[alancalverd]

I guess you could pretend that the world is one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
But fundamentally the winds are driven by the Sun.

Please explain Buys Ballot's rule and the veering of wind direction with altitude.

I am well acquainted with the apparently erroneous mechanism in the meteorology textbooks, but whilst that is adequate for aviators and mariners, it seems that we have been missing the obvious for over 150 years.

A Nobel Prize awaits.

[Bored chemist]

I guess you could pretend that the world is one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
But fundamentally the winds are driven by the Sun.

Please explain Buys Ballot's rule and the veering of wind direction with altitude.

I am well acquainted with the apparently erroneous mechanism in the meteorology textbooks, but whilst that is adequate for aviators and mariners, it seems that we have been missing the obvious for over 150 years.

A Nobel Prize awaits.

OK
The Sun drives massive convection currents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#/media/File:Earth_Global_Circulation_-_en.svg
The direction of these is somewhat perturbed by the spin of the Earth.

Some of the minor details of the flow patterns are still unclear, but  can be predicted empirically.

I'm not going to get a nobel prize for that.
And now, for the 6th time.

Now, for the 3rd or 4th time
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/08/2020 12:13:33
perhaps you can tell us what provides the torque that slows the Earth?
Hint: it can't be the atmosphere because that's rotating along with,and is part of, the Earth. If it wasn't then there would be a 1000 mph wind round the equator.

I checked, it's the fifth time of asking.

Sooner or later, you will find it is easier to accept that you are wrong.
Maybe that understanding will lead to to an explanation of Buys Ballot's rule and a nobel prize.
But you are not going to get one by ignoring the conservation laws.

[gem]

Hi all could not resist this one,
The short answer to the original question is yes.
The energy that would be converted from kinetic to electrical is Originally from outside the Energy total of the Earth ( solar input) I will explain further at a later date via new theory’s the consequences of this fact .

[Bored chemist]

The short answer to the original question is yes.

True, to the extent already explained

By conservation of angular momentum, all you need is one windmill with a vertical axis at the north pole, rotating against Earth's spin.

climbing the stairs increases your distance from the rotation axis, so it increases the moment of inertia and this reduces the rotational speed, but not much.

The rest of you post indicates that (like Alan) you don't understand that angular momentum is a conserved quantity.

I will explain further at a later date via new theory’s the consequences of this fact .

You don't have a theory
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Also
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/apostrophe/

[gem]

Hi B/C I’m confident what I posted is correct,  however in regards to the consequences and my future explanations We can discuss once posted in new theory’s as I don’t want to hijack this posting. But in regards for conservation of angular momentum to be appropriate. it requires a closed system ie no energy input

[alancalverd]

I do indeed understand the conservation of momentum, whether linear or angular. But a system that converts rotational kinetic energy to heat, which is then radiated out of the system, is not closed or conservative.

[alancalverd]

The force on a windmill blade is the rate of change of momentum of the air striking it.  At  least it has been since Newton's day, and fortunately it remains the case for aerofoils and propellors.

Angular speed is not conserved, but angular momentum is.

Angular momentum = I ω. So if you change angular speed ω and conserve momentum, you must change the moment of inertia I of the planet. If the mass remains constant (and nobody is suggesting otherwise) you have to alter its distribution.  Are you suggesting that windmills cause earthquakes?  That would really upset the green lobby!

[Bored chemist]

And now, for the 6th time.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 23:13:48
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/08/2020 14:55:27
Now, for the 3rd or 4th time
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/08/2020 12:13:33
perhaps you can tell us what provides the torque that slows the Earth?
Hint: it can't be the atmosphere because that's rotating along with,and is part of, the Earth. If it wasn't then there would be a 1000 mph wind round the equator.
I checked, it's the fifth time of asking.


Sooner or later, you will find it is easier to accept that you are wrong.

Seventh time.
What do you think is providing the external torque needed to change the angular momentum of the Earth?

[Bored chemist]

So if you change angular speed ω and conserve momentum, you must change the moment of inertia I of the planet.

Yes.
But- to a very good approximation the moment of inertia of the Earth is fixed. In principle, it rises slightly when I go upstairs and falls when I come back down again.

So the only way to change the rotation rate would be to apply a torque.

