Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Beta effect

The Beta Effect

First, a mea culpa: in my last post I showed a diagram of the Coriolis deflection of an inertial circle in the counterclockwise direction - so that the cyclone would avoid the West Coast of India. Well, that's wrong. The rotation is clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere as can be seen in the Figure below (taken from one of Anders Persson's papers, I think):


So, having got that out of the way, let me meander a bit into some background, on the way to the beta effect - which actually explains the northwestwards (NW) motion of cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), which causes cyclones to avoid India's West Coast - and prefer to hit the East Coast (to disastrous effect).

Without going into the derivation (which could vary in length depending upon the level of rigour), the Coriolis force, which arises in a rotating frame, such as the Earth itself, is given by:

                                                F = 2m w ´ v

where the Coriolis force F results from the vector cross-product of the angular velocity w and the linear velocity v, all three vectors pointing along 3 perpendicular axes (as given by the right hand rule, w along the thumb, v along the forefinger and F along the middle finger). For the right-hand rule, see the website:

http://phys420.phas.ubc.ca/p420_12/tony/Coriolis_Force/Home.html


For the Earth, the angular velocity vector points through the poles, the velocity is along the surface of the Earth at some given latitude j, and the force F deflects the cyclone in a direction perpendicular to its motion (v). For horizontal motion, the magnitude of the Coriolis force is given by:

                                                F = 2m w v sin(j)

and so its magnitude is exactly zero at the Equator.

Since the Coriolis force acts to deflect any moving object perpendicular to its motion, that motion is likely to become a vortex or a circle. Specifically, the motion is clockwise (CW) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and counterclockwise (CCW) in the Southern Hemisphere (SH).
Equating the Coriolis force to the centripetal force mv2/r, the radius of the inertial circle is:

                                                R = v/(2wsin(j))

The latitude of Kanyakumari is 8.1°, of Mangalore is 12.9° and of Mumbai is 19.1°. Corresponding values of sin(j): 0.141, 0.223 and 0.327. The angular velocity of the Earth is w = 7.29x10-5 rad/sec and so the radius of the inertial circles at these points, assuming that the cyclone speed is 50 m/s (180 km/hr) is: 2,437 kms (KK), 1,537 kms (Man), and 1048 kms (Mum). 
Tabulated:

Latitude
Sin(l)
Radius of inertial circle (kms)
Kanyakumari
8.1°
0.141
2,437
Mangalore
12.9°
0.223
1,537
Mumbai
19.1°
0.327
1,048

Due to the latitudinal variation, the radius of the inertial circle is much greater closer to the Equator.

The fact that the Coriolis force deflects westwards is not obvious  – considering that the motion in the NH is clockwise, and circular motion along inertial circles should just keep on regularly returning the moving mass back to its pre-existing path - and the explanation is the beta effect (see below for a  sketchy description).

The equations that deal with this are discussed in the website quoted below, for a particle moving with a velocity vector (V0 cos(q), -V0 sin(q ), 0 ) with z = 0 along the surface of the Earth, and q = 0  as the reference direction, pointing north:


The end result of solving the equations of motion, assuming that w is small,  is:
Vx = V0 cos(q + 2wt sin(l))
And
 Vy = -V0 sin(q + 2wt sin(l))
Which means that the angle q changes at the rate:

(dq/dt) =  2w sin(l)

Since this quantity is positive, the angle q increases, and the mass moves in a clockwise direction (in the NH)..
The magnitude of dq/dt is 4.66x10-5  rad/sec (assuming sin(l) = 0.32), or 2.67x10-3 deg/sec.

In other words, the cyclone would get deflected by 9.6 deg/hr, or 230 deg/day.

According to a course document on “Inertial Oscillations” by Thompson (Ocean420) in Winter 2005 in a book by Susan Hautala, LuAnne Thompson, and Kathryn Kelly:

The time period of the inertial oscillation is given by: 

Tin = TE/[2 sin (l)]

Where TE = Earth’s rotation period (24 hrs), and gives some values at different latitudes: 69 hrs at 10°, 24 hrs at 30° (obviously), and 16.9 hrs at 45°. The radius of the inertial circle is also much greater near the Equator (as shown above).


