@Article{MakarievaGoNeShNoLi:2017:QuGlAt,
author = "Makarieva, Anastassia M. and Gorshkov, Victor G. and Nefiodov,
Andrei V. and Sheil, Douglas and Nobre, Antonio Donato and Li,
Bai-Lian",
affiliation = "{Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute} and {Petersburg Nuclear
Physics Institute} and {Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute} and
{Norwegian University of Life Sciences} and {Instituto Nacional de
Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)} and {University of California}",
title = "Quantifying the global atmospheric power budget",
journal = "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion",
year = "2017",
volume = "17",
pages = "1--52",
abstract = "The power of atmospheric circulation is a key measure of the
Earths climate system. The mismatch between predictions and
observations under a warming climate calls for a reassessment of
how atmospheric power W is defined, estimated and constrained.
Here we review published formulations for W and show how they
differ when applied to a moist atmosphere. Three factors, a
non-zero source/sink in the continuity equation, the difference
between velocities of gaseous air and condensate, and interaction
between the gas and condensate modifying the equations of motion,
affect the formulation of W. Starting from the thermodynamic
definition of mechanical work, we derive an expression for W from
an explicit consideration of the equations of motion and
continuity. Our analyses clarify how some past formulations are
incomplete or invalid. Three caveats are identified. First, W
critically depends on the boundary condition for gaseous air
velocity at the Earths surface. Second, confusion between gaseous
air velocity and mean velocity of air and condensate in the
expression for W results in gross errors despite the observed
magnitudes of these velocities are very close. Third, W expressed
in terms of measurable atmospheric parameters, air pressure and
velocity, is scale-specific; this must be taken into account when
adding contributions to W from different processes. We further
present a formulation of the atmospheric power budget, which
distinguishes three components of W: the kinetic power associated
with horizontal pressure gradients (WK), the gravitational power
of precipitation (WP ) and the condensate loading (Wc). This
formulation is valid with an accuracy of the squared ratio of the
vertical to horizontal air velocities. Unlike previous approaches,
it allows evaluation of WP + Wc without knowledge of atmospheric
moisture or precipitation. This formulation also highlights that
WP and Wc are the least certain terms in the power budget as they
depend on vertical velocity; WK depending on horizontal velocity
is more robust. We use MERRA and NCAR/NCEP re-analyses to evaluate
the atmospheric power budget at different scales. Estimates of WK
are found to be consistent across the re-analyses, while estimates
for W and WP drastically differ. We then estimate independent
precipitation-based values of WP and discuss how such estimates
could reduce uncertainties. Our analyses indicate that WK
increases with temporal resolution approaching our theoretical
estimate for condensation-induced circulation when all convective
motion is resolved. Implications of these findings for
constraining global atmospheric power are discussed.",
doi = "10.5194/acp-2017-17",
url = "http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-17",
issn = "1680-7367",
language = "en",
targetfile = "makarieva_quantifying.pdf",
urlaccessdate = "05 maio 2024"
}