🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sdmtfINNafu@agate.berkeley.edu>, dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves) writes:
|> In article <1992Mar30.191520.14628@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu>, sasha@ldgo.columbia.edu (alexander krupitsky) writes:
|> |> It is known that eddy-resolving quasi-geostrophic models do
|> |> better job in reproducing Gulf Stream transport than primitive
|> |> equations models. Could anyone explain why?
|> |> 
|> |> 			Alexander
|> 
|> I am not sure exactly what you mean.  Quasi-geostrophic refers
|> to how the coriolus term in the navier stokes eqn is treated.
|> Primitive equation refers to the fact that you are dealing
|> with velocities and pressures and not stream functions and 
|> vorticities.  These are two different issues.  
|> 
|> dan
QG refers to the nonlinear advective velocity in the potential vorticity equation,
it is assumed to be in geostrophic balance at each instance in time, but it is
allowed to vary slowly. Also, on a given level, the flow is horiz. nondivergent
but vortex stretching  is allowed between levels. 
Getting back to the original valid question, could Alexander cite a reference or two
that suuports his claim that QG models are better than primitive equation models
in getting Gulf Stream transport correct. cheers, arthur
-- 
*****************R.I.P., Bill of Rights, 1791-1991********************
Arthur J. Mariano  INET: mariano@umigw.miami.edu  SPAN: arthur@miami.span
Dept. of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography       305-361-4193 
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,  U. of Miami
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149-1098, USA