English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In his comment J. C. Bergmann discusses the analysis of Van de Wiel et al. (2008; VDW08), acknowledges the conceptual merits of the work related to the introduced “apparent wall concept”, but identifies a factor of two error in the potential energy calculation. As a consequence (see Bergmann 2011; B11), the derived value (equal to 6.25) of the numerical constant (slope) in the Monin–Obukhov similarity function, respectively in its local-scaling equivalent (Nieuwstadt 1984), is reduced to half its value. The present authors fully agree with this re-analysis by B11, but wish to emphasise that the “apparent wall concept” is used to anticipate a plausible order of magnitude of the abovementioned constant, rather than predicting an exact value. In the following, we briefly reanalyse the comment of B11. Consider a linear density profile (the very stable limit considered in VDW08). On average, parcels at a reference level z′ = 0 with density ρ0 will reach their ‘maximum’ displacement zB when all their vertical kinetic energy is converted into potential energy (see Fig. 1). B11 refers to zB “as the root-mean-square displacement”. Thus we can find this length scale by computing the maximum work (in the mean sense: B11) that can be done by parcels, given their mean initial vertical kinetic energy (1/2)ρσ 2 w (per volume):

boundary-layer meteorology/boundary - layer meteorology

Reply to the Comments by J. C. Bergmann on the Paper: “Local Similarity in the Stable Boundary Layer and Mixing Length Approaches: Consistency of Concepts”