Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2013 / iii / Paper 73 / 4

Use small Rossby number $U/(f_{0}l)\ll 1$, slow evolution on the advective time scale, small interface displacements relative to each layer depth, shallow hydrostatic layers, stable reduced gravity $g^{\prime }>0$, and inviscid unforced flow. On a beta plane, take $\beta l/f_0$ of the same small order as the Rossby number. The internal Burger number is retained at order unity so stratification and relative-vorticity effects can both enter the leading potential-vorticity anomaly.

The rigid-lid pressure in two-layer flow comes from neglecting the free-surface volume displacement in the rigid-lid approximation; it does not permit setting the common horizontal pressure gradient to zero. The small surface displacement multiplied by $g$ retains a finite lid-pressure multiplier. Write $h_1=H_1+\chi$, $h_2=H_2-\chi$, and let $\Pi$ denote this common pressure potential. Leading geostrophic balance giveswith ${\mathbf{u}}_i=(-{\psi }_{iy},{\psi }_{ix})$ at leading order. Literally setting $h_1+h_2$ to a spatial constant in the momentum gradients before taking the rigid-lid limit would suppress the upper-layer pressure field and fail to produce general two-layer QG dynamics.

Taking curl of each shallow-water momentum equation and using layer continuity gives material conservation of $(f+{\zeta }_i)/h_i$. Expanding it to first order and advecting the anomaly by the leading geostrophic velocity yieldsThe two-layer quasi-geostrophic potential vorticity equations areHere the common background $f_0/H_i$ has been removed and the anomaly multiplied by $H_i$. The advection term is retained at the same slow order as the time derivative even though the leading velocity/pressure balance was linear geostrophy. On an $f$ plane simply set $\beta =0$.

Let $d={\psi }_1-{\psi }_2$ and $C=f_0^2/g^{\prime }=H_1{F}_1=H_2{F}_2$. Multiply each two-layer quasi-geostrophic potential vorticity equation by $H_i{\psi }_i$ and sum. The time-derivative terms areThe interface terms combine to $-Cd{d}_t$, since the two layers share the same depth-weighted coupling $H_i{F}_i$. The planetary term $\beta y$ has no time derivative. For the nonlinear terms, ${\nabla }_h\cdot {\mathbf{u}}_i=0$ and ${\mathbf{u}}_i\cdot {\nabla }_h{\psi }_i=0$ implyConsequently the local two-layer quasi-geostrophic energy conservation law isThe flux expression is one convenient form obtained directly from the requested multiplication; divergence-free modifications would represent the same local balance. $E$ is physical energy per horizontal area divided by the common reference density. Multiplying both $E$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_E$ by that density restores the dimensional physical-energy convention.

Integrating the local two-layer quasi-geostrophic energy conservation law over a horizontal domain and using the specified vanishing boundary flux givesPeriodic boundaries, or suitable fixed streamfunction boundary data eliminating the displayed energy flux, provide examples. The gradient terms are the two layer kinetic energies; the last term is available potential energy, equal to $g^{\prime }{\chi }^2/2$ under the interface-displacement relation.

The baroclinic energy ratio and deformation scale for unequal layer depths uses a decomposition uses the depth-weighted barotropic streamfunction $\Psi =(H_1{\psi }_1+H_2{\psi }_2)/(H_1+H_2)$ and $d=2\tilde{\psi }$. Define $H_r=H_1{H}_2/(H_1+H_2)$. ThenFor variations on horizontal scale $l$, this givesFor comparable layer depths $H_r$ is of order either $H_i$, reproducing the requested scale $l^2{f}_0^2/(g^{\prime }{H}_i)$. If one layer is much thinner, its depth controls this ratio; a depth-independent arithmetic barotropic average would leave unwanted cross terms in the energy decomposition.

Baroclinic potential energy dominates at scales much larger than the two-layer internal deformation radius; baroclinic kinetic energy dominates at much smaller scales. They are comparable near $l\sim R_d$. The independent barotropic kinetic energy has no interface-displacement partner, so this scale comparison refers specifically to the baroclinic component.