why is the atmosphere so predictable?
Post on 14-Jan-2016
28 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 1
Why is the atmosphere so predictable?
M.J.P.Cullen
22 November 2007
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 2
Introduction
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 3
Large scale flow
Aim is to predict the atmosphere as depicted on a weather chart as seen in the media, not to predict all the detail. We see ‘weather systems’, with fronts and jet streams.
Evolution is unsteady and non-periodic.
Qualitatively, the weather map looks much the same from day to day (at a given season).
Weather systems are qualitatively different in the tropics.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 4
Typical satellite picture
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 5
Corresponding weather map
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 6
Governing equations
On all relevant scales, the atmosphere is governed by the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, the laws of thermodynamics, phase changes and source terms.
The solutions of these equations are very complicated, reflecting the complex nature of observed flows.
The accurate solution of these equations would require computers 1030 times faster than now available.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 7
Weather forecasting
The fact that numerical weather prediction is possible, and quite successful, implies that the evolution is largely controlled by large-scale dynamics. Thus the ‘butterfly’ effect must be limited.
Identify this large-scale control by choosing system of equations which only describes large scales. Prove that this system can be solved independently-so that no knowledge of small scales is required. Estimate the difference between this solution and that of the real problem.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 8
Large-scale balances
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 9
Large-scale flows-hydrostatic balance
Because the atmosphere is thin, flows on large horizontal scales have a small aspect ratio.
The rest state of the atmosphere is described by a balance of forces between gravity and a radial basic state pressure gradient
The balance of forces determining atmospheric motion involves the perturbation to this balance due to horizontal density variations:
where ρ´,p´ are the density and pressure perturbations.
0
g
r
p
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 10
Large-scale flows-geostrophic balance
Large-scale flow is also dominated by the Earth’s rotation.
The key balance of forces is expressed as
where Ω is the Earth’s angular velocity vector and p is the pressure.
The flow is also within the ‘thin’ atmospheric shell and so is nearly horizontal.
These requirements are contradictory for northward flow at the equator.
u 2p
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 11
Illustration
Shows the direction of the ‘geostrophic’ wind, and its projection in a horizontal direction.
Ω
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 12
Lagrangian and Eulerian dynamics
Descriptive theory of large-scale meteorology has usually been in the Lagrangian frame.
Thus we speak of ‘air masses’ with long-lived characteristics (temperature and moisture).
Illustration follows of Lagrangian and Eulerian phenomena (forced by hills) coexisting in the atmosphere.
Consider stability of geostrophic and hydrostatic states to Lagrangian displacements of the fluid-ignoring consequential pressure perturbations.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 13
Lagrangian and Eulerian dynamics
Animation removed
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 14
Static stability
A state of rest in hydrostatic balance is stable if the density decreases with height.
In the compressible atmosphere, this is expressed by the ‘potential temperature’ increasing with height.
In terms of potential temperature perturbations, hydrostatic balance becomes
where Π´ is a function of p´ and θ´ is the potential temperature perturbation.
0
g
rC p
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 15
Static stability II
Stability requires θ´ to increase with r, so that ∂Π´/∂r increases with r, so that Π´ is a convex function of r.
If this condition is satisfied, a displaced parcel with fixed θ´ will feel a restoring pressure force, assuming the pressure is not changed.
If a large-scale flow is statically unstable, it will self-destruct, ceasing to be large-scale.
When moisture is included, spontaneous large-scale violations of static stability can be generated, leading to thunderstorms.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 16
An unstable state
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 17
Inertial stability
The stability of a geostrophic state has to be considered in an inertial frame.
The defining equation in the plane normal to the rotation axis is then
The condition that a displaced parcel with fixed momentum will feel a restoring pressure force is that P is a convex function of (x,y).
X=x+v/2Ω, Y=y-u/2Ω have to be increasing functions of (x,y) respectively.
)(24
)2,2(242222
2
yxpP
yuxvP
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 18
Inertial stability II
For straight flow, condition is that the absolute geostrophic vorticity multiplied by 2Ω is positive (different condition for axisymmetric flow).
This is a condition on the pressure field.
Allows depressions to be small-scale and intense, but not anticyclones.
