JANUARY 1992 LAPRISE 197 The Euler Equations of Motion with Hydrostatic Pressure as an Independent Variable RENE LapRise Physics Department, University of Québec at Montréal, Montréal, Quebec (Manuscript received 30 November 1990, in final form 20 May 1991) ABSTRACT. ‘A novel form of the Euler equations is developed through the use of a diferent vertical coordinate system. Its shown that the use of hydrostatic pressure as an independent variable has the advantage thatthe Euler equations then take a form that parallels very closely the form of the hydrostatic equations cast in isobaric coordinates. This similarity holds even when topography is incorporated through a further transformation into terrainfollowing coordinates. This leads us to suggest that hydrostatc-pressure coordinates could be used ad- ‘vantageously in noahydrostatie atmospheric models based on the filly compressible equations. 1. Introduction ‘The last decade has witnessed growing interest in mesoscale meteorology in general, and in the devel- ‘opment and applications of mesoscale models in par- ticular. The substantial increase in available computing resources is a significant component in this unprece- dented effervescence, making possible numerical sim- ulations of increasingly complex and finescale atmo- spheric phenomena. During this period, traditional numerical weather prediction (NWP) models have undergone vast improvements: for example, the root- mean-square error of 72-h surface pressure forecasts produced by some countries has been nearly halved in the last decade (e.g., Delmee et al. 1990). Part of this improvement may be attributed to the use of finer computational mesh onto which the field equations are integrated. In fact, a substantial overlap now exists between some mesoscale and NWP models from the point of view of their mesh gauge and domain sizes NWP and general circulation models are invariably based on a set of hydrostatic equations: this approxi- ‘mation limits the scope of applicability of these models. Under normal atmospheric conditions, nonhydrostatic effects become perceptible when the spatial scale of the phenomenon of interest falls below about 100 km (e.g., Daley 1988). Many regional NWP models today are integrated onto meshes finer than this dimension. Nonhydrostatic effects must certainly be incorporated for spatial scales under 10 km. ‘The hydrostatic assumption is often relaxed in me- soscale studies. Almost all nonhydrostatie models, Conesponding author address: Dr, René Laprise, Physics Depart- ‘meat, University of Québec at Montréal, P.O. Box 8888 Siation A, Montiéal, Québec H3C 3P8, Canada (© 1992 American Meteorological Society whether based on the fully compressible or anelastic equations, naturally use height coordinate or the cor- responding terrain-following scaled height (c.g., Clark 1977; Cotton and Tripoli 1978; Carpenter 1979; Dur- ran and Klemp 1983). The only known exception to this practice is the model developed by Miller and Pearce (1974) who, by making simplifications to the ficld equations similar in nature to the anelastic ap- proximation, were able to cast their model in pressure coordinate (see also White 1989 and references therein). On the other hand, the use of pressure as vertical coordinate is generalized in hydrostatic studies, analytical as well as numerical, following the seminal work of Eliassen (1949). Probably the last hydrostatic numerical model to use height as vertical coordinate was that of Kasahara and Washington (1967) Models based on the fully compressible equations are not limited a priori in the scope of their application, unlike hydrostatic or anelastic models. There is nothing in principle to prevent integrating a fully compressible ‘mode! to simulate large-scale atmospheric flows, except possibly the computational cost associated with the Yertical propagation of fast acoustic modes that are admitted by the Euler equations. Tanguay et al. (1990) have developed an efficient numerical algorithm that makes integrating the fully compressible equations as ‘economical as their hydrostatic subset. One difficulty encountered in attempting a detailed comparison of the results of a hydrostatic model with those of a non- hydrostatic one is that the former is invariably framed into a pressure-type vertical coordinate while the latter employs a height coordinate. The problem is com- pounded by the different forms of the equations in the ‘two coordinate systems, the different vertical discreti- zations that naturally ensue, and the frequently differ- ent upper boundary conditions used in the two systems. ‘The incorporation of topography in nonhydrostatic,198, models through the use of terrain-following vertical- coordinate transformation gives rise to the appearance of numerous metric terms; the formulation using a prognostic equation for the generalized vertical motion is notoriously cumbersome [e.g., Eq. (2-31) in Gal- Chen and Somerville 1975; Eq. (2.4) in Carpenter 1979]. Clark (1977) and Durran and Klemp (1983) cchose instead to retain the prognostic equation for true vertical motion and to use a diagnostic equation to relate it to the generalized vertical motion employed for vertical advection, Despite certain advantages, this, formulation would seem to prevent a straightforward pplication of the semi-implicit marching scheme, This problem was recently circumvented by Robert (per- sonal communication) and Denis (1990), who ex- tended Clark’s approach to incorporate topography in a semi-implicit model based on the Euler equations (Tanguay et al. 1990): their elegant scheme, however, effectively adds another prognostic variable to the semi- implicit, ime-discretized version of the equations. In this paper, we will present the formal