1 / 60

Energy & Enstrophy Cascades in the Atmosphere

Energy & Enstrophy Cascades in the Atmosphere. Prof. Peter Lynch Michael Clark University College Dublin Met & Climate Centre. Introduction. A full theoretical understanding of the atmospheric energy spectrum remains elusive.

liam
Download Presentation

Energy & Enstrophy Cascades in the Atmosphere

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Energy & Enstrophy Cascades in the Atmosphere Prof. Peter Lynch Michael Clark University College Dublin Met & Climate Centre

  2. Introduction • A full theoretical understanding of the atmospheric energy spectrum remains elusive. • At synoptic and sub-synoptic scales, the energy spectrum exhibits k^(-3) power law behaviour, consistent with an enstrophy cascade.

  3. Introduction (cont.) • A k^(-5/3) law is evident at the mesoscales (below 600 km). • Attempts using 2D, 3D and Quasi-geostrophic turbulence theory to explain the “spectral kink” at around 600 km have not been wholly satisfactory.

  4. Introduction (cont.) • In this presentation, we will examine observational evidence and review attempts to explain the spectrum theoretically. • We will also consider the reasons why the spectral kink is not found in the ECMWF model.

  5. Quasi-Geostophic Turbulence • The typical aspect ratio of the atmosphere is 100:1 (assuming 1000 km in the horizontal and 10 km in the vertical).

  6. Quasi-Geostophic Turbulence • The typical aspect ratio of the atmosphere is 100:1 (assuming 1000 km in the horizontal and 10 km in the vertical). • Is quasi-geostrophic turbulence more like 2D or 3D turbulence?

  7. QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D? • 2D Turbulence • Energy and Enstrophy conserved • No vortex stretching

  8. QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D? • 2D Turbulence • Energy and Enstrophy conserved • No vortex stretching • 3D Turbulence • Enstrophy not conserved • Vortex stretching present

  9. QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D? • Quasi-Geostrophic Turbulence • Energy & Enstrophy conserved (like 2D) • Vortex stretching present (like 3D)

  10. QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D? • The prevailing view had been that QG turbulence is more like 2D turbulence.

  11. QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D? • The prevailing view had been that QG turbulence is more like 2D turbulence. • The mathematical similarity of 2D and QG flows prompted Charney (1971) to conclude that an energy cascade to small-scales is impossible in QG turbulence.

  12. Some Early Results • Fjørtoft (1953) – In 2D flows, if energy is injected at an intermediate scale, more energy flows to larger scales.

  13. Some Early Results • Fjørtoft (1953) – In 2D flows, if energy is injected at an intermediate scale, more energy flows to larger scales. • Charney (1971) used Fjørtoft’s proofs to derive the conservation laws for QG turbulence.

  14. Some Early Results • Fjørtoft (1953) – In 2D flows, if energy is injected at an intermediate scale, more energy flows to larger scales. • Charney (1971) used Fjørtoft’s proofs to derive the conservation laws for QG turbulence. • The proof used is really just a convergence requirement for a spectral representation of enstrophy. (Tung & Orlando, 2003)

  15. 2D Turbulence • Standard 2D turbulence theory predicts:

  16. 2D Turbulence • Standard 2D turbulence theory predicts: • Inverse energy cascade from the point of energy injection (spectral slope –5/3)

  17. 2D Turbulence • Standard 2D turbulence theory predicts: • Inverse energy cascade from the point of energy injection (spectral slope –5/3) • Downscale enstrophy cascade to smaller scales (spectral slope –3)

  18. 2D Turbulence • Inverse Energy Cascade • Forward Enstrophy Cascade

  19. The Nastrom & Gage Spectrum

  20. Observational Evidence • The primary source of observational evidence of the atmospheric spectrum remains (over 20 years later!) the study undertaken by Nastrom and Gage (1985) • They examined data collated by nearly 7,000 commercial flights between 1975 and 1979. • 80% of the data was taken between 30º and 55ºN.

  21. Observational Evidence • No evidence of a broad mesoscale “energy gap”.

  22. Observational Evidence • No evidence of a broad mesoscale “energy gap”. • Velocity and Temperature spectra have the same nearly universal shape.

  23. Observational Evidence • No evidence of a broad mesoscale “energy gap”. • Velocity and Temperature spectra have the same nearly universal shape. • Little seasonal or latitudinal variation.

