Abstract
A companion paper formulates the three-dimensional wave activity flux (3D-flux-M) whose divergence corresponds to the wave forcing on the primitive equations. However, unlike the two-dimensional wave activity flux, 3D-flux-M does not accurately describe the magnitude and direction of wave propagation. In this study, the authors formulate a modification of 3D-flux-M (3D-flux-W) to describe this propagation using small-amplitude theory for a slowly varying time-mean flow. A unified dispersion relation for inertia–gravity waves and Rossby waves is also derived and used to relate 3D-flux-W to the group velocity. It is shown that 3D-flux-W and the modified wave activity density agree with those for inertia–gravity waves under the constant Coriolis parameter assumption and those for Rossby waves under the small Rossby number assumption.
To compare 3D-flux-M with 3D-flux-W, an analysis of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim) data is performed focusing on wave disturbances in the storm tracks during April. While the divergence of 3D-flux-M is in good agreement with the meridional component of the 3D residual mean flow associated with disturbances, the 3D-flux-W divergence shows slight differences in the upstream and downstream regions of the storm tracks. Further, the 3D-flux-W magnitude and direction are in good agreement with those derived by R. A. Plumb, who describes Rossby wave propagation. However, 3D-flux-M is different from Plumb’s flux in the vicinity of the storm tracks. These results suggest that different fluxes (both 3D-flux-W and 3D-flux-M) are needed to describe wave propagation and wave–mean flow interaction in the 3D formulation.
A Three Dimensional Wave Activity Flux Applicable to Inertio-Gravity Waves
