Journal list menu
Thermodynamically consistent versions of approximations used in modelling moist air
Funding information: U.S. Department of Energy, Grant/Award Number: 17-SC-20-SC
Abstract
Some existing approaches to modelling the thermodynamics of moist air make approximations that break thermodynamic consistency, such that the resulting thermodynamics does not obey the first and second laws or has other inconsistencies. Recently, an approach to avoid such inconsistency has been suggested: the use of thermodynamic potentials in terms of their natural variables, from which all thermodynamic quantities and relationships (equations of state) are derived. In this article, we develop this approach for unapproximated moist-air thermodynamics and two widely used approximations: the constant- approximation and the dry heat capacities approximation. The (consistent) constant- approximation is particularly attractive because it leads to, with the appropriate choice of thermodynamic variable, adiabatic dynamics that depend only on total mass and are independent of the breakdown between water forms. Additionally, a wide variety of material from different sources in the literature on thermodynamics in atmospheric modelling is brought together. It is hoped that this article provides a comprehensive reference for the use of thermodynamic potentials in atmospheric modelling, especially for the three systems considered here.
1 INTRODUCTION
When considering moist air, it is easy to introduce approximations that break thermodynamic consistency, such that the resulting thermodynamics does not obey the first and second laws or has other inconsistencies. For example, a common approach is to use unapproximated thermodynamics for moist air but define through (with and ) and treat it as an advected quantity.1 This is known as the constant- approximation, and applied in this way it is thermodynamically inconsistent: the treatment of as an advected quantity leads to equations that no longer conserve the total energy, since there are missing water-related terms that should appear on the right-hand side of the equation (i.e., is not really an advected quantity).
Remark 1.Although we have referred here to unapproximated thermodynamics for moist air, such a thing does not actually exist. All thermodynamic potentials are empirical: they come from either experiment or derivation from a more fundamental underlying theory, such as molecular dynamics or statistical mechanics. For example, in this work we assume that heat capacities are temperature-independent, condensates occupy no volume, and each phase of water is an unrelated thermodynamic substance (i.e., there is no equilibrium between water species and Gibbs' phase rule does not apply). This highlights the fundamental difference between inconsistency error (which is avoidable) and approximation error (which is unavoidable).
A general approach to avoid such inconsistency is through the use of thermodynamic potentials, from which all thermodynamic quantities and relationships can be derived. This approach was advocated in Thuburn, (2017, 2018) and Staniforth and White (2019), although complete sets of thermodynamic potentials in terms of their natural variables are not presented in those works. Internal energy in terms of its natural variables is presented in Bowen and Thuburn (2022a, b). An important usage for potentials is a more rigorous treatment of energetics within a modelling system, as discussed in Lauritzen et al., (2022). In this article, we consider two widely used approximations: the constant- approximation and the dry heat capacities approximation. These approximations are used in many existing atmospheric models, often inconsistently. In fact, it is usually difficult to determine exactly what thermodynamic potentials are used for a given model or model component, or even whether there is a single set of thermodynamics. If there is documentation of the thermodynamics, it usually consists of some equations of state2such as and , which are possibly approximated independently. However, as demonstrated in this article, equations of this type do not specify the thermodynamics completely. Additionally, approximating these expressions independently can lead to inconsistency. Some consequences of this inconsistency are explored in Section 4.3. By instead starting with thermodynamic potentials and introducing the relevant approximations directly into these, inconsistency can be avoided. We refer to the consistent systems derived from the approximate potentials as the constant- system and the dry heat capacities system. In addition to consistency, the constant- system also simplifies the dependence on the various water forms (vapour, liquid, and ice) so that, with an appropriate choice of thermodynamic variable (such as the virtual potential temperature discussed below), the adiabatic dynamics depends only on the total mass and the water forms decouple from the rest of the dynamics. This is attractive for numerical modelling, since then water forms can be advanced independently from the dynamics with a larger timestep and/or different numerics.
It is hoped that this article will encourage more groups to articulate the thermodynamics utilized in their models explicitly, and stimulate future research into new consistent thermodynamics with different assumptions.
