The discussion centers on the behavior of hurricanes and their tendency to turn northward away from the Equator. Participants explore various explanations for this phenomenon, including the roles of the Coriolis effect and atmospheric dynamics. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and speculative ideas regarding the mechanics of hurricane movement.
Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the explanations for why hurricanes turn northward. Multiple competing hypotheses are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the mechanics involved.
Participants acknowledge the complexity of hurricane dynamics, noting that other atmospheric factors may significantly influence hurricane paths beyond the Coriolis effect. There are also references to the limitations of models and assumptions made in the discussion.
I posted the above in reply to one of your posts, so obviously I know that hurricanes are big, and not points.physicsponderer said:It seems you are right. It was much nearer than I thought possible, only about 200 km from the Equator. And if it was (hypothetically) 500 km in radius, then in a sense it touched or even crossed it, perhaps. But the diagram showed only the path of its centre or centre of mass or something.
The centre would seem to be about two degrees north of the Equator. What is making the wind spiral inwards I wonder? That is a very interesting picture. I thought that wasn't supposed to be possible. I guess by chance there was enough anticlockwise angular momentum locally so the Coriolis effect was not needed.Vanadium 50 said:You seem to think a Hurricane is a point object. They are big. When they (rarely) form near the equator, they influence the weather on both sides. You can't just talk about the eye, because many storms don't have a well-formed or visible eye.
Here's Wikipedia's picture of Cyclone Agni. Can you spot the eye? And isn'tg it pretty clearly in both hemispheres?
View attachment 274678
physicsponderer said:This is very interesting. It seems to be very authoritative.
physicsponderer said:obviously I know that hurricanes are big, and not points
Where did I try to do that?PeterDonis said:Maybe you know it, but you don't seem to be thinking very carefully about its implications. To name just one: since the direction of airflow (wind) varies from one place in the hurricane to another, whatever Coriolis effect exists on the airflow will vary from one place in the hurricane to another as well. So considering the hurricane to be a single object with a single Coriolis effect applied to it is obviously wrong. Yet that is what you are trying to do.
physicsponderer said:Where did I try to do that?
Well, it has a centre of mass, right?PeterDonis said:Pretty much everything you have posted in this thread, starting from the very thread title, has an underlying assumption that the hurricane is a single object with a single Coriolis force applied to it.
physicsponderer said:it has a centre of mass, right?
A swarm of bees has a centre of mass too, but it's entirely useless for determining anything about how bee swarms move.physicsponderer said:Well, it has a centre of mass, right?