So either there is a torque, or there isn't a change in rotation rate.
And since there isn't a torque, there can't be a change in the rotation rate (we aren't talking about tidal drag here).
And since there isn't a change in rotation rate there can't be a change in rotational  kinetic energy.
And since there isn't a change in that energy, it can't be being picked off rto drive the wind.

None of this is complicated.
It's high school physics.

[alancalverd]

I can recommend the study of basic atmospheric physics. It's a little taxing as it involves spherical geometry as well as Newtonian mechanics  but it's more interesting than anything on TV these days.

Or if you have access to an inquisitive 10-year-old, you could ask him what makes air move latitudinally over the oceans. 

[Bored chemist]

Are you suggesting that windmills cause earthquakes? 

Please don't ascribe irrelevant ideas to me.

That goes both ways- except I wasn't, but you are.

[Bored chemist]

Or if you have access to an inquisitive 10-year-old, you could ask him what makes air move latitudinally over the oceans.

You are muddling two ideas.
The direction of the wind is influenced by coriolis forces (etc).
But as I already pointed out, the energy driving the wind is not derived from those forces.

A ship sailing due north has to overcome coriolis forces, but that doesn't mean they can switch off the engine.
The engine has to work harder.

If I walk North or South I am forced left or right by the coriolis force. But it is at right angles to my path and so it does no work.

And so, for the 8th time...

Seventh time.
What do you think is providing the external torque needed to change the angular momentum of the Earth?

[gem]

Halc, I don’t know what list you’re putting me on 💋💋or what I’ve posted you disagree with, but am quite happy to discuss the points I have posted.
Ie is the earth a closed system/ does the suns energy input provide the kinetic energy of the weather/wind

[gem]

So although you’re drifting away from the original question, there are several external torque forces that are accepted by mainstream science that affects the length of day and there is active research in regards to the coupling between the various layers of the planet.

[Bored chemist]

So although you’re drifting away from the original question, there are several external torque forces that are accepted by mainstream science that affects the length of day and there is active research in regards to the coupling between the various layers of the planet.

Yes, there are. But, they are small; the weather is essentially driven by the wind.

And what Alan was saying was that the spin of the Earth powered the weather.
In that regard, he has mistaken the rudder for the engine.

[alancalverd]

But as I already pointed out

There's a difference between "asserted" and "pointed out". One of them has a scientific basis.

[Bored chemist]

But as I already pointed out

There's a difference between "asserted" and "pointed out". One of them has a scientific basis.

And here's the scientific basis

If I walk North or South I am forced left or right by the coriolis force. But it is at right angles to my path and so it does no work.

And so, for the 8th time...
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:13:03
Seventh time.
What do you think is providing the external torque needed to change the angular momentum of the Earth?

I think we are now up to the ninth time of asking.
Why don't you simply  answer the question?
What supplies the external torque (that slows the Earth) against which work is done to provide the energy that you think is fed into the weather?

It's a simple enough bit of physics; which part do you not agree with?
In order for any of  the Earth's rotational energy to be transferred to the winds, the Earth's rotation must be slowed down
That's just the conservation of energy.
It's not controversial.

And in order for the Earth to slow down, either the moment of inertia must change, or the angular momentum must change.
That's just the definition of angular momentum- again, it's not open to much debate.

And since the Earth's moment of inertia is fixed by the mass and structure of the Earth, a change in rotation would require an external torque to act on it (like tidal drag).
Again, it's a conservation law, so it's hard to see how you can dispute it.



So which bit are you not getting?
Or do you accept the conservation laws etc, in which case, where do you think the torque is from?

[alancalverd]

You are unteachable.

[Bored chemist]

You are unteachable.

Quite possibly, but it's not relevant. I was taught before, so now I know.

The fact that you are not even trying to pretend to answer the question shows that you know I'm right.
If you thought I was actually wrong, you would have pointed out the error.

[gem]

Hi B/C in regards to the effects being small, I assume you are referring to the positive/negative frictional coupling Effect between the Atmosphere and earth’s surface, as per the original question.
So just to put a comparison value to reiterate that point and I think you posted previously in regards to how large the earth’s angular momentum is.
As a fraction of the Total solar radiation Received by Earth for one day allowing around 30% reflection vs Earth’s rotational Kinect energy gives :
Solar energy per day is 0.000005% of Earths rotational Kinect energy