WINDS, was Hot air rising and automobile thermometers

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

A crate is "driven" along the floor by me. The net force is
zero because I am pushing just enough to balance kinetic
friction. It is a steady (equilibrium) situation as long as ...

The same is true for me pushing or pulling a boat. What is
wrong with applying the same kind of thinking to a parcel
of air? Is it true that the term "driven" should be used only
as a reference to the net force? Yes, I am seeking "to obey
Newton's first law of motion" in pushing a boat.

Leigh Palmer wrote:

> It should be recognized by physics teachers that winds, to first order,
> are not "driven" by anything. If a net force were present then a steady
> wind would be impossible; the wind velocity would vary in time. The air
> in a wind simply *seeks* to obey Newton's first law of motion. It moves
> with a velocity such that the net force acting is zero!
>
> The language being used here suggests that my earlier note about the
> equilibrium state went unnoticed by some. Physics teachers are making
> the classic student error of inferring the existence of a net force
> by observing the velocity of a body rather than from its acceleration.
>
> Think about it - again.