The UTexas website makes a number of other things clear:

      a)   In the Northern Hemisphere, cool winds from the North (that move towards the Equator to replace hot air that rises), are deflected in a clockwise direction, giving rise to the trade winds which blow towards the southwest (SW).

b    b)  Cyclones originate because winds that blow from a high pressure area to a low pressure area are deflected clockwise in the NH (as seen in the Figure below, taken from the UTexas website), and this sets up the cyclonic rotation. Note that the winds blowing towards the South are deflected westwards, while the wind blowing to the North is deflected towards the East. 


c    c) The related point – not mentioned by Thompson (in this document) – is that the Coriolis force is too weak near the Equator to set up the cyclonic rotation, which accounts for the fact that cyclones mostly originate at latitudes with l >7°.






In the North Indian Ocean, a tropical cyclone usually lasts 5-6 days, and they remain at hurricane intensity for 2-4 days (compared to a global average of 6 days).
Another important quantity to evaluate is the dimensionless Rossby number Ro, which is the ratio of inertial to Coriolis forces as mentioned in wiki:


                                       Ro = V/(2w sin(l)L)
Where L is the spatial scale of the system, in this case a cyclone. Only if Ro £ 1, is the effect of Coriolis force significant relative to the inertial force.


A cyclone with a wind speed of 10-14 km/hr is slow-moving, 15-25 km/hr is a moderate cyclone, and for >25 km/hr it is a fast-moving cyclone.
The size of a cyclone in Indian seas varies between 50 and 2000 kms, but most of them are in the size range of 300-600 kms.
For a cyclone with V = 10 m/s (36 km/hr) in the Bay of Bengal or the Arabian Sea, with a spatial dimension of 500 kms, the dimensionless Rossby number Ro becomes:

                                            Ro = 10/[(2)(7.29x10-5)(0.32)(5x105)] = 0.43

It seems that the Ro number will be even lower for a larger cyclone (say 1000 kms) or a slower moving cyclone at a higher latitude.
Note that the highly contentious case of water draining out in spiral fashion from a kitchen sink: does it go CW in the NH? The answer is that, whatever happens, it’s not due to the Coriolis force. The Rossby factor for this case is (roughly), assuming L = 0.1 m, V = 1 m/s and in India:

                                               Ro = 1/[(2) )(7.29x10-5)(0.32)(0.1)] = 2x105

So the Coriolis effect doesn’t have a chance compared to inertial effects!


“Cyclones that form over the Bay of Bengal are either those develop in situ over southeast Bay of Bengal and adjoining Andaman Sea or remnants of typhoons over Northwest Pacific and move across south China sea to Indian Seas. As the frequency of typhoons over Northwest Pacific is quite high (about 35 % of the global annual average), the Bay of Bengal also gets its increased quota.
The cyclones over the Arabian Sea either originate in situ over southeast Arabian Sea (which includes Lakshadweep area also) or remnants of cyclones from the Bay of Bengal that move across south peninsula. As the majority of Cyclones over the Bay of Bengal weaken over land after landfall, the frequency of migration into Arabian Sea is low.
In addition to all the above the Arabian Sea is relatively colder than Bay of Bengal and hence inhibits the formation and intensification of the system.”

I am currently reading Amitava Ghosh’s “The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable“ (Penguin Random House India, 2016) and he observes that (possibly due to global warming) for the first time, in 2015, the number of cyclones originating in the Arabian Sea was known to be greater in number originating in the Bay of Bengal (p.58). He also notes that: “The cyclones that have struck the west coast of Indiain the past have all traveled upwards on a northeasterly tack, from the southern quadrant of the Arabian Sea” (p.66). He is extremely worried that such a cyclone may hit the highly populated, low-lying coastal megacity of Mumbai, with lethal consequences. With global warming, the intensity of cyclones has been observed to have increased, even though the frequency may not have.