Pressure gradients have to decrease towards the equator.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 19
Example of stable state.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 20
Scale separation
The natural time-scale associated with large-scale flow is the frequency about which the fluid would oscillate about a stable equilibrium.
A scale separation can be achieved by assuming that the Lagrangian time-scale of the flow is greater than that associated with any such oscillation.
This requires it to be greater than (2Ω)-1 and also N-1, where N is the buoyancy frequency associated with the static stability condition.
The condition involving Ω is usually more stringent.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 21
Mathematical procedure
Define asymptotic regime of interest by assuming Lagrangian timescale greater than that associated with the Earth’s rotation.
This requires the rate of change of wind direction following a fluid trajectory to be
Ro /2Ω where Ro<<1. Ro is the Rossby number. This corresponds to a 12 hour period at the poles and 24 hour period at 30° latitude.
Ro =0.1 means trajectory changes direction by more than 45° in 24 hours at 60° latitude.
Illustrate with actual example in active spell of weather, most trajectories curve less than this (allow for Mercator projection).
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 22
Example of ‘real’ trajectories
Met Office global model back trajectories for 11 January 2005, 4 day period, marked every 12 hr.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 23
Solution procedure
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 24
Construction of equations
First identify a stable state in geostrophic and hydrostatic balance as an energy minimising state with respect to Lagrangian displacements conserving mass, momentum and potential temperature.
Prove that such a state exists for a given specification of momentum and potential temperature.
Formulate and solve the evolution equations for such states.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 25
Geostrophic and hydrostatic balance
Write equations for compressible atmosphere in Cartesian coordinates with uniform rotation Ω:
Hydrostatic balance
Geostrophic balance
0
gz
C p
uy
Cvx
C pp
2,2
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 26
Energy integral
The energy conserved by the compressible Euler equations in this geometry is
21d
2 vC gz u x
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 27
New variables
Define (as in definition of inertial stability)
The energy becomes
The conditions for geostrophic and hydrostatic balance become
/ 2 , / 2 ,X x v Y y u Z
2 21 1d
2 2 vE x X y Y C Z gz x
24 , ,0 0,0, 0pX x y Y C Z g
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 28
Energy principle
Follow Cullen and Feldman (2006). Define Lagrangian map F(t,x) as position at time t of particle initially at x and Lagrangian variable Z by
Define virtual displacement by
Can show energy is stationary with respect to these displacements if geostrophic and hydrostatic conditions satisfied
xxx
xxZ
,,0#,
),0(,,
F
ZF
)),(),,(),,(()),(,( xxxxZ tZtYtXtFt
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 29
Energy minimisation
Can also show that if the energy is minimised, the static and inertial stability conditions are satisfied.
Existence of a minimiser can be proved by mass transportation methods: Cullen and Maroofi (2003) following Brenier (1991) and Cullen and Gangbo (2001).
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 30
Evolution equations
The evolution of the minimum energy states can be described by the semi-geostrophic equations. In physical space these are
1
0
,,0#,
0
,2,,0
0,2,,
p
p
Rp
ttF
D
uvyx
Cgz
C
uvyx
CvuD
t
ggpp
pggt
xxx
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 31
Relation to full equations
Standard a priori estimates are that the difference between SG and the compressible Euler equations is of order Ro(aspect ratio)².
Since Ro is defined in a Lagrangian sense, discontinuities in physical space are permitted, such as weather fronts.
Steeply sloping fronts, which are unstable to 3d disturbances, are not well described. Shallow sloping fronts are well-described.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 32
Shallow water example
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 33
Example using shallow water equations
Applicability of SG model can be demonstrated using shallow water equations.
h is depth of water with mean value H.
0
2
2
uht
h
uy
hg
Dt
Dv
vx
hg
Dt
Du
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 34
Experimental strategy
In shallow water flow there are two small parameters available.
Large rotation, 2Ω, leads to geostrophic balance. Large mean depth, H, leads to non-divergence. Define Ro=U/fL, Fr=U/√gH. L is a length scale.
Consider fixed Ro. Allow Fr to vary by changing mean depth.
Shallow water solutions converge to 2d Euler at rate Fr².
