...
首页> 外文期刊>Fluids >Reply to “Comment on Tailleux, R. Neutrality Versus Materiality: A Thermodynamic Theory of Neutral Surfaces. Fluids 2016, 1, 32.”
【24h】

Reply to “Comment on Tailleux, R. Neutrality Versus Materiality: A Thermodynamic Theory of Neutral Surfaces. Fluids 2016, 1, 32.”

机译:回复“关于Tailleux,R。中性与重要性的评论:中性表面的热力学理论。流体,2016,1、32。”

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

McDougall, Groeskamp and Griffies (MGG) strongly criticise all aspects of Tailleux (2016) that challenge the current conventional wisdom about the use of neutral density concepts for studying and parameterising lateral ocean stirring and mixing. However, their claim that most of Tailleux (2016)’s results or conclusions are incorrect is easily shown to originate: (1) from mistakingly confusing Tailleux’s Eulerian arguments for Lagrangian ones; (2) from their irrational belief that only one particular kind of quasi-material surface is somehow endorsed by Nature and hence relevant to the description of stirring and mixing—namely the locally-defined neutral tangent planes—stating at one point: “why should the ocean care about human constructed density variables”? MGG appear to overlook the simple fact that solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations—which synthesise our ideas about how Nature works—never require the introduction of any form of quasi-material or quasi-neutral density variable. This implies that the empirical isopycnal/isentropic stirring property is necessarily an emergent property of the Navier–Stokes equations, and hence that all forms of isopycnal surfaces—both neutral and not—are necessarily all human constructs. To establish the relevance of any particular construct to the actual ocean, an explicit model of stirring is needed to elucidate the nature of the dynamical/energetics constraints on lateral stirring. Even in the simplest model of stirring, neutral stirring represents only one possible mode out of a continuum of stirring modes responsible for lateral stirring in the ocean, without any evidence that it should dominate over the other ones. To help clarify the issues involved, it is proposed to regard the rigorous study of ocean stirring and mixing as relying on at least five distinct stages, from defining a model of stirring to constructing physically-based mixing parameterisations in numerical ocean models.
机译:McDougall,Groeskamp和Griffies(MGG)强烈批评Tailleux(2016)的各个方面,这些方面挑战了当前关于使用中性密度概念来研究和参数化海洋横向搅拌和混合的常规观点。然而,他们认为Tailleux(2016)的大多数结果或结论都是不正确的,这很容易证明是由于:(1)将Tailleux的欧拉论误认为是拉格朗日论的误解; (2)从他们的非理性信念出发,只有一种特定类型的准物质表面被大自然以某种方式认可,因此与搅拌和混合的描述(即局部定义的中性切平面)有关,在某一点陈述:“为什么要海洋关心人类构造的密度变量”? MGG似乎忽略了一个简单的事实,即Navier–Stokes方程的解决方案(它综合了我们关于自然的工作原理的思想),不需要引入任何形式的准物质或准中性密度变量。这意味着经验的等渗/等熵搅拌特性必定是Navier–Stokes方程的新兴特性,因此,所有形式的等渗表面(中性表面和非中性表面)都必须全部为人类构造。为了建立任何特定构造与实际海洋的相关性,需要一个明确的搅拌模型来阐明横向搅拌的动力/能量学约束的性质。即使在最简单的搅拌模型中,中性搅拌也仅代表海洋中横向搅拌的连续搅拌模式中的一种可能的模式,而没有任何证据表明中性搅拌应优于其他搅拌模式。为了帮助弄清所涉及的问题,建议将对海洋搅拌和混合的严格研究至少依赖于五个阶段,从定义搅拌模型到在数字海洋模型中构建基于物理的混合参数化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号