Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Earth Science / Oceanography / January 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

IIRC (I cheated a bit towards the end and looked some stuff up.)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Weatherlawyer@gmail.com - 17 Dec 2006 04:44 GMT
>From the moon the earth occupies something in the region of 2 degrees
of the sky.

If I remember correctly, the planet will easily fit into the famous red
spot on Jupiter.

There is a gyre on earth that is some 2000 miles across -if I remember
something I read a long time ago. It is composed of the surface water
several hundred feet deep, that washes along the coast of the North
American continent to about 55 to 60 degrees north, then heads east to
Norway and Britain.

>From there it follows the coast of western Europe and Africa until it
gets to the tropics where it heads west once again to drive up the
coast of some of the Americas.

With a disk some 8000 miles in diameter and a gyre of that size (the
North Atlantic Basin) the earth has a proportionately larger optical
phenomenon than that of Jupiter's 3 or 4 hundred year old storm.

Does anyone know what causes either?

Some people (one hesitates to call one's peers sheep, as that puts
oneself at a disadvantage) consider the event on the earth is caused by
the lack of air pressure.

(How a Low can have a force is beyond me but that is by the by.)

Perhaps more lucid experts have been able to a.ses the physics of
something a little more distant.

If so, is there a link to the effort?

It would be nice to have any proffered explanation deal with the
physics rather than the observation. I know that somewhere between Adam
and Pasteur there was a great darkness about diseases that due to
ignorance, called for the treatment of the symptoms rather than their
cause; it would be good if such an abuse of facts were avoided here.)

*That it can't be air pressure is seen by the fact that on the equator
there exists something akin to the jet stream. A narrow current of
water flowing straight and true, the other way.

The ocean flow in the N Atlantic basin is some 30 million cubic metres
of water per second through the straights of Florida and 80 million
past Cape Hatteras. (According to the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica)

Also from the Enc Brit:

Movement of water through the oceans is slowed by friction, with
surrounding fluid moving at a different velocity. A faster-moving fluid
layer tends to drag along a slower-moving layer, and a slower-moving
layer will tend to reduce the speed of a faster-moving layer.

This momentum transfer between the layers is referred to as frictional
forces

The momentum transfer is a product of turbulence that moves kinetic
energy to smaller scales until at the centimetre scale it is dissipated
as heat. The wind blowing over the sea surface transfers momentum to
the water. This frictional force at the sea surface (i.e., the wind
stress) produces the wind-driven circulation.

Currents moving along the ocean floor and the sides of the ocean also
are subject to the influence of boundary-layer friction. The motionless
ocean floor removes momentum from the circulation of the ocean waters.

But:

in fluid mechanics, thin layer of a flowing gas or liquid in contact
with a surface such as that of an airplane wing or of the inside of a
pipe. The fluid in the boundary layer is subjected to shearing forces.
A range of velocities exists across the boundary layer from maximum to
zero, provided the fluid is in contact with the surface.

[How much more so if the fluids are miscible? It stops becoming fluid
mechanics there doesn't it and branches off into hydrostatics. Or is
that pneumodynamics?]

The peculiar flow in boundary layers can be treated in a simpler way
than the flow in the free stream farther from the surface.

Boundary layers are thinner at the leading edge of an aircraft wing and
thicker toward the trailing edge. The flow in such boundary layers is
generally laminar at the leading or upstream portion and turbulent in
the trailing or downstream portion. See also laminar flow; turbulent
flow.

[There won't be much kinetic energy imparted to the sea's surface
where: "..the flow in such boundary layers is ... laminar..." will
there? Water is considered a perfect fluid. It's viscosity is such that
in a cylinder, it will remain -or tend to remain, stationary if the
cylinder containing it is rotated. How much less will the force of air
effect it?]
Lawrence Jenkins - 17 Dec 2006 09:38 GMT
> >From the moon the earth occupies something in the region of 2 degrees
> of the sky.
[quoted text clipped - 90 lines]
> cylinder containing it is rotated. How much less will the force of air
> effect it?]

and ?
Dentist - 17 Dec 2006 10:28 GMT
Lawrence Jenkins wrote;
>and ?

surely that's enough?
Signature

Denis

Neil - 17 Dec 2006 20:57 GMT
>> >From the moon the earth occupies something in the region of 2 degrees
>> of the sky.
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
>
> and ?