Shallow water solutions converge to SG at rate Ro(Ro/Fr)² for Ro<Fr.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 35
Demonstration
Data with typical max wind speed 15ms-1.
Mean depth chosen to give gravity wave speed 65ms-1 to 360ms-1. (Observed 500hpa evolution best matched using speed 140ms-1.)
Gives Ro~0.1, Fr~0.05-0.3.
Shallow water version of Met Office UM. SG and 2d Euler codes as similar as possible.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 36
Data for test
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 37
Differences in depth
UM-SG differences UM-2d Euler differences
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 38
Differences in winds
UM-SG differences UM-2d Euler differences
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 39
Comments
SG results for geostrophic variables show linear convergence in Ro/Fr, Ro/Fr not small enough to give quadratic convergence.
Corresponds to condition on aspect ratio in 3d flow. Ro/Fr=(H/L)(2Ω/N).
2d Euler shows expected convergence in winds, depth asymptotes to non-zero difference.
SG differences from UM much smaller than 2d Euler differences from UM.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 40
Evolution of SG equations
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 41
Lagrangian form of SG equations
Defining Z as before, the Lagrangian form of the semi-geostrophic equations is
000
001
010
,,0#,
,,,2(,,,2),(
2,2,11
J
ttF
tFtuytFtvxxtZ
JZtFtZ
gg
tt
xxx
xx
xx
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 42
Transport equation
These equations can be written as an evolution equation for the mass density σ in Σ:
This is a transport equation. The velocity U is BV because of the ‘convexity’ properties. It is therefore well-posed (Ambrosio (2004)).
The trajectory in Σ can then be mapped back to physical space giving weak existence of the Lagrangian form of the equations: Cullen and Feldman (2006).
0
2 , ,0t
y Y X x
U
U
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 43
Consequences
This argument proves existence of weak solutions to a Lagrangian form of the equations.
The solutions are thus insensitive to changes on a set of measure zero.
Thus there is no ‘butterfly’ effect, though chaotic evolution is possible if a finite volume of fluid is perturbed.
The trajectories can be traced backwards in time, important for atmospheric composition, transport and pollution issues.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 44
Evolutionary properties of the equations
Semi-geostrophic dynamics strongly constrained by ‘convexity’ property (e.g. inertial stability). Shows by greatly reduced growth of PV gradients in solutions of shallow water model.
Thus in real system: for Ro<<Fr we get stable long-lived disturbances (like semi-geostrophic dynamics)
For Ro>>Fr we get layered two-dimensional vortex dynamics. Vertical scale collapse and upscale horizontal cascade bring Ro/Fr back to O(1)
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 45
Growth of PV gradients for Ro>>Fr
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 46
Growth of PV gradients for Ro<<Fr
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 47
Spherical geometry
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 48
Solution in spherical geometry
The clash between the direction of the geostrophic wind and the vertical reduces the symmetry of the problem.
The factor 2Ω becomes f=2Ωsinφ where φ is the latitude.
The problem cannot be formulated as a mass transport problem and transport equation without further approximations.
Illustrate (formal) method of solution without further approximations.
Use Cartesian geometry with variable f for ease of presentation.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 49
Lagrangian variations
Define
Minimise energy with respect to Lagrangian displacement satisfying
)),,(,()),,(,(),( 11 xxxZ tFtuftFtvft gg
xxx
K
xxKxZxZ
,,0#,
000
010
001
,),0(,,
F
FfF
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 50
Energy principle
Can show E is stationary with respect to these displacements if
For E to be minimised requires at least θ increasing with z and
pgg Cgfufv ,,
2 20, 0g gv uf f f f
x y
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 51
Formal proof
Can show formally that E can be minimised by using an explicit descent algorithm.
The resulting p satisfies a ‘convexity’ property.
Can also show formally that the equations can be solved by timestepping
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 52
Summary
Demonstrated that large-scale equations governing atmospheric motions can be solved independently.
Solutions are weak Lagrangian solutions, allowing discontinuities between air masses.
Solutions are insensitive to very small-scale perturbations-no butterflies.
Fluid trajectories can be traced back in time, important for many applications.
© Crown copyright 2007 Page 53
Questions and answers
top related