Energy & Enstrophy Cascades in the Atmosphere

Download Report

Transcript 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.

 At synoptic and sub-synoptic scales, the energy spectrum exhibits k^(-3) power law behaviour, consistent with an enstrophy cascade.

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.

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.

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).

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?

QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D?

 2D Turbulence  Energy and Enstrophy conserved  No vortex stretching

QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D?

 2D Turbulence  Energy and Enstrophy conserved  No vortex stretching  3D Turbulence  Enstrophy not conserved  Vortex stretching present

QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D?

 Quasi-Geostrophic Turbulence  Energy & Enstrophy conserved (like 2D)  Vortex stretching present (like 3D)

QG Turbulence: 2D or 3D?

 The prevailing view had been that QG turbulence is more like 2D turbulence.

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.

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

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.

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)

2D Turbulence  Standard 2D turbulence theory predicts:

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

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)

2D Turbulence  Inverse Energy Cascade  Forward Enstrophy Cascade

E

(

k

)   2 3

k

 5 3

E

(

k

)   2 3

k

 3 

The Nastrom & Gage Spectrum

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.

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

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

 Velocity and Temperature spectra have the same nearly universal shape.

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.

Observed Power-Law Behaviour  Two robust power laws were evident:

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.

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.

The N & G Spectrum (again)

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

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

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)

Larsen’s Suggested Spectrum

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

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.

The Spectral Kink  Tung and Orlando reproduced the N&G spectrum using QG dynamics alone. (They employed  20 sub-grid diffusion.)  The NMM model also reproduces the 

when

. (Janjic, EGU 2006)

 An Additive Spectrum?

 Charney (1973) noted the possibility of an additive spectrum.

E

(

k

) 

Ak

 3 

Bk

 5 3  Tung & Gkioulekas (2005) proposed a similar form.

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Inverse Enstrophy Cascade?

 It is likely that a small portion of the enstrophy inversely cascades from synoptic to planetary scales.

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.

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.

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

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)

E(n)

n = spherical harmonic order

Energy spectrum in T799 run

k

 3

k

 3

k

 5 / 3

k

 5 / 3 missing energy log 10 (

n

)

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

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

 His modifications allow for a substantially higher amount of energy at smaller scales.

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

 His modifications allow for a substantially higher amount of energy at smaller scales.

 The backscatter approach does produce the spectral kink at the mesoscales.

E(n)

n = spherical harmonic order

Energy spectrum in T799 run

k

 3

k

 3

k

 5 / 3

k

 5 / 3 missing energy log 10 (

n

)

Energy spectrum in ECMWF forecast model with backscatter T799

k

 3

k

 3 E(n)

k

 5 / 3 log 10 (

n

)

Outstanding Issues and Conclusions  Intermittency  Direction of (-5/3) short-wave energy cascade?

 Dependent on convective activity

Outstanding Issues and Conclusions  Intermittency  Direction of (-5/3) short-wave energy cascade?

 Dependent on convective activity  Geographic Variability  Strong convective activity  Little data collated in tropical areas

Outstanding Issues and Conclusions  We believe that both Energy and Enstrophy flow in both directions.

Outstanding Issues and Conclusions  We believe that both Energy and Enstrophy flow in both directions.

 In an unbounded system, a “W-spectrum” may arise.

Outstanding Issues and Conclusions  We believe that both Energy and Enstrophy flow in both directions.

 In an unbounded system, a “W-spectrum” may arise.

 Enstrophy and Energy cascades exerting spectral dominance alternately.

 Outstanding Issues and Conclusions  The validity of an additive spectrum

E

(

k

) 

Ak

 3 

Bk

 5 3 needs to be justified.