ..........
........ how this angular momentum is generated in the link that was provided, because Colin and BC seem to be struggling to understand it.

No we are not struggling to understand either of these phenomena nor how they are generated, what we are struggling to understand is this:

....Perhaps a better way of understanding it would be ,"why is the crust not keeping up with the core and atmosphere"

Our contention is that the Earth’s crust is keeping up with the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not getting ahead.

If @Petrochemicals had said “a thin layer of rarified gas, some 100km above the atmosphere, is rotating ahead of the surface”
Or if he had said “venus atmosphere maintains a phenomenon of atmospheric super-rotation”
Then we would have agreed with both of those.
However, neither of these indicate that on Earth “the crust is not keeping up with the atmosphere”.
Evidence please, as @Halc has already requested.

Petro is trying to directly relate what happens on Venus to what happens on Earth and as I have tried to explain, and what you are both struggling to understand, is that the 2 are very different.

Venus has a single circulation cell (Hadley cell) in each hemisphere and Petro is trying to suggest this is what happens on Earth. It does not.
Venus, to quote the article “Compared to Earth, Venus twirls at a leisurely pace on its axis, with its surface taking 243 Earth days to complete one rotation.”. The significance of this is that on Venus there is negligible Coriolis effect, whereas on Earth this is significant and results in the circulation being broken into 3 separate cells which prevents the super rotation effect seen on Venus and along with geography results in much more chaotic winds than seen on the more stable Venus. The model Petro is quoting relates to a nonrotating Earth, so is not relevant to explaining Earth’s atmosphere.

Petro also quotes this thin band of rotation at 200km. In explanation he states that “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”
Leaving aside the ‘cryogenic temperatures’, this relies on the lapse rate. This is the reduction of temperature with height and generally follows the pattern of a temperature fall of 6.49°C/km from sea level to 11 km. From 11 km up to 20 km the constant temperature is −56.5 °C. The 11km is significant as being the top of the troposphere, where the majority of our weather is formed and which contains the majority of atmospheric mass.
At about 85km the lapse rate reverses dramatically with temperature increasing rapidly with height, so by 200km the mechanism postulated by Petro is not viable.

Just so we are very, very clear. I am not questioning what happens on Venus, nor at 200km on Earth, I am questioning the effect on Earth as explained by petro.

How is it the atmosphere has not departed ?

It’s called gravity. Some of the extremely light gasses do escape, but many are retained even at this high altitude.

[Bored chemist]

what would be the physical reality of one of these tealight mobiles lit in an inertial reference frame like the international space station ?

The flame would be blue.

Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[gem]

Hi all,
Colin thanks for your detailed response. just a couple of points in regards to the value of comparisons of earth and venus, my input on that would be, yes take onboard your comments and my only response in that regard is I"m tending to focus on the laws of physics, and what the different conditions may highlight.
Also in regards to this statement by BC

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.

And my subsequent response when highlighting the super-rotation in the link provided by petro earlier

  How is it the atmosphere has not departed ?

was a little tongue in cheek comment as to value of that prediction also

Now BC you ask in regards to the tea light mobile analogy ;

Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

I am responding as if that's not a loaded question, 
 
I gave the ISS as a reference to the conditions it can portray in experiments for the requirements set out in the conservation of momentum.

below is a direct quotes from the links;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum   

"but in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
"This can occur only in a non-inertial reference frame, which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction"

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I gave the ISS as a reference to the conditions it can portray in experiments for the requirements set out in the conservation of momentum.

ISS is not an inertial frame of reference. It rotates once every 90 minutes. So it's possible to throw a ball from a point on a side wall of an ISS room through the center of the room and then end up at the same point where it was started. It would take 45 minutes. This sequence of events is not possible in an inertial frame of reference.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-orientation-of-the-ISS-change-with-respect-to-the-Earth

Robert Frost, works at NASA
Answered October 2, 2017
Nominally, the ISS flies in an LVLH (Local Vertical Local Horizontal) attitude. That means that the vehicle pitches at four-degrees-per-minute in order to keep its belly pointed towards the Earth. So, nominally, the orientation of the ISS appears rather consistent with respect to the Earth.

