A critical analysis of the assumptions underlying the formulation of maximum potential intensity for tropical cyclones

Emanuel's concept of maximum potential intensity (E-PI) estimates the maximum velocity of tropical cyclones from environmental parameters assuming thermal wind (gradient-wind and hydrostatic balances) and slantwise neutrality in the free troposphere. E-PI's key equation relates proportionally the radial gradients of saturated moist entropy and angular momentum. Here the E-PI derivation is reconsidered to show that the thermal wind and slantwise neutrality imply zero radial gradients of saturation entropy and angular momentum at an altitude where, for a given radius, the tangential wind has a maximum. It is further shown that, while E-PI's key equation requires that, at the point of maximum tangential wind, the air temperature must increase towards the storm center, the thermal wind equation dictates the opposite. From the analysis of the equations of motion at the altitude of maximum tangential wind in the free troposphere, it is concluded that here the air flow must be supergradient. This implies that the supergradiency factor (a measure of the gradient-wind imbalance) must change in the free troposphere as the air flow tends to restore the balance. It is shown that such a change modifies the derivative of saturation entropy over angular momentum, which cannot therefore remain constant in the free troposphere as E-PI requires. The implications of these findings for the internal coherence of E-PI, including its boundary layer closure, are discussed.Comment: Revised for JAS. Reply to three reviewers can be found in appendix C. 25 pages, 1 figur

The water budget of a hurricane as dependent on its movement

Despite the dangers associated with tropical cyclones and their rainfall, the origins of storm moisture remains unclear. Existing studies have focused on the region 40-400 km from the cyclone center. It is known that the rainfall within this area cannot be explained by local processes alone but requires imported moisture. Nonetheless, the dynamics of this imported moisture appears unknown. Here, considering a region up to three thousand kilometers from storm center, we analyze precipitation, atmospheric moisture and movement velocities for North Atlantic hurricanes. Our findings indicate that even over such large areas a hurricane's rainfall cannot be accounted for by concurrent evaporation. We propose instead that a hurricane consumes pre-existing atmospheric water vapor as it moves. The propagation velocity of the cyclone, i.e. the difference between its movement velocity and the mean velocity of the surrounding air (steering flow), determines the water vapor budget. Water vapor available to the hurricane through its movement makes the hurricane self-sufficient at about 700 km from the hurricane center obviating the need to concentrate moisture from greater distances. Such hurricanes leave a dry wake, whereby rainfall is suppressed by up to 40 per cent compared to its long-term mean. The inner radius of this dry footprint approximately coincides with the radius of hurricane self-sufficiency with respect to water vapor. We discuss how Carnot efficiency considerations do not constrain the power of such open systems that deplete the pre-existing moisture. Our findings emphasize the incompletely understood role and importance of atmospheric moisture supplies, condensation and precipitation in hurricane dynamics.Comment: 38 pages, 17 figures, 1 Table; extended analyses: available E/P ratios reviewed and explained (Table 1); rainfall and moisture distributions 3 days before and after hurricanes, propagation velocity and its relationship to radial velocity; efficiency for non-steady hurricanes; hurricane motion and rainfall asymmetries discusse

The equations of motion for moist atmospheric air

How phase transitions affect the motion of moist atmospheric air remains controversial. In the early 2000s two distinct differential equations of motion were proposed. Besides their contrasting formulations for the acceleration of condensate, the equations differ concerning the presence/absence of a term equal to the rate of phase transitions multiplied by the difference in velocity between condensate and air. This term was interpreted in the literature as the "reactive motion" associated with condensation. The reasoning behind this "reactive motion" was that when water vapor condenses and droplets begin to fall the remaining gas must move upwards to conserve momentum. Here we show that the two contrasting formulations imply distinct assumptions about how gaseous air and condensate particles interact. We show that these assumptions cannot be simultaneously applicable to condensation and evaporation. "Reactive motion" leading to an upward acceleration of air during condensation does not exist. The "reactive motion" term can be justified for evaporation only; it describes the downward acceleration of air. We emphasize the difference between the equations of motion (i.e., equations constraining velocity) and those constraining momentum (i.e., equations of motion and continuity combined). We show that, owing to the imprecise nature of the continuity equations, consideration of total momentum can be misleading and that this led to the "reactive motion" controversy. Finally, we provide a revised and generally applicable equation for the motion of moist air.Comment: 11 pages, two figure

A critique of some modern applications of the Carnot heat engine concept: The dissipative heat engine cannot exist

In several recent studies, a heat engine operating on the basis of the Carnot cycle is considered, where the mechanical work performed by the engine is dissipated within the engine at the temperature of the warmer isotherm and the resulting heat is added to the engine together with an external heat input. This internal dissipation is supposed to increase the total heat input to the engine and elevate the amount of mechanical work produced by the engine per cycle. Here it is argued that such a dissipative heat engine violates the laws of thermodynamics. The existing physical models employing the dissipative heat engine concept, in particular the heat engine model of hurricane development, need to be revised. This journal is © 2010 The Royal Society