  24. Observed Power-Law Behaviour • Two robust power laws were evident:

  25. Observed Power-Law Behaviour • Two robust power laws were evident: • The spectrum has slope close to –(5/3) for the range of scales up to 600 km.

  26. Observed Power-Law Behaviour • Two robust power laws were evident: • The spectrum has slope close to –(5/3) for the range of scales up to 600 km. • At larger scales, the spectrum steepens considerably to a slope close to –3.

  27. The N & G Spectrum (again)

  28. The Spectral “Kink” • The observational evidence outlined above showed a kink at around 600 km

  29. The Spectral “Kink” • The observational evidence outlined above showed a kink at around 600 km • Surely too large for isotropic 3D effects?

  30. The Spectral “Kink” • The observational evidence outlined above showed a kink at around 600 km • Surely too large for isotropic 3D effects? • Nastrom & Gage (1986) suggested the shortwave –5/3 slope could be explained by another inverse energy cascade from storm scales. (after Larsen, 1982)

  31. Larsen’s Suggested Spectrum

  32. The Spectral “Kink” (cont.) • Lindborg & Cho (2001), however, could find no support for an inverse energy cascade at the mesoscales.

  33. The Spectral “Kink” (cont.) • Lindborg & Cho (2001), however, could find no support for an inverse energy cascade at the mesoscales. • Tung and Orlando (2002) suggested that the shortwave k^(-5/3) behaviour was due to a small downscale energy cascade from the synoptic scales.

  34. The Spectral Kink • Tung and Orlando reproduced the N&G spectrum using QG dynamics alone. (They employed sub-grid diffusion.) • The NMM model also reproduces the spectral kink at the mesoscales when physics is included. (Janjic, EGU 2006)

  35. An Additive Spectrum? • Charney (1973) noted the possibility of an additive spectrum. • Tung & Gkioulekas (2005) proposed a similar form.

  36. Current View of Spectrum • Energy is injected at scales associated with baroclinic instability.

  37. Current View of Spectrum • Energy is injected at scales associated with baroclinic instability. • Most injected energy inversely cascades to larger scales. (-5/3 spectral slope)

  38. Current View of Spectrum • Energy is injected at scales associated with baroclinic instability. • Most injected energy inversely cascades to larger scales. (-5/3 spectral slope) • Large-scale energy may be dissipated by Ekman damping.

  39. Current Picture (cont.) • It is likely that a small portion of the injected energy cascades to smaller scales.

  40. Current Picture (cont.) • It is likely that a small portion of the injected energy cascades to smaller scales. • At synoptic scales, the downscale energy cascade is spectrally dominated by the k^(-3) enstrophy cascade.

  41. Current Picture (cont.) • Below about 600 km, the downscale energy cascade begins to dominate the energy spectrum.

  42. Current Picture (cont.) • Below about 600 km, the downscale energy cascade begins to dominate the energy spectrum. • The k^(-5/3) slope is evident at scales smaller than this.

  43. Current Picture (cont.) • Below about 600 km, the downscale energy cascade begins to dominate the energy spectrum. • The k^(-5/3) slope is evident at scales smaller than this. • The k^(-5/3) slope is probably augmented by an inverse energy cascade from storm scales.

  44. Inverse Enstrophy Cascade? • It is likely that a small portion of the enstrophy inversely cascades from synoptic to planetary scales.

  45. Inverse Enstrophy Cascade? • It is likely that a small portion of the enstrophy inversely cascades from synoptic to planetary scales. • We are unlikely, however, to find evidence of large-scale k^(-3) behaviour.

  46. Inverse Enstrophy Cascade? • It is likely that a small portion of the enstrophy inversely cascades from synoptic to planetary scales. • We are unlikely, however, to find evidence of large-scale k^(-3) behaviour. • The Earth’s circumference dictates the size of the largest scale.

  47. ECMWF Model Output • The k^(-5/3) “kink” at mesoscales is not evident in the ECMWF model output.

  48. ECMWF Model Output • The k^(-5/3) “kink” at mesoscales is not evident in the ECMWF model output. • Excessive damping of energy is likely to be the cause. • (Thanks to Tim Palmer of ECMWF for the following figures)

  49. Energy spectrum in T799 run E(n) n = spherical harmonic order missing energy

  50. ECMWF Model Output • Shutts (2005) proposed a stochastic energy backscattering approach to compensate for the overdamping.

More Related