This is desired because the vehicle was designed to be in an attitude in which the comm antennae pointed up at the TDRSS, the GPS antennae point up at the GPS satellites, the thickest shielding is in the direction of greatest debris damage risk, the windows point towards Earth for Earth observation science, and other external payloads can point at their desired topic, consistently.

However, we fly at a slight bias from LVLH 0,0,0 in order to be at an attitude in which the external gravity torques and external drag torques cancel each other out over a ninety-minute orbit. This is called a TEA (Torque Equilibrium Attitude). These TEAs change over time and with changes in vehicle center of mass and cross-sectional area.

We also alter the attitude of the ISS to support docking and undockings, captures and releases, and reboosts.

[Bored chemist]

I am responding as if that's not a loaded question, 

Could you try answering it as if it is a physics question?
The answer is yes or no.

[Petrochemicals]

Ok Colin go and argue the toss here,
they are amatuer metreologists.

https://www.theweatherclub.org.uk/sites/default/files/circulation%20-%20no%20coriolis.png

From

https://www.theweatherclub.org.uk/index.php/node/373

[Halc]

Ok Colin go and argue the toss here,
they are amatuer metreologists.

This 'amatuer metreologist' can immediately see that the picture you've chosen to post seems to assume a non-rotating planet heated equally on all sides by a ring of orbiting suns.
Interesting that the image is named "coriolis.png" when it shows no Coriolis effect.

The site does indeed tag this picture with the words "If we were on a planet which didn’t rotate".  So the site is not wrong in posting such a simplified dynamic. My question is why you chose to post that image instead of the one below it that shows a more accurate depiction of the average movements.

[gem]

Hi all,
So hamdani yusuf,
 
yes take your point, however in regards to the conditions of the laboratory that is the ISS, it allows the possibilities to demonstrate certain conditions which we could only imagine previously,

For example the fact of buoyancy and therefore natural convection  ceases to occur on ISS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
"This can occur only in a non-inertial reference frame, which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_convection
below is an extract from the above link;

The driving force for natural convection is gravity. For example if there is a layer of cold dense air on top of hotter less dense air, gravity pulls more strongly on the denser layer on top, so it falls while the hotter less dense air rises to take its place. This creates circulating flow: convection. As it relies on gravity, there is no convection in free-fall (inertial) environments, such as that of the orbiting International Space Station

which I believe the above should make clear as to the conditions this highlights as to when considering the merits of applying the laws of conservation of momentum to the earth's atmosphere.

As what is asserted by BC stating atmospheres momentum is conserved and then here stating;

What happens after the hot air rises is that it cools and falls.

which seems to be contrary to;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum   

"but in any inertial frame it is a conserved quantity"

So how's the tea light mobiles doing, would they make a good present for the occupants of the ISS ?

[Bored chemist]

I am responding as if that's not a loaded question,

Could you try answering it as if it is a physics question?
The answer is yes or no.

[Colin2B]

Ok Colin go and argue the toss here,
they are amatuer metreologists.

I don’t need to because as @Halc points out there is no toss to argue; they clearly understand the differences I was describing.
By the way, some of them are professionals 

Colin thanks for your detailed response. just a couple of points in regards to the value of comparisons of earth and venus, my input on that would be, yes take onboard your comments and my only response in that regard is I"m tending to focus on the laws of physics, and what the different conditions may highlight.

That is precisely what I was doing.
The physics is in the detail and you have to look at these as systems; what the different conditions are, the different inputs and starting conditions etc. If you don’t consider these as a whole system your ‘laws of physics’ will give you the wrong output ie conclusions.

[Bored chemist]

I"m tending to focus on the laws of physics,

Good.
The laws of physics answer the original question very simply and very clearly.
"Can windmills affect Earth's rotation?"
No more so than a tree.

So, since the laws of physics- on which you are concentrating, have answered the question you can stop posting about it but, in teh mean time...

Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[gem]

Hi all,
So Colin regarding the laws of physics, I take it you agree the laws of physics apply on earth the same as venus ?