According to Persson, since inertia circles have a lower diameter at higher latitudes (than at lower latitudes), the inertia circles are actually spirals transporting mass westwards, (Anders O.Persson, History of Meteorology 2 (2005)3). Elsewhere in this paper, Persson refers to the phenomenon of beta drift, which explains the northwestward movement (in the Northern Hemisphere) of cyclones. This is complicated but I will summarise what I got out of the flash simulation in the following website:
For an axisymmetric cyclone, the vorticity is conserved (under some reasonable conditions).
The vorticity (vector) is defined as: W = curl(v), where v is the velocity vector. Anyway, there are two components of vorticity: the local vorticity due to the spin of the cyclone around its central axis and the vorticity  f due to the spin of the Earth around its axis. The latter is given by:
f = 2sin(l)
 it is zero at the Equator, and it increases as the latitude increases.
If an air parcel in or near the cyclone moves Northwards, its Earth vorticity increases, and since the total vorticity is conserved, its local vorticity decreases. Similarly, an air parcel that moves South, finds its Earth vorticity decrease and its local vorticity increase. Air parcels that move East or West do not change their latitude or Earth vorticity.
These increases and decreases in local vorticity cause the formation of two secondary (beta) gyres (see the Figure below, from the above website) that rotate in opposite directions: the local vorticity has a minimum that is NE (CW rotation) of the main cyclone vortex (CW rotation), and a maximum SW  (rotating CCW) of the main vortex. These two gyres are much weaker (by orders of magnitude) than the main vortex – and they are not visible in satellite pictures of cyclones.      
At this point, the website unabashedly declares that ‘numerical simulation’ shows that these two gyres displace the main vortex of the cyclone in a NW direction (in the NH), and a speed of, at most, a few metres/sec. Note that the beta effect will displace the cyclone in the NW direction even if it is embedded in ‘calm winds’ (a slow or almost static’ cyclone).
For me, this constitutes a ‘ne plus ultra’ – because I am not about to get embroiled in numerical simulation of meteorology!   
About 10-20% of the storm’s motion arises from the beta effect.
 Please note that you can't observe these circulations on satellite loops because their orders of magnitude are so much smaller than the hurricane's circulation. 

Nonetheless, these circulations associated with the Beta effect are sufficiently large to cause a westward-moving hurricane to drift northwestward. Moreover, the Beta effect is the reason why tropical cyclones flirting with crossing the equator swerve to the northeast before it's too late.
 
The Earth vorticity parameter f arises due to the Coriolis force, and the beta effect arises due to the variation of the vorticity f with latitude (X.Liang and J.C.L.Chan J.Atmosph.Soc. (Oct.2005) p.3825)
Bottomline: The beta effect does cause the cyclone to move away from the West Coast of India (although it also causes cyclones to move towards the East Coast), while the frequency of cyclones in the Arabian Sea seems to have gone up in 2015, above that in the Bay of Bengal – according to Amitava Ghosh.


















Wednesday, July 20, 2016

More cyclones hit the East Coast of India

Just by reading the newspapers over the years, one can recall more cyclones hitting the East Coast of India than hitting the West Coast.
I thought that I would check online if somebody else has observed, and explained, this observation.

I found one post which I reproduce below, from an IAS (aspirants/trainees?) discussion forum:

http://discuss.forumias.com/discussion/595/gs-geography-questions


“Why do cyclones strike at the Eastern coast in India and not much in the Western coast. As if we notice it is seen that cyclones typically create much havoc in the Eastern coast rather the Western coast?
The main cause is Coriolis effect.
Since India is in Northern Hemisphere, so in here, due to Coriolis force, winds tend to turn toward their right while moving.
So, whatever cyclones are formed in Bay of Bengal, they turn toward their right, hitting our Eastern coast.When cyclones are formed in Arabian sea, they get deflected away from india.
But, they are exceptions also, since this is not the only factor.”

The explanation seems to be correct - except for the fact that in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) the deflection is towards the left, or the North-West. The diagram below indicates this:

I also put a very rough approximation of the Indian peninsula as a triangle, with the East Coast making a shallower angle of 35°  at Kanyakumari, than the West Coast which makes an angle of 21°.
Also, Kanyakumari is at 8.08° N latitude.

Why does India’s West Coast get hit by cyclones less often than the East Coast? 
a)  Cyclones form over water, because they pick up energy from evaporating water 
b)  Cyclones are mostly observed to originate between 7 and 15 degrees of latitude; they form at latitudes greater than 7 degrees (in the NH), and do not originate at all in the zone of +/- 7 degrees about the Equator.
c)  Cyclones move counterclockwise in the NH because of the Coriolis force
d      The East Coast is at an angle to the cyclone so it tends to miss it. The position of Kanyakumauri at 8 degrees N is significant in view of c).  
     
