综述文章:尺度、动力机制和分层。天气持续多久?云有多大?

IF 1.7 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
S. Lovejoy
{"title":"综述文章:尺度、动力机制和分层。天气持续多久?云有多大?","authors":"S. Lovejoy","doi":"10.5194/npg-30-311-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Until the 1980s, scaling notions were restricted to\nself-similar homogeneous special cases. I review developments over the last\ndecades, especially in multifractals and generalized scale invariance (GSI). The former is necessary for characterizing and modelling strongly\nintermittent scaling processes, while the GSI formalism extends scaling to strongly anisotropic (especially stratified) systems. Both of these\ngeneralizations are necessary for atmospheric applications. The theory and\nsome of the now burgeoning empirical evidence in its favour are reviewed. Scaling can now be understood as a very general symmetry principle. It is\nneeded to clarify and quantify the notion of dynamical regimes. In addition\nto the weather and climate, there is an intermediate “macroweather regime”, and at timescales beyond the climate regime (up to Milankovitch scales), there is a macroclimate and megaclimate regime. By objectively\ndistinguishing weather from macroweather, it answers the question “how long does weather last?”. Dealing with anisotropic scaling systems – notably\natmospheric stratification – requires new (non-Euclidean) definitions of\nthe notion of scale itself. These are needed to answer the question “how\nbig is a cloud?”. In anisotropic scaling systems, morphologies of structures change systematically with scale even though there is no characteristic\nsize. GSI shows that it is unwarranted to infer dynamical processes or\nmechanisms from morphology. Two “sticking points” preventing more widespread acceptance of the scaling paradigm are also discussed. The first is an often implicit\nphenomenological “scalebounded” thinking that postulates a priori the existence of\nnew mechanisms, processes every factor of 2 or so in scale. The second obstacle is the reluctance to abandon isotropic theories of turbulence and\naccept that the atmosphere's scaling is anisotropic. Indeed, there currently appears to be no empirical evidence that the turbulence in any atmospheric\nfield is isotropic. Most atmospheric scientists rely on general circulation models, and these are scaling – they inherited the symmetry from the (scaling) primitive\nequations upon which they are built. Therefore, the real consequence of\nignoring wide-range scaling is that it blinds us to alternative scaling approaches to macroweather and climate – especially to new models for long-range forecasts and to new scaling approaches to climate projections. Such\nstochastic alternatives are increasingly needed, notably to reduce uncertainties in climate projections to the year 2100.\n","PeriodicalId":54714,"journal":{"name":"Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review article: Scaling, dynamical regimes, and stratification. How long does weather last? How big is a cloud?\",\"authors\":\"S. Lovejoy\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/npg-30-311-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Until the 1980s, scaling notions were restricted to\\nself-similar homogeneous special cases. I review developments over the last\\ndecades, especially in multifractals and generalized scale invariance (GSI). The former is necessary for characterizing and modelling strongly\\nintermittent scaling processes, while the GSI formalism extends scaling to strongly anisotropic (especially stratified) systems. Both of these\\ngeneralizations are necessary for atmospheric applications. The theory and\\nsome of the now burgeoning empirical evidence in its favour are reviewed. Scaling can now be understood as a very general symmetry principle. It is\\nneeded to clarify and quantify the notion of dynamical regimes. In addition\\nto the weather and climate, there is an intermediate “macroweather regime”, and at timescales beyond the climate regime (up to Milankovitch scales), there is a macroclimate and megaclimate regime. By objectively\\ndistinguishing weather from macroweather, it answers the question “how long does weather last?”. Dealing with anisotropic scaling systems – notably\\natmospheric stratification – requires new (non-Euclidean) definitions of\\nthe notion of scale itself. These are needed to answer the question “how\\nbig is a cloud?”