description of an alternative formulation that neither requires the use of such an auxiliary prognostic variable, nor introduces cumbersome metric found in some nonhydrostatic models, Kasahara ( 1974) considered a variety of vertical co- ordinate systems for use in atmospheric models, fo- cusing mainly on their application in the hydrostatic equations: his analysis has been inspirational to this ‘work where a generalization of the isobaric formulation is sought for the Euler field equations. In this article, a novel vertical coordinate system applicable to the Euler equations will be described. The coordinate has the interesting property that the field equations ex- pressed in this system have a form similar to the hy- drostatic equations in isobaric coordinate originally developed by Eliassen (1949): in fact, this coordinate becomes true pressure in the hydrostatic limit. A further transformation into a terrain-following version of this coordinate shows that the close parallel between the two sets of field equations is maintained even in pres- ence of topography. This is an important feature that facilitates the implementation of topography in non- hydrostatic models. A brief analysis of energy conser- vation and of the dispersion relationship of infinitesi- mal perturbations will also be presented, for the exact as well as for the hydrostatic and anelastic approxi- mations of the field equations expressed in hydrostatic- pressure coordinate. 2, Height coordinate system All atmospheric models based onto the Euler equa- tions to date are formulated in geometric height co- ordinate. For a dry atmosphere, the field equations are as follows: a Sv +aV.p= 1 qt op=F a MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW ‘Vowwe 120 Q) d ap _ vq tstag ne B) (4) (3) with, (6) and aw DyaVeV tS ‘The notation used is standard: a is the specific volume, V and w are the horizontal and vertical projections of the wind vector, F represents contributions of external forces as well as the Coriolis force, and Q represents heat sources. The subscript z beside local time deriv- atives and horizontal gradients, following Eliassen’s (1949) notation, serves as a reminder that these are evaluated on constant-height surfaces. In the vertical momentum equation, 7 is a tag that takes either the value of unity in the exact equations or the value of zero when the hydrostatic approximation is made, Asis often the practice in meteorology, it is possible to rewrite the equations for thermodynamic energy (3) and mass continuity (4) by combining them with the perfect-gas state law (5) to obtain these alternate forms: a BD a) Specific volume is then obtained diagnostically from this form of the state law: Rr ar. ‘The most simple horizontal boundary conditions that can be applied with (1)-(7) consist of the follow- ing Kinematic conditions for fow Between parallel planes: 6) w(z0) =O and w(zr) = 0, (8) where 25 and zr are two constant height values. In the presence of topography, a tensor transformation can be applied to facilitate the implementation of the ki- nematic lower boundary condition (e.g., Gal-Chen and Somerville 1975).JASUARY 1992 3. Pressure coordinate system Following Eliassen (1949), pressure has been used systematically as an independent variable when the hydrostatic approximation is made. The hydrostatic ‘equations take the following form in pressure coordi- nates: a av tYonrF (9) «2 7) G°"G (10) cc YevtT no qa) a=AT (12a) #2, 95 Pst) = by f ax, 94 B'. Od', bo = Hx, Ys Pos 1) (12b) where aa Fi i) ap a7(a),+¥ Vetoes oma (13) In these equations, ¢ = gz is the geopotential height. The simplest horizontal boundary conditions that ‘can be applied with this set of equations consist of the following: (po) =0 and «(pr) = 0, a4) where po and pr are two constant values of pressure. Topography can also be incorporated through a trans- formation into a pressure-type terrain-following co- ordinate, as shown by Phillips (1957). The above pressure system of coordinate is quite advantageous for the study of hydrostatic systems. It is noteworthy that the number of prognostic scalar variables is reduced to three instead of four in the height coordinate system with +y = 0, as the mass continuity equation is replaced by a solenoidal condition between V and w: this diagnostic relation then provides the means by which the generalized vertical velocity w is obtained, which is an outstanding feature of the field equations formulated in isobaric coordinate as pro- posed by Eliassen (1949). The task that will be undertaken in the next section is to devise a system of vertical coordinate, for use with the Euler equations, that will have the property of au- ly reverting onto pressure coordinates when the hydrostatic approximation is made. In other words, we endeavor to find the primitive of the pressure co- ordinate system that generalizes it for application to fully compressible equations. LAPRISE 199 4. Hydrostatic-pressure coordinate system A distinguishing feature of the pressure-coordinate hydrostatic equations is that the mass continuity equa~ tion takes the form of a diagnostic elation. In his anal- ysis of various coordinate systems, Kasahara (1974) noted that the mass continuity equation can be cast in the following flux form in any vertical coordinate s: [alee] ted) eles =, 15 eG as) Here p is the specific density, p Clearly this prognostic equation takes the form of a solenoidal constraint whenever the quantity p42/ds is a constant. Calling x the special coordinate that makes the first term in (15) vanish, this equation becomes: on - verve tno, re H, - or % dt ‘This equation is a generalization of (11), valid whether the hydrostatic approximation is made or not. Choos- ing the value of the constant pdz/