       Another factor is the frequency of storms in the Bay of Bengal and in the Arabian Sea (4:1):

“       "Historical records suggest that for every four cyclones in the Bay of Bengal, there is one in the Arabian Sea,” said Basab Bandopadhyay, a scientist in the cyclone warning division at the India Meteorological Department, New Delhi.
Subtle differences between the way that convective currents behave over the Arabian Sea and over the Bay of Bengal may explain this higher frequency of cyclones forming over the Bay, scientists said."



Q: Why are there fewer cyclones in the Arabian Sea compared to the Bay of Bengal?

The Arabian Sea is relatively colder than the Bay of Bengal and this inhibits formation of cyclones.
"Bay of Bengal cyclones either originate in situ or come from the South China Sea (also NW Pacific) (the latter has 35% of all global cyclones every year, so this is a large number). Arabian Sea cyclones either originate in situ or are remnants of cyclones that come from the Bay of Bengal overland across the Southern Peninsula (and so have become weaker, and are less in number)." 

Generally storms do not cross the Equator - but this rule is probably not inviolable.


"The developing (storm) system must be at least 500 km (300 miles) away from the Equator. For the development of the rapid rotation characteristic of tropical cyclones, the low-pressure centre must be located at least 500 km (300 miles) away from the Equator. If the initial disturbance is too close to the Equator, then the effect of the Coriolis force will be too small to provide the necessary spin. The Coriolis force deflects the air that is being drawn into the surface low-pressure centre, setting up a cyclonic rotation. In the Northern Hemisphere the direction of the resulting circulation around the low is counterclockwise, and in the Southern Hemisphere it is clockwise".
Note that the distance between Kanyakumari and the Equator is about 900 Kms. This implies that the cyclones that form in the Bay of Bengal and in the Arabian Sea are 'separate' - to some extent - because a cyclone crossing land tends to weaken (as mentioned above), but, again, this is not an insurmountable barrier, so there will be some crosstalk between the two.

A similar phenomenon - the East Coast getting more hurricanes - has been observed in the U.S.:

Why do hurricanes hit the East coast of the U.S., but never the West coast? Contributed by Chris Landsea (NHC)
"Hurricanes form both in the Atlantic basin (i.e. the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea) to the east of the continental U.S. and in the Northeast Pacific basin to the west of the U.S. However, the ones in the Northeast Pacific almost never hit the U.S., while the ones in the Atlantic basin strike the U.S. mainland just less than twice a year on average. There are two main reasons. 
The first is that hurricanes tend to move toward the west-northwest after they form in the tropical and subtropical latitudes. In the Atlantic, such a motion often brings the hurricane into the vicinity of the U.S. east coast. In the Northeast Pacific, a west-northwest track takes those hurricanes farther off-shore, well away from the U.S. west coast. 
In addition to the general track, a second factor is the difference in water temperatures along the U.S. east and west coasts. Along the U.S. east coast, the Gulf Stream provides a source of warm (> 26.5°C) waters to help maintain the hurricane. However, along the U.S. west coast, the ocean temperatures rarely get above the lower 20's, even in the midst of summer. Such relatively cool temperatures are not energetic enough to sustain a hurricane's strength. So for the occasional Northeast Pacific hurricane that does track back toward the U.S. west coast, the cooler waters can quickly reduce the strength of the storm."

Ok, so this is where I'm going to stop for today. I'll continue in the next post to add some more details about the Coriolis force. The reason that I have to go into more detail is that the deflection in the Northern Hemisphere is counterclockwise, but a cyclone can last several days, and in this process the continued CCW deflection causes the cyclone to trace a circle (called an inertial circle). So where does this leave us, going round and round? On an average is the motion of the cyclone an undeflected straight line (or whatever it was going to do anyway in the absence of the Coriolis force)?









Friday, July 1, 2016

Just a few add-ons to the previous post: a log-log graph of extra time vs altitude h (in kms):
in which points for Burj Dubai, Mt.Everest and the 12 kms cruising height of commercial jet-liners are indicated. The point to be emphasized is that the extra time is proportional to the square root of the altitude.
Of course, one could increase the altitude beyond 12 kms. At an altitude of 100 kms (the 'edge of outer space'), the extra time is 40.34 mins, and at 400 kms (the mean altitude of the International Space Station), it is 79.17 mins.
At an altitude equal to the Earth's radius, the angle q = 60° (which is easy to verify) and the extra time is 240 mins or 4 hrs.
You need to go infinitely far to get q=90° and a time of 6 hrs.
That's it - I can't think of any reason to bang on about this any more!