Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2016 / iii / Paper 333 / 1 / Solution

Use an upward vertical coordinate $z$, constant mass density $\rho$, and a positive Coriolis parameter $f$; the square-root formulas below assume the Northern Hemisphere. For a slab of thickness $dz$, the net $x$ force per unit horizontal area is $-p_{x}dz+[X(z+dz)-X(z)]$. Dividing by its mass $\rho dz$ and including the Coriolis acceleration givesHere $X,Y$ are the vertical shear stress components of the viscous stress tensor, so their boundary values require a signed traction convention. Linearization removes advective acceleration. Decompose the horizontal velocity into an exterior pressure response and an Ekman layer correction. On an f-plane these satisfyandThe exterior pressure response is in geostrophic balance when steady. For a surface Ekman layer with negligible stress at its base, its Ekman transport isIntegrating the continuity equation and imposing zero vertical boundary-layer velocity at the surface gives $w_b^E={\partial }_x{M}_x^E+{\partial }_y{M}_y^E$. Thus the base velocity, positive upward, isThe PDF prints the opposite sign. Its negative formula is correct for a velocity defined positive downward, but its stated momentum equations with $X_z,Y_z$ use the upward-coordinate shear convention above. This sign must be accounted for when interpreting the subsequent pumping equation.

For constant kinematic viscosity, write $W_E=u^E+i{v}^E$ and $\delta =\sqrt{2\nu /f}$. The steady Ekman layer equation is $\nu W_E^{\prime \prime }=if{W}_E$. Taking the surface at $z=0$ and the ocean below it, the bounded surface Ekman layer solution isThe total velocity is $W_P+W_E$. Prescribed wind stress determines the coefficient of this Ekman layer correction; it does not determine a relation between the wind and the independent pressure-driven velocity. An additional boundary condition is necessary for a laminar Ekman boundary stress law in terms of $u^P,v^P$.

The two printed laminar stress formulas and the positive pressure-Laplacian pumping formula are instead the standard Bottom Ekman layer relations. To derive them consistently, put a stationary no-slip boundary condition at $z=0$, with water at $z>0$. ThenConsequentlyThese are shear stress values; the actual bottom traction on the fluid has the opposite sign. Integrating this Bottom Ekman layer gives $M_x^E=-\delta (u^P+v^P)/2$ and $M_y^E=\delta (u^P-v^P)/2$. Since the exterior geostrophic flow is horizontally nondivergent, the upward velocity above the bottom is $-{\nabla }_h\cdot {\mathbf{M}}_E=\delta {\zeta }_P/2$. Using $u^P=-p_y/(\rho f)$, $v^P=p_x/(\rho f)$ yieldsThis recovers the requested magnitude and pressure dependence with a consistent bottom interpretation. The surface version would require its own specified boundary velocity and corresponding signs.

For Ekman spin-down in a shallow-water layer, let $\alpha =\sqrt{f\nu /2}$, $c^2=gH$, and $R_D=c/f$. Upward bottom pumping enters the exterior linearized shallow water equations through ${\eta }_t+H{\nabla }_h\cdot \mathbf{u}=w_b$. Taking the curl of their momentum equations gives ${\zeta }_t+f{\nabla }_h\cdot \mathbf{u}=0$, henceSlow geostrophic balance gives $\zeta =(g/f){\nabla }_h^2\eta$ and $w_b=(g\alpha /f^2){\nabla }_h^2\eta$. Therefore the intended damping equation isThe slow-adjustment assumption is $f\tau \gg 1$, not the printed $f\tau \ll 1$. The printed negative pumping term in continuity can alternatively describe downward extraction at the upper boundary, but it cannot be combined unchanged with the upward bottom pumping just derived. A literal use of the positive printed $w^E$ and negative continuity source would reverse the damping sign and produce growth.

For a Fourier mode $\eta =\hat{\eta }(t)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{x}}$ with $|\mathbf{k}|=\kappa >0$, substitution givesFor scales small compared with the Rossby deformation radius, $\kappa R_D\gg 1$ and $\tau \simeq H/\alpha$, independent of wavenumber. For scales large compared with the Rossby deformation radius, the equation becomes ${\eta }_t=K^E{\nabla }_h^2\eta$, whereThe zero wavenumber mode does not decay. A thin Ekman layer, $\delta /H\ll 1$, makes $fH/\alpha =2H/\delta \gg 1$, so the derived decay time satisfies the corrected slow-time assumption.