Now In the link provided by petro;
http://www.space.com/amp/venus-atmosphere-super-rotation-mystery-solved.html

It states;

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. They also found planetary-scale waves in the atmosphere as well as large-scale atmospheric turbulence worked against this effect from thermal tides

And this from the abstract;

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6489/405

The solid surface of Venus rotates very slowly, once every 243 days, but its thick atmosphere circles the planet in just 4 days. This phenomenon, known as super-rotation, requires a continuous input of angular momentum, from an unknown source, to overcome friction with the surface. Horinouchi et al. mapped the planet's winds using ultraviolet observations of Venus' clouds from the orbiting Akatsuki spacecraft (see the Perspective by Lebonnois). They incorporated these data into a global model of angular momentum transport in the atmosphere, finding that the super-rotation is maintained through thermal tides driven by solar heating

Now given the numerous posts on this thread including the ones prior to the split to new theories
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80717.0

How does this papers findings fit with the numerous posts from Colin Halc and BC as to the requirement of an external torque force and the man on the back of the truck analogy ?.

I would invite anyone to revisit these or read for the first time if new to this discussion.

Do you think the lead author Takeshi Horinouchi has met with similar derogatory comments and has covered that, with what looks like British understatement;

"There was a suggestion that thermal tides might be contributing to the acceleration behind super-rotation, but I think the mainstream assumption was different, so this was a surprise," Horinouchi said.[/quote]

it would appear the findings are more in agreement with this post I made earlier.

However it is possible to increase/change momentum of the atmosphere due to the conditions/dynamics occurring ie solar input to a fluid changing density in a gravity field creating buoyancy force and subsequent acceleration. 

[Bored chemist]

You do know that UV light won't actually penetrate the clouds on Venus to any great extent, don't you?
So this bit

mapped the planet's winds using ultraviolet observations of Venus' clouds

Only really supports The same thing that we know about the Earth. As that web page says
"Above 200km, however, the incredibly thin atmosphere actually spins faster than the Earth. "

Now, when you remember that "space" by convention starts at 100 km, it's fair to say that, at best a vanishingly small part of the atmosphere rotates faster than the Earth, isn't it?

How does this papers findings fit with the numerous posts from Colin Halc and BC as to the requirement of an external torque force and the man on the back of the truck analogy ?.

It fits just fine.
If you gave the man a long stick so he could brace against the Moon, then he could push the truck.
Nobody has ever said that tides don't have an effect.
And that's what the paper refers to "The scientists discovered the Venusian atmosphere received angular momentum though thermal tides"

Now, perhaps you could stop posting bull an answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/10/2020 10:49:26
Just checking on something.
You chose the ISS. I presume that's a reference to the fact that it is in free fall because it is in orbit.
Is that correct?

[Petrochemicals]

Ok Colin go and argue the toss here,
they are amatuer metreologists.

This 'amatuer metreologist' can immediately see that the picture you've chosen to post seems to assume a non-rotating planet heated equally on all sides by a ring of orbiting suns.
Interesting that the image is named "coriolis.png" when it shows no Coriolis effect.

The site does indeed tag this picture with the words "If we were on a planet which didn’t rotate".  So the site is not wrong in posting such a simplified dynamic. My question is why you chose to post that image instead of the one below it that shows a more accurate depiction of the average movements.

Ok Colin go and argue the toss here,
they are amatuer metreologists.

I don’t need to because as @Halc points out there is no toss to argue; they clearly understand the differences I was describing.
By the way, some of them are professionals 

So hot air does not rise from the equator and cir ulate to the poles? Very very simplistic I know, but it's what happens. The different weather bands are just weather bands, dry air from the poles, moist air from the tropics.This is an intricacy of the circulation, just like the hypothesised butterfly effect.

Are you suggesting that the polar air remains in situe and the equator likewise with no effect between?

[Bored chemist]

So hot air does not rise from the equator and cir ulate to the poles?

No, it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

Did you really not understand that, or are you trolling?

[gem]

HI all;
So  to this "How does this papers findings fit with the numerous posts from Colin Halc and BC as to the requirement of an external torque force and the man on the back of the truck analogy ?".

BC states;

  It fits just fine.
If you gave the man a long stick so he could brace against the Moon, then he could push the truck.
Nobody has ever said that tides don't have an effect.
And that's what the paper refers to "The scientists discovered the Venusian atmosphere received angular momentum though thermal tides"

So you really need to consider what has been highlighted by that paper, you obviously haven't read it or don't understand the implications.

what moon of venus is the stick pushing against exactly ?  ha ha ha you are funny