🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <sdmtfINNafu@agate.berkeley.edu>, by dan@jonas.berkeley.edu (dan graves):
> 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
  Usually primitive equation models do not require the Quasi-geostrophic
which is valid for 'larger scale' flows. Thus the primitive equation
model should be able to include a better model of transfer of energy
between the  scales and diffusion.
  I  know of no papers on the 'it is known' (being in computer science
rather than oceanography at the moment) but I suspect that the limited
resolution/execution time/spin-up/ etc of the primitive equation
models could  lead to the statement being true.
Robert  Pearson			 ISD:	+61 6 268 8171  STD: (06) 268 8171
Dept. Computer Science		 Email:	rap@csadfa.oz.au
University College Aust. Defence Force Academy
Canberra. ACT. 2600. AUSTRALIA		       
-- 
Robert  Pearson			 ISD:	+61 6 268 8171  STD: (06) 268 8171
Dept. Computer Science		 Email:	rap@csadfa.oz.au
University College Aust. Defence Force Academy
Canberra. ACT. 2600. AUSTRALIA