The main material in this article is complete sets3of thermodynamic potentials in their natural variables for the unapproximated, constant-, and dry heat capacities systems. This work also brings together a lot of material that is scattered around in various sources in the literature, and attempts to provide a comprehensive reference for the use of thermodynamic potentials in atmospheric modelling. It builds on the Gibbs functions introduced in Thuburn, (2017, 2018) and the internal energies introduced in Lauritzen et al., (2018) and Staniforth and White (2019), specifically in making the same fundamental assumptions and obtaining the same thermodynamic potentials up to certain linear functions, which just shift the zeros of entropy and chemical potentials, as discussed in Appendix A. However, Thuburn (2017, 2018), Lauritzen et al. (2018), and Staniforth and White (2019) do not present all thermodynamic potentials and/or do not give them in terms of their natural variables, both of which are done here.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a review of equilibrium thermodynamics in the general case, Section 3 provides the thermodynamic potentials and related quantities for unapproximated (in the sense discussed above) moist air, Section 4 provides the thermodynamic potentials and related quantities for the constant- and dry heat capacities systems, and finally Section 5 gives some conclusions. Appendix A derives the unapproximated potentials found in Section 3, Appendix B discusses potential and virtual quantities, Appendix C gives common thermodynamic quantities for all three systems, Appendix D gives latent heats for all three systems, and Appendix E gives chemical potentials for all three systems. It is hoped that the material in Sections 2, 3, 4 and the Appendices provides a comprehensive reference for the use of thermodynamic potentials in atmospheric modelling, especially for the three systems considered.
2 REVIEW OF EQUILIBRIUM THERMODYNAMICS
Consider a multispecies, multiphase fluid composed of components. By components, here we refer to constituents with distinct thermodynamic behaviour. In addition to separate substances, this can also include different phases of the same species (e.g., water vapour and liquid water) and/or different allotropes of the same species and phase (e.g., ortho and para forms of hydrogen). In writing the thermodynamics below, we do not assume any equilibrium between different phases of the same species or chemical components undergoing reactions, and instead treat each phase as an independent thermodynamic substance. In particular, this means that each phase has its own independent density, rather than a total density for that species, with proportioning between phases done according to some sort of equilibrium hypothesis or phase rule. This assumption fits with the commonly used splitting in atmospheric modelling between (adiabatic) dynamics and physics. We will also assume that all components of the fluid are at the same temperature .4
A key assumption made in modelling this fluid is that local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) holds, in the sense that thermal relaxation times are sufficiently short compared with other dynamical time-scales and therefore large-scale thermodynamic quantities can be defined meaningfully: for example, temperature and entropy. LTE implies that the thermodynamics of this fluid can be described using equilibrium thermodynamics, which is reviewed below. The assumption of LTE is almost universal in atmospheric modelling, especially for the troposphere and stratosphere. More information on equilibrium thermodynamics can be found in standard textbooks on the subject, such as Zdunkowski and Bott (2004).
2.1 Thermodynamic potentials
2.2 Specific thermodynamic potentials
Remark 2.Given specific variables , , and , it is only possible to determine , , , and up to a constant multiplier, since cannot be obtained from these purely specific quantities. However, the partial derivatives of the thermodynamic potentials are what determines the thermodynamics of a system, and therefore this is not an impediment to use of specific thermodynamic potentials , , , and instead of , , , and .
Remark 3.In the atmospheric dynamics literature, Equations 21-24 are themselves often referred to as the equation of state. For example, the expression of in terms of , , and for a single-component perfect ideal gas is . However, this expression itself does not contain sufficient information to determine the thermodynamics completely: only the thermodynamic potentials written in terms of their natural variables do. As an example, both the constant- and unapproximated fluids from Sections 3 and 4.1 have , despite being distinct thermodynamic systems with different behaviour. Additionally, just the potentials themselves are not sufficient: for example, the internal energy for a single-component perfect ideal gas can be written as , but this is not in terms of natural variables and therefore does not have sufficient information to determine the thermodynamics completely.
2.3 Entropic variables
Instead of using specific entropy , it is also possible to use an arbitrary (invertible) function of specific entropy and concentrations: a specific entropic variable . Entropic variables such as potential temperature and potential enthalpy are widely used in atmospheric and oceanic dynamics for two main reasons: in the case of reversible dynamics, they remain advected quantities (since specific entropy and concentrations are advected quantities in this case); and, for certain thermodynamic potentials, a careful choice of entropic variable gives much simpler expressions than specific entropy. Some examples of this are provided in Sections 3 and 4.
3 UNAPPROXIMATED THERMODYNAMICS OF MOIST AIR
We will now specialize from the general development of equilibrium thermodynamics in Section 2 to the case of moist, cloudy air: a mixture of dry air and the three phases of water: water vapour, (cloud) liquid water, and (cloud) ice. The concentrations of these four components are denoted by , , , and , respectively. The gaseous components and are assumed to be perfect ideal gases with temperature-independent (i.e., constant) heat capacities at constant volume and and at constant pressure and . The condensed components and are assumed to be incompressible, with temperature-independent heat capacities and , and to appear as pure substances, and we neglect the volume occupied by the condensates.7Additionally, we do not assume any equilibrium between phases, so we can capture supersaturation and other out-of-equilibrium situations.
