Correct Boundary Conditions for the High-Resolution Model of Nonlinear Acoustic-Gravity Waves Forced by Atmospheric Pressure Variations
Currently, an international network of operating high-resolution microbarographs was established to record wave-induced pressure variations at the Earth’s surface. Based on these measurements, simulations are performed to analyze the characteristics of waves corresponding to the observed variations of atmospheric pressure. Such a mathematical problem involves a set of primitive nonlinear hydrodynamic equations considering lower boundary conditions in the form of pressure variations at the Earth’s surface. Selection of upward propagating acoustic-gravity waves (AGWs) generated or reflected at the Earth’s surface requires the Neumann boundary conditions involving the vertical gradients of vertical velocity at the lower boundary. To analyze the correctness of the mathematical problem, linearized equations are used for small-surface wave amplitudes excited near the ground. Using the relation for wave energy, it is proven that the solution of the boundary problem based on the nondissipative approximation is uniquely determined by the variable pressure field at the Earth’s surface. The respective dissipative problem has also a unique solution with the appropriate choice of lower boundary conditions for temperature and velocity components. To test the numerical algorithm, solutions of the linearized equations for AGW modes are used. Developed boundary conditions are implemented into the model describing acoustic-gravity wave propagation from the surface atmospheric pressure source. Atmospheric waves propagating from the observed surface pressure variations to the upper atmosphere are simulated using the obtained algorithms and the computer codes.
Numerical simulations of the project were supported by the Russian Basic Research Foundation (Grant 17-05-00574) and the microbarograph surface pressure measurements by the Russian Scientific Foundation (Grant 14-47-00049). N. Gavrilov and S. Kshevetskii formulated the problem. Yu. Kurdyaeva and S. Kshevetskii proved the main theorems. S. Kshevetskii and N. Gavrilov developed the model for simulations. Yu. Kurdyaeva performed simulations. S. Kulichkov obtained the experimental data of the pressure variations with high-sensitive microbarographs.
- AtmoSym: A multi-scale atmosphere model from the Earth’s surface up to 500 km. http://atmos.kantiana.ru. 2016. Accessed 10 Apr 2017.
- Banks, P. M., & Kockarts, G. (1973). Aeronomy, Part B. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Beer, T. (1974). Atmospheric waves. London: Adam Hilder.Google Scholar
- Courant, R., & Hilbert, D. (1962). Methods of mathematical physics. 2. Partial differential equations. Singapore: Wiley-VCH GmbH & Co.Google Scholar
- Dalin, P., Gavrilov, N., Pertsev, N., Perminov, V., Pogoreltsev, A., Shevchuk, N., et al. (2016). A case study of long gravity wave crests in noctilucent clouds and their origin in the upper tropospheric jet stream. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 121, 1402–14116. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fovell, R., Durran, D., & Holton, J. R. (1992a). Numerical simulation of convectively generated stratospheric gravity waves. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 47, 1042.Google Scholar
- Gavrilov, N. M. & Fukao, S. (1999). A comparison of seasonal variations of gravity wave intensity observed by the MU radar with a theoretical model. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 56, 3485–3494. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056<3485:acosvo>2.0.co;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gossard, E. E., & Hooke, W. H. (1975). Waves in the atmosphere. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Janjic, Z. I. (2002). A nonhydrostatic model based on new approach. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 82(1), 271–285.Google Scholar
- Janjic, Z. I. (2006). The WRF NMM core. Overview of basic principles (presented by T. Black). NCEP. http://www.dtcenter.org/wrf-nmm/users/docs. Accessed 10 Jun 2017.
- Khairoutdinov, M. F., Krueger, S. K., Moeng, C.-H., Bogenschutz, P. A., & Randall, D. A. (2009). Large-eddy simulation of maritime deep tropical convection. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 1(15), 13.Google Scholar
- Kherani, E. A., Lognonne, P., Hebert, H., Rolland, L., Astafyeva, E., Occhipinti, G., et al. (2012). Modelling of the total electronic content and magnetic field anomalies generated by the 2011 Tohoku-Oki tsunami and associated acoustic-gravity waves. Geophysical Journal International, 191, 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05617.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kshevetskii, S. P. (2001). Modelling of propagation of internal gravity waves in gases. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 41, 295–310.Google Scholar
- Kshevetskii, S. P. (2002). Internal gravity waves in non-exponentially density-stratified fluids. Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 42(10), 1510–1521.Google Scholar
- Miller, D. V. (1999). Thunderstorm induced gravity waves as a potential hazard to commercial aircraft. American Meteorological Society 79th Annual conference, Windham Anatole Hotel, Dallas, TX, January 10–15. Dallas: American Meteorological Society.Google Scholar
- Pedloski, J. (2006). Geophysical fluid dynamics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar