the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Quantifying the global atmospheric power budget
Abstract. Starting from the definition of mechanical work for an ideal gas, we present a novel derivation linking global wind power to measurable atmospheric parameters. The resulting expression distinguishes three components: the kinetic power associated with horizontal motion, the kinetic power associated with vertical motion and the gravitational power of precipitation. We discuss the caveats associated with integration of material derivatives in the presence of phase transitions and how these affect published analyses of global atmospheric power. Using the MERRA database for the years 2009–2015 (three hourly data on the 1.25° x 1.25° grid at 42 pressure levels) we estimate total atmospheric power at 3.1 W m−2 and kinetic power at 2.6 W m−2. The difference between the two (0.5 W m−2) is about half the independently estimated gravitational power of precipitation (1 W m−2). We explain how this discrepancy arises from the limited spatial and temporal resolution of the database. Our analysis suggests that the total atmospheric power calculated with a spatial resolution of the order of one kilometer (thus capturing the small moist convective eddies) should be around 5 W m−2. We discuss the physical constraints on global atmospheric power and how considering the dynamic effects of water vapor condensation offers new opportunities.
- Preprint
(857 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- RC1: 'Review of Makarieva et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2016
- RC2: 'Review of ``Quantifying the global atmospheric power budget''', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 May 2016
- RC3: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 May 2016
- RC4: 'Review of 'Quantifying the global atmospheric power budget' by Makarieva et al.', Anonymous Referee #4, 20 May 2016
- AC1: 'The challenge of defining global atmospheric power', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 01 Jul 2016
- AC2: 'Why the integral of dh/dt cannot be directly evaluated from MERRA', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 04 Jul 2016
- AC3: 'Does the expression for global atmospheric power explicitly depend on the rate of phase transitions?', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 06 Jul 2016
- AC4: 'Assessing the atmospheric power budget: Our results compared to those of Pauluis et al. 2000', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 11 Jul 2016
- AC5: 'Analysis of Laliberte et al. 2015', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 13 Jul 2016
- AC6: 'Towards a reliable estimate of the atmospheric power budget', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 25 Jul 2016
- AC7: 'Brief summary of revisions, list of replies and a few comments on Section 6', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 29 Jul 2016
- RC1: 'Review of Makarieva et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 May 2016
- RC2: 'Review of ``Quantifying the global atmospheric power budget''', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 May 2016
- RC3: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 May 2016
- RC4: 'Review of 'Quantifying the global atmospheric power budget' by Makarieva et al.', Anonymous Referee #4, 20 May 2016
- AC1: 'The challenge of defining global atmospheric power', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 01 Jul 2016
- AC2: 'Why the integral of dh/dt cannot be directly evaluated from MERRA', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 04 Jul 2016
- AC3: 'Does the expression for global atmospheric power explicitly depend on the rate of phase transitions?', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 06 Jul 2016
- AC4: 'Assessing the atmospheric power budget: Our results compared to those of Pauluis et al. 2000', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 11 Jul 2016
- AC5: 'Analysis of Laliberte et al. 2015', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 13 Jul 2016
- AC6: 'Towards a reliable estimate of the atmospheric power budget', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 25 Jul 2016
- AC7: 'Brief summary of revisions, list of replies and a few comments on Section 6', Anastassia M. Makarieva, 29 Jul 2016
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,676 | 359 | 125 | 2,160 | 113 | 113 |
- HTML: 1,676
- PDF: 359
- XML: 125
- Total: 2,160
- BibTeX: 113
- EndNote: 113