Remark 4.Following Thuburn (2017) and Staniforth and White (2019), we could instead predict only total water (i.e., write , etc.) and determine , , and from based on some sort of equilibrium assumption given and (or other conjugate pairs). However, this approach leads to certain thermodynamic potentials becoming discontinuous across phase boundaries, for example mb, K (Velasco and Fernández-Pineda, 2007). This can make the definition of conjugate variables variables for example problematic. Additionally, it is very unclear how to treat situations such as mixed-phase clouds, where all three phases occur simultaneously, with this approach. One possible approach is the use of a generic “condensed water” substance, as done in Ooyama (1990, 2001).
Remark 5.Although we refer to the fluid above as unapproximated moist air, there are in fact several approximations we have made: ideal gas behaviour for dry air and water vapour, temperature-independent heat capacities, zero-volume condensates, and the assumption that condensates occur in a pure form (without any mixture of types). This is an example of the remark made in the Introduction that all thermodynamic potentials are approximate (there are always approximation errors), but it is at least possible to avoid consistency errors by using a single (set of) thermodynamic potentials to derive all thermodynamic relationships.
3.1 Potential temperature
4 APPROXIMATED THERMODYNAMICS OF MOIST AIR
We now consider two widely used approximations to the thermodynamic potentials in Equations 53-56. Both involve modifying the heat capacities and to remove some of the dependence on water species , and therefore simplify the conjugate variables and other expressions.
4.1 Constant- system
Remark 6.As discussed in Section 2, we see that still holds. This is a good demonstration that these sorts of expression (often referred to as equations of state in the atmospheric dynamics literature) do not contain a complete description of the thermodynamics, since both unapproximated and constant- systems give the same expression, despite having different thermodynamics.
4.1.1 Potential temperature
4.1.2 Virtual potential temperature
4.2 Dry heat capacities system
4.2.1 Potential temperature
4.3 Quantifying errors
Detailed discussion about both inconsistency and approximation errors in thermodynamics for coupled climate models can be found in Lauritzen et al. (2022). In this section we provide only a few small examples. Specifically, we estimate discrepancies between the dry heat capacities, constant-, and unapproximated systems using a typical value for water-vapour concentration in the Tropics, (Vallis, 2017). For thermodynamic constants, we take approximate values , , , , , and , all in units of JK kg (Emanuel, 1994). In what follows, for simplicity we will also assume that there is only one water form in the atmosphere, water vapour, since it is the most dominant form; therefore .
However, such computations may not be too informative in applications like global climate system modelling. Instead, we consider global climatological means of water enthalpy fluxes for precipitation and evaporation at the atmosphere–ocean interface for the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) (Golaz et al., 2019) or the Community Earth System Model (CESM) (Danabasoglu et al., 2020), both currently using the dry heat capacities approach. The enthalpy fluxes for evaporation and precipitation are computed using the specific heat capacity of dry air, JK kg, equal approximately 10 Wm each as a global mean average, and are largely based on fluctuations of water vapour. In the unapproximated system, the same fluxes would be computed with JK kg. Therefore, the dry heat capacities system underestimates water energy fluxes in the global model by almost a factor of 2. For global climate simulations, it is a significant difference. On the other hand, in the constant- system the enthalpy fluxes would be computed with the specific heat capacity of water vapour corresponding to this system, JK kg, and enthalpy fluxes in this system would differ from the fluxes in the unapproximated system only by 16%.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This article has presented complete sets of thermodynamic potentials in terms of their natural variables for three systems describing moist air: unapproximated, constant-, and dry heat capacities, along with the associated thermodynamic quantities and relationships derived consistently from them. It is intended as a comprehensive reference for the use of thermodynamic potentials in atmospheric modelling, especially for the three systems considered here. An interesting future research topic would be going in the other direction and relaxing some of the approximations made here: for example, introducing temperature-dependent heat capacities, condensates with volume, mixed (non-pure) condensates (including treatment of hydrometeor populations), and some type of equilibrium between water phases. This would be useful for more sophisticated atmospheric models, such as high-resolution large eddy simulations (LES) or models for exoplanetary atmospheres, and in advanced physics parameterizations.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Christopher Eldred: conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Mark Taylor: formal analysis; investigation; writing – review and editing. Oksana Guba: formal analysis; investigation; writing – review and editing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which substantially improved the presentation and content of this article.
Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. This article describes objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.
This research was supported by the Exascale Computing Project (17-SC-20-SC), a collaborative effort of two U.S. Department of Energy organizations (Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration) responsible for the planning and preparation of a capable exascale ecosystem, including software, applications, hardware, advanced system engineering, and early testbed platforms, in support of the nation's exascale computing imperative.
This research was supported as part of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) project, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Program and Biological and Environmental Research (BER) Program under a Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC 4) BER partnership pilot project.
