1 Background theory
The flux form of the PV equation has been discussed at length in Haynes and
McIntyre (1987), Marshall and Nurser (1992), Rhines (1993), Schar (1993) and
Bretherton and Schar (1993). Here we very briefly outline the approach,
drawing out issues that are particularly pertinent to the ocean.
First let's clarify some issues related to the flux-form of the PV equation.
Following Bretherton and Schar (1993) we can write, making use of the
definition of PV and that
:
|
|
with
.
This shows that one can always write a conservation law in flux form
from the definition of PV. This is true for any scalar field
and
non-divergent vector
. If one adds any non-divergent vector
to
, the flux-form equation will still be satisfied. The problem
is then to set the gauge and this choice has to be made on physical grounds.
Expanding the partial derivative in
, one can write:
Now, using the definition
and some vector identity, one can write:
|
|
Note that the third term above is non-divergent and hence does not contribute to the PV flux-form equation. The problem is then to determine the 'gauge'
such that:
|
|
has physical significance.
is not a satisfying choice because that would imply, as noted by BC, that
in the steady state. Instead, we require that
reduces to the advective flux
in the absence of diabatic and frictional forcings. This choice will uniquely determine
and hence
. Using the previous expression for
,
can be written:
|
|
Now we use the definitions of PV and the thermodynamic and momentum equations:
|
|
In (
8), the density
of the Boussinesq fluid is given by
where
is a constant reference density.
is the geopotential and
is the Bernoulli function written in the Boussinesq approximation:
|
|
In (
9),
is the deviation of the pressure from that of a resting, hydrostatically balanced ocean. Replacing in (
5), we have:
|
|
(omitting the term
). The first three terms on the right hand side cancel leaving:
sets the gauge for
. Replacing in (
4), we find:
|
|
expression written by Schar (1993) in the atmospheric context.
- as noted by Haynes and McIntyre (1987), reveals the `impermeability theorem' in a transparent way - the first
term on the lhs, when projected in the direction normal to the
surface, is equal to
where
is the velocity of
the
surface normal to itself. The remaining terms represent a flux
that is always parallel to the
surface.
- shows that
can be evaluated without explicit reference
to frictional (
) and buoyancy (
) sources, if the rates of change of
and
are known. Of course, as seen above, part of this result originates from the definition of PV. Note however the crucial role played by the 'gauge' term
.
- shows that in the steady state
is the streamfunction for the
vector on
surfaces, a very general result first noted
by Schar (1993) and Bretherton and Schar (1993).
To obtain an expression for
that includes explicitely the frictional and buoyancy sources, we follow the same procedure as above, replacing in (
12) the rates of change of
and
from the thermodynamic and momentum equations but retaining the terms
and
, respectively. We find:
|
|
which is the PV flux written down in Marshall and Nurser (MN, Eqs.1b and 1c), but
modified by the non-advective thermobaric term
. The latter term (neglected in
MN) is zero if
- for example
if we ignore the pressure dependence of
on
. However,
if
, Lagrangian
conservation of PV no longer pertains even in adiabatic, frictionless flow -
see McDougall (1988). But more importantly in the present context, the flux
form of the PV equation can never be compromised.
In the remaining of this paper, unless noted otherwise, we will make use of the form (
12) for
.
File translated from
TEX
by
TTM,
version 3.21.
On 10 Dec 2002, 14:42.