American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

May  2003, 3(2): 145-162. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2003.3.145

On the differences between 2D and QG turbulence

 1 University of Washington, Department of Applied Mathematics, Box 352420, Seattle, WA 98195-2420, United States 2 Northwest Research Associates, Inc., Colorado Research Associates Div., 3380 Mitchell Lane, Boulder, Colorado 80301, United States

Received  October 2002 Revised  December 2002 Published  February 2003

Due to their mathematical tractability, two-dimensional (2D) fluid equations are often used by mathematicians as a model for quasi-geostrophic (QG) turbulence in the atmosphere, using Charney's 1971 paper as justification. Superficially, 2D and QG turbulence both satisfy the twin conservation of energy and enstrophy and thus are unlike 3D flows, which do not conserve enstrophy. Yet QG turbulence differs from 2D turbulence in fundamental ways, which are not generally known. Here we discuss ingredients missing in 2D turbulence formulations of large-scale atmospheric turbulence. We argue that there is no proof that energy cannot cascade downscale in QG turbulence. Indeed, observational evidence supports a downscale flux of both energy and enstrophy in the mesoscales. It is suggested that the observed atmospheric energy spectrum is explainable if there is a downscale energy cascade of QG turbulence, but is inconsistent with 2D turbulence theories, which require an upscale energy flux. A simple solved example is used to illustrate some of the ideas discussed.
Citation: Ka Kit Tung, Wendell Welch Orlando. On the differences between 2D and QG turbulence. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2003, 3 (2) : 145-162. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2003.3.145
 [1] S. Danilov. Non-universal features of forced 2D turbulence in the energy and enstrophy ranges. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2005, 5 (1) : 67-78. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2005.5.67 [2] Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Ka Kit Tung. On the double cascades of energy and enstrophy in two dimensional turbulence. Part 2. Approach to the KLB limit and interpretation of experimental evidence. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2005, 5 (1) : 103-124. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2005.5.103 [3] Patrick Fischer, Charles-Henri Bruneau, Hamid Kellay. Multiresolution analysis for 2D turbulence. part 2: A physical interpretation. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2007, 7 (4) : 717-734. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2007.7.717 [4] Patrick Fischer. Multiresolution analysis for 2D turbulence. Part 1: Wavelets vs cosine packets, a comparative study. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2005, 5 (3) : 659-686. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2005.5.659 [5] Nusret Balci, Ciprian Foias, M. S Jolly, Ricardo Rosa. On universal relations in 2-D turbulence. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2010, 27 (4) : 1327-1351. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.27.1327 [6] Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Ka Kit Tung. On the double cascades of energy and enstrophy in two dimensional turbulence. Part 1. Theoretical formulation. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2005, 5 (1) : 79-102. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2005.5.79 [7] Leonardo Kosloff, Tomas Schonbek. Existence and decay of solutions of the 2D QG equation in the presence of an obstacle. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2014, 7 (5) : 1025-1043. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2014.7.1025 [8] Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Ka Kit Tung. Is the subdominant part of the energy spectrum due to downscale energy cascade hidden in quasi-geostrophic turbulence?. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2007, 7 (2) : 293-314. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2007.7.293 [9] François Baccelli, Augustin Chaintreau, Danny De Vleeschauwer, David R. McDonald. HTTP turbulence. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2006, 1 (1) : 1-40. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.1 [10] Eric Falcon. Laboratory experiments on wave turbulence. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2010, 13 (4) : 819-840. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2010.13.819 [11] Tianwen Luo, Tao Tao, Liqun Zhang. Finite energy weak solutions of 2d Boussinesq equations with diffusive temperature. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2020, 40 (6) : 3737-3765. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2019230 [12] Aseel Farhat, M. S Jolly, Evelyn Lunasin. Bounds on energy and enstrophy for the 3D Navier-Stokes-$\alpha$ and Leray-$\alpha$ models. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2014, 13 (5) : 2127-2140. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2014.13.2127 [13] Hugo Beirão da Veiga. Turbulence models, $p-$fluid flows, and $W^{2, L}$ regularity of solutions. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2009, 8 (2) : 769-783. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2009.8.769 [14] Marcel Lesieur. Two-point closure based large-eddy simulations in turbulence. Part 2: Inhomogeneous cases. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2010, 28 (1) : 227-241. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2010.28.227 [15] W. Layton, R. Lewandowski. On a well-posed turbulence model. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (1) : 111-128. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.111 [16] Yifei Lou, Sung Ha Kang, Stefano Soatto, Andrea L. Bertozzi. Video stabilization of atmospheric turbulence distortion. Inverse Problems and Imaging, 2013, 7 (3) : 839-861. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.839 [17] Mimi Dai. Phenomenologies of intermittent Hall MHD turbulence. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2022, 27 (10) : 5535-5560. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021285 [18] Christophe Chalons, Paola Goatin, Nicolas Seguin. General constrained conservation laws. Application to pedestrian flow modeling. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2013, 8 (2) : 433-463. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2013.8.433 [19] Gianluca Crippa, Elizaveta Semenova, Stefano Spirito. Strong continuity for the 2D Euler equations. Kinetic and Related Models, 2015, 8 (4) : 685-689. doi: 10.3934/krm.2015.8.685 [20] Bernd Kawohl, Guido Sweers. On a formula for sets of constant width in 2d. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2019, 18 (4) : 2117-2131. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2019095

2021 Impact Factor: 1.497