APPENDIX A: DERIVING UNAPPROXIMATED THERMODYNAMIC POTENTIALS
Recall that we are considering a mixture of dry air and the three phases of water: water vapour, (cloud) liquid water, and (cloud) ice; with concentrations denoted by , , , and . The gaseous components and are assumed to be perfect ideal gases with temperature-independent heat capacities at constant volume and , heat capacities at constant pressure and , and gas constants and . The condensed components and are assumed to be incompressible with temperature-independent heat capacities and and to appear as pure substances, and we neglect the volume occupied by the condensates. We additionally assume that the different water phases behave as separate thermodynamic substances, and therefore there is no equilibrium between phases, so we can capture supersaturation and other out-of-equilibrium situations. This means that the Gibbs phase rule does not have to satisfied.
Under the assumption of a single temperature for all components, along with zero-volume, incompressible condensates, the total Gibbs function can be written as the concentration-weighted sum of the Gibbs function for each component (Zdunkowski and Bott, 2004) plus some additional terms related to the latent heat of the vapour and liquid phases of water, using the common and the relevant partial pressures from Equation A1.
From Equation A9 along with the expressions for the conjugate variables and , it is possible to derive all the other thermodynamic potentials. For example, can be solved to yield , and then , that is, Equation 54. Similar manipulations give (Equation 53) and (Equation 56), and are left as an exercise for the interested reader.
APPENDIX B: POTENTIAL AND VIRTUAL QUANTITIES
B.1 Potential quantities
In other words, it is the temperature if while holding and fixed.
B.2 Virtual quantities
B.2.1 Examples
To make this more concrete, let us consider virtual temperature , virtual potential temperature , and virtual Exner pressure .
B.2.1.1 Unapproximated system
B.2.1.2 Constant- system
B.2.1.3 Dry heat capacities system
It is interesting to note that, in all three systems, the expression holds, which is usually taken as the starting point for definition of . In fact, all the expressions for , , and in terms of and are the same. However, only in the case of the constant- system is an entropic variable, seen by expressing it in terms of natural variables. This is another strong illustration of the point that derived thermodynamic expressions (referred to as “equations of state” in the atmospheric dynamics literature) do not express the full thermodynamics of a system.
APPENDIX C: COMMONLY USED THERMODYNAMIC QUANTITIES
C.1 Maxwell relationships
These are known as Maxwell relationships and are quite useful in determining commonly used thermodynamic quantities and relating partial derivatives.
C.2 Unapproximated system
along with .
C.3 Constant- system
along with .
C.4 Dry heat capacities system
However, we have , in contrast to the unapproximated and constant- approximation cases.
APPENDIX D: LATENT HEATS
D.1 Unapproximated system
D.2 Constant- system
From the perspective of latent heats, the constant- approximation consists of dropping the partial enthalpies associated with liquid/ice (other than the term in ) and modifying to . This eliminates the temperature dependence of the latent heat of melting and changes the coefficient of temperature dependence for the latent heat of vaporization.
D.3 Dry heat capacities system
As expected, all temperature dependence in the latent heats has disappeared.
APPENDIX E: CHEMICAL POTENTIALS AND GENERALIZED CHEMICAL POTENTIALS
The expressions for chemical potential and generalized chemical potentials are quite complicated, and are given here to avoid disrupting the flow of the main text.
Remark 7.An important point is that not all component specific concentrations are independent, since , so there are actually only independent concentrations. However, the component masses are independent, and since the chemical potentials are fundamentally defined in terms of , this interdependence between the values does not matter and we can treat all as independent when taking derivatives.
E.1 Unapproximated system
E.1.1 for
E.1.2 for for potential temperature
E.2 Constant- system
E.2.1 for
E.2.2 for for potential temperature
E.2.3 for for virtual potential temperature
It is key to note that these are all constants, in contrast to the very complicated expressions found for and those found for the other systems.
E.3 Dry heat capacities system
E.3.1 for
E.3.2 for for potential temperature
REFERENCES
- 1 An advected quantity obeys for reversible dynamics.
- 2 Following the usual atmospheric dynamics literature terminology, which differs from the terminology in the thermodynamics literature.
- 3 The four commonly used thermodynamic potentials: internal energy, enthalpy, Gibbs function, and Helmholtz free energy.
- 4 Relaxing the single temperature approximation is possible, but leads to significant increases in complexity. For an example of this in moist atmospheric dynamics, see Bannon (2002).
- 5 This presentation is slightly different from the standard one, which would work in terms of component molar quantities or component number of particles , which are related to mass by through the molar mass and the Avogadro constant .
- 6 We rely on context in the remaining sections to determine whether we have functions of entropy or an entropic variable.
- 7 Condensate volume can be incorporated without too much additional effort, as done in Pelkowski and Frisius (2011), Thuburn (2017), and Staniforth and White (2019). A more sophisticated treatment of condensates that takes into account the behaviour of droplet and other hydrometeor populations is well beyond the scope of this article, and where the assumption of LTE begins to break down.
- 8 This quantity is not often considered in the literature, but it does appear, for example, in Gay-Balmaz (2019).