. In anisotropic scaling systems, morphologies of structures change systematically with scale even though there is no characteristic\\nsize. GSI shows that it is unwarranted to infer dynamical processes or\\nmechanisms from morphology. Two “sticking points” preventing more widespread acceptance of the scaling paradigm are also discussed. The first is an often implicit\\nphenomenological “scalebounded” thinking that postulates a priori the existence of\\nnew mechanisms, processes every factor of 2 or so in scale. The second obstacle is the reluctance to abandon isotropic theories of turbulence and\\naccept that the atmosphere's scaling is anisotropic. Indeed, there currently appears to be no empirical evidence that the turbulence in any atmospheric\\nfield is isotropic. Most atmospheric scientists rely on general circulation models, and these are scaling – they inherited the symmetry from the (scaling) primitive\\nequations upon which they are built. Therefore, the real consequence of\\nignoring wide-range scaling is that it blinds us to alternative scaling approaches to macroweather and climate – especially to new models for long-range forecasts and to new scaling approaches to climate projections. Such\\nstochastic alternatives are increasingly needed, notably to reduce uncertainties in climate projections to the year 2100.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":54714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-30-311-2023\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-30-311-2023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要直到20世纪80年代,标度概念都被限制在类似的同质特例中。我回顾了过去几十年的发展,特别是在多重分形和广义尺度不变性(GSI)方面。前者对于表征和建模强间歇性标度过程是必要的,而GSI形式将标度扩展到强各向异性(尤其是分层)系统。这两个概括对于大气应用都是必要的。回顾了这一理论以及目前正在兴起的一些有利于它的经验证据。缩放现在可以理解为一个非常普遍的对称原理。有必要澄清和量化动力机制的概念。除了天气和气候之外,还有一个中间的“宏观天气制度”,在气候制度之外的时间尺度上(高达米兰科维奇尺度),还有一种大气候和大气候制度。通过客观地区分天气和宏观天气,它回答了“天气能持续多久”的问题。处理各向异性标度系统——尤其是平流层分层——需要对标度本身的概念进行新的(非欧几里得的)定义。这些是回答“云有多大?”这个问题所必需的。在各向异性标度系统中,即使没有特征尺寸,结构的形貌也会随着标度的变化而系统地变化。GSI表明,从形态学推断动力学过程或机制是没有根据的。还讨论了阻碍缩放范式被更广泛接受的两个“症结”。第一种是一种通常隐含的现象学“尺度有界”思维,它先验地假设新机制的存在,处理尺度上每一个2左右的因子。第二个障碍是不愿意放弃各向同性的湍流理论,接受大气的尺度是各向异性的。事实上,目前似乎没有经验证据表明任何大气场中的湍流都是各向同性的。大多数大气科学家都依赖于环流模型,而这些模型是按比例缩放的——它们继承了它们所基于的(按比例缩放)原始方程的对称性。因此,忽略宽范围缩放的真正后果是,它使我们对宏观天气和气候的替代缩放方法视而不见,尤其是对长期预测的新模型和气候预测的新缩放方法。人们越来越需要快速的替代品,尤其是为了减少2100年气候预测的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review article: Scaling, dynamical regimes, and stratification. How long does weather last? How big is a cloud?
Abstract. Until the 1980s, scaling notions were restricted to self-similar homogeneous special cases. I review developments over the last decades, especially in multifractals and generalized scale invariance (GSI). The former is necessary for characterizing and modelling strongly intermittent scaling processes, while the GSI formalism extends scaling to strongly anisotropic (especially stratified) systems. Both of these generalizations are necessary for atmospheric applications. The theory and some of the now burgeoning empirical evidence in its favour are reviewed. Scaling can now be understood as a very general symmetry principle. It is needed to clarify and quantify the notion of dynamical regimes. In addition to the weather and climate, there is an intermediate “macroweather regime”, and at timescales beyond the climate regime (up to Milankovitch scales), there is a macroclimate and megaclimate regime. By objectively distinguishing weather from macroweather, it answers the question “how long does weather last?”. Dealing with anisotropic scaling systems – notably atmospheric stratification – requires new (non-Euclidean) definitions of the notion of scale itself. These are needed to answer the question “how big is a cloud?”. In anisotropic scaling systems, morphologies of structures change systematically with scale even though there is no characteristic size. GSI shows that it is unwarranted to infer dynamical processes or mechanisms from morphology. Two “sticking points” preventing more widespread acceptance of the scaling paradigm are also discussed. The first is an often implicit phenomenological “scalebounded” thinking that postulates a priori the existence of new mechanisms, processes every factor of 2 or so in scale. The second obstacle is the reluctance to abandon isotropic theories of turbulence and accept that the atmosphere's scaling is anisotropic. Indeed, there currently appears to be no empirical evidence that the turbulence in any atmospheric field is isotropic. Most atmospheric scientists rely on general circulation models, and these are scaling – they inherited the symmetry from the (scaling) primitive equations upon which they are built. Therefore, the real consequence of ignoring wide-range scaling is that it blinds us to alternative scaling approaches to macroweather and climate – especially to new models for long-range forecasts and to new scaling approaches to climate projections. Such stochastic alternatives are increasingly needed, notably to reduce uncertainties in climate projections to the year 2100.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics
Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics (NPG) is an international, inter-/trans-disciplinary, non-profit journal devoted to breaking the deadlocks often faced by standard approaches in Earth and space sciences. It therefore solicits disruptive and innovative concepts and methodologies, as well as original applications of these to address the ubiquitous complexity in geoscience systems, and in interacting social and biological systems. Such systems are nonlinear, with responses strongly non-proportional to perturbations, and show an associated extreme variability across scales.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信