Voronoi, Delaunay, and Block-Structured Mesh Refinement for Solution of the Shallow-Water Equations on the Sphere

Alternative meshes of the sphere and adaptive mesh refinement could be immensely beneficial for weather and climate forecasts, but it is not clear how mesh refinement should be achieved. A finite-volume model that solves the shallow-water equations on any mesh of the surface of the sphere is presented. The accuracy and cost effectiveness of four quasi-uniform meshes of the sphere are compared: a cubed sphere, reduced latitude–longitude, hexagonal–icosahedral, and triangular–icosahedral. On some standard shallow-water tests, the hexagonal–icosahedral mesh performs best and the reduced latitude–longitude mesh performs well only when the flow is aligned with the mesh. The inclusion of a refined mesh over a disc-shaped region is achieved using either gradual Delaunay, gradual Voronoi, or abrupt 2:1 block-structured refinement. These refined regions can actually degrade global accuracy, presumably because of changes in wave dispersion where the mesh is highly nonuniform. However, using gradual refinement to resolve a mountain in an otherwise coarse mesh can improve accuracy for the same cost. The model prognostic variables are height and momentum collocated at cell centers, and (to remove grid-scale oscillations of the A grid) the mass flux between cells is advanced from the old momentum using the momentum equation. Quadratic and upwind biased cubic differencing methods are used as explicit corrections to a fast implicit solution that uses linear differencing.

Understanding mixing efficiency in the oceans. Do the nonlinearities of the equation of state matter?

There exist two central measures of turbulent mixing in turbulent stratified fluids that are both caused by molecular diffusion: 1) the dissipation rate D(APE) of available potential energy APE; 2) the turbulent rate of change Wr, turbulent of background gravitational potential energy GPEr. So far, these two quantities have often been regarded as the same energy conversion, namely the irreversible conversion of APE into GPEr, owing to the well known exact equality D(APE)=Wr, turbulent for a Boussinesq fluid with a linear equation of state. Recently, however, Tailleux (2009) pointed out that the above equality no longer holds for a thermally-stratified compressible, with the ratio ξ=Wr, turbulent/D(APE) being generally lower than unity and sometimes even negative for water or seawater, and argued that D(APE) and Wr, turbulent actually represent two distinct types of energy conversion, respectively the dissipation of APE into one particular subcomponent of internal energy called the "dead" internal energy IE0, and the conversion between GPEr and a different subcomponent of internal energy called "exergy" IEexergy. In this paper, the behaviour of the ratio ξ is examined for different stratifications having all the same buoyancy frequency N vertical profile, but different vertical profiles of the parameter Υ=α P/(ρCp), where α is the thermal expansion coefficient, P the hydrostatic pressure, ρ the density, and Cp the specific heat capacity at constant pressure, the equation of state being that for seawater for different particular constant values of salinity. It is found that ξ and Wr, turbulent depend critically on the sign and magnitude of dΥ/dz, in contrast with D(APE), which appears largely unaffected by the latter. These results have important consequences for how the mixing efficiency should be defined and measured in practice, which are discussed.

Unification of the probe and singular sources methods for the inverse boundary value problem by the no-response test

In this article, we use the no-response test idea, introduced in Luke and Potthast (2003) and Potthast (Preprint) and the inverse obstacle problem, to identify the interface of the discontinuity of the coefficient gamma of the equation del (.) gamma(x)del + c(x) with piecewise regular gamma and bounded function c(x). We use infinitely many Cauchy data as measurement and give a reconstructive method to localize the interface. We will base this multiwave version of the no-response test on two different proofs. The first one contains a pointwise estimate as used by the singular sources method. The second one is built on an energy (or an integral) estimate which is the basis of the probe method. As a conclusion of this, the probe and the singular sources methods are equivalent regarding their convergence and the no-response test can be seen as a unified framework for these methods. As a further contribution, we provide a formula to reconstruct the values of the jump of gamma(x), x is an element of partial derivative D at the boundary. A second consequence of this formula is that the blow-up rate of the indicator functions of the probe and singular sources methods at the interface is given by the order of the singularity of the fundamental solution.