Once again, Lawrence makes me chuckle! ;-)
TeaTime - 17 Dec 2006 18:33 GMT
Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those phenomena
attributable to the Coriolis effect?  Wikipedia has some basic history of
the facts and myths about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
In essence, the planet's rotation sets up this directional acceleration
effect, which is also thought responsible in part for the complex currents
in the Earth's core which give rise to the drifting magnetic poles (and the
occasional reversals thereof).
Weatherlawyer - 17 Dec 2006 21:44 GMT
> Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those phenomena
> attributable to the Coriolis effect?  Wikipedia has some basic history of
> the facts and myths about it at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

No.

Nice try though. Baaack to the flock with you.
TeaTime - 17 Dec 2006 23:47 GMT
>> Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those
>> phenomena
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Nice try though. Baaack to the flock with you.

I'll just stick with these other sheep then:

http://earth.usc.edu/~slund/systems/topic4.html
http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/variability/sfcocean.html
Weatherlawyer - 18 Dec 2006 04:14 GMT
> I'll just stick with these other sheep then:
>
> http://earth.usc.edu/~slund/systems/topic4.html
> http://earth.usc.edu/~geol150/variability/sfcocean.html

There is nothing wrong with being ovine. Jesus rates them very highly
indeed.

However just because you are of the grazing persuasion, it doesn't
follow that you are not lost. Nor does it follow that the shepherds you
look up to know what they are doing or where they are going.

Good luck to you.

Fool.
Robb C. Overfield - 18 Dec 2006 08:51 GMT
On a tatty piece of sub-ether Weatherlawyer at Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com
said...

> > I'll just stick with these other sheep then:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Fool.

Sounds like you're a tutor, mate. Who did you learn it off, Corbyn?  
<spit>

Signature

Rob C. Overfield
Hull

Weatherlawyer - 21 Dec 2006 01:24 GMT
> On a tatty piece of sub-ether Weatherlawyer at Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com
> said...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Sounds like you're a tutor, mate. Who did you learn it off, Corbyn?
> <spit>

Fancy replying to one of such low esteem.

I am not here to tute. The ones passing-by now, may one day be the
people whose shoe laces I am not worthy to untie.

I am a voice shouting in the wilderness that is just too chock full of
testosterone to cry.

And all that  am saying is: Get you effing fingers out, you spastics!

(Or words to that effect.)
Until then I shall have to make do with what god gives me. (Nice though
it is, it isn't the same.)

PS.

I'm not your mate.
Michael Mcneil - 10 Jan 2007 07:16 GMT
> Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those phenomena
> attributable to the Coriolis effect?

In other words the spin of the earth is moving all the things loose on
it?

It is attributed to it but only because the platitude is the only
suggestion that tickles the ears best. It's not verifiable and the
northern cyclones run the wrong way for that explanation (or is it the
other way around.)

> In essence, the planet's rotation sets up this directional acceleration
> effect, which is also thought responsible in part for the complex currents
> in the Earth's core which give rise to the drifting magnetic poles (and the
> occasional reversals thereof).

> > The ocean flow in the N Atlantic basin is some 30 million cubic metres
> > of water per second through the straights of Florida and 80 million
> > past Cape Hatteras. (According to the 1998 Encyclopedia Britannica.)

If Coriolis' "force" can do that then it must have the force to do it to
aircraft of insects or both?

And it should be noticeable to fairly mobile objects on the surface
-such
as us. Shouldn't it?
Sjouke Burry - 10 Jan 2007 22:44 GMT
>> Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those phenomena
>> attributable to the Coriolis effect?
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> -such
> as us. Shouldn't it?

In the dim past we calculated the effect on a
steamloc going fullspeed north in Norway.
The coriolis force on that loc was about 100Kg
(or about 1000 Newton).
So thats very small for such a heavy loc.
Weatherlawyer - 11 Jan 2007 05:22 GMT
> >> Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those phenomena
> >> attributable to the Coriolis effect?
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> (or about 1000 Newton).
> So thats very small for such a heavy loc.

What is a steam loc?

It seems to me that you can balance a bottle on its head just as easily
on the equator as you can in the poles, given a stable platform.

And that there is no apparent difference in the ease of it for any
location and it doesn't make any difference how large the bottle is.

Am I being extra specially thick today or am I correct?

I am not saying that there isn't an effect  and the one known as the
Coriolis effect doesn't exist, just that it aught to be called
chirality the same way that all the other exhibitions of the effect are
called chirality.

But I have an hangover and can't think of any other examples at the
moment so help yourself to a search.

I have read too that this effect is not reckoned to be a force but I
can't get my head around how it manages to shift major currents like
the surface wave called the gulf stream. Not only that but add to it
from time to time with the elemental forces of tempests.

Abracadabra.
Sjouke Burry - 11 Jan 2007 06:17 GMT
>>>> Forgive me for sticking my two-pennorth in, but aren't all those phenomena
>>>> attributable to the Coriolis effect?
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Am I being extra specially thick today or am I correct?
The loc is short for the thing pulling a train.
The coriolis force only shows when you are moving north/south,
so that the effective distance to the earth rotation axis
changes, moving east/west produces no force.
So several tons moving north at about 100 km/hour gave ~1000
newton force .
(The teacher might have been off a bit in his example).
Mike Tullett - 11 Jan 2007 07:24 GMT
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:17:02 +0100, Sjouke Burry wrote in
<news:45a5d65d$0$2019$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>

> The coriolis force only shows when you are moving north/south,
> so that the effective distance to the earth rotation axis
> changes, moving east/west produces no force.

Sadly, that is incorrect.  It may be easier to understand the north/south
movement, but the coriolis force acts when an object moves in any
direction.  It is a function of latitude and velocity as well as the mass
of moving object.  The coriolis acceleration is given by 2x Omega x V x sin
phi
Where Omega is angular velocity of the earth
phi is latitude
V is velocity of moving object

Signature

Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W  posted 11/01/2007 07:24:20  GMT

Fleetie - 11 Jan 2007 19:12 GMT
> I am not saying that there isn't an effect  and the one known as the
> Coriolis effect doesn't exist, just that it aught to be called
> chirality the same way that all the other exhibitions of the effect are
> called chirality.

From what I have read - and I am NOT knowledgeable in this - chirality
is not the same as spinning or spinning forces.

Chirality has to do with left- or right-handed things - like screw threads
and isomers of certain chiral molecules - like sucrose, for example.

If you wanna know more, I refer you to a poster on sci.physics, who goes
by the name of "Uncle Al", Dr. Alan M. Schwartz. He is practically
obsessed with the subject and frequently held forth on it when I used
to read that group*. He's an "organiker" (an organic chemist) and he
_really_ knows his stuff.

Martin

* Last about 3 or 4 years ago, before the SNR (from kooks) got just so poor
that I could stand it no longer
Signature

M.A.Poyser                                                  Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K.          http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

Weatherlawyer - 11 Jan 2007 20:21 GMT
> > I am not saying that there isn't an effect  and the one known as the
> > Coriolis effect doesn't exist, just that it aught to be called
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Chirality has to do with left- or right-handed things - like screw threads
> and isomers of certain chiral molecules - like sucrose, for example.

And it's just a coincidence that all creation except the oceans exhibit
this effect IN THE SAME HAND.

> If you want to know more, I refer you to a poster on sci.physics, who goes
> by the name of "Uncle Al", Dr. Alan M. Schwartz. He is practically
> obsessed with the subject and frequently held forth on it when I used
> to read that group*. He's an "organiker" (an organic chemist) and he
> _really_ knows his stuff.

He's a prick and a racist and really knows how to tell people to
Google; he is not interested in anything remotely resembling a
discussion. The purpose of Usenet is discussion.

When he can get his head around that idea, you will know he has been
able to remove it from his arse. (And the swelling will have gone down,
somewhat.)

With all due respect to Mike Tullet, IIRC the Encyclopaedia Britannica
avers the effect is not a force.

And a steam loc is a locomotive -or loco for short; they weigh
something in the region of 200 tons depending on the type. (With a full
load they can weigh a lot more of course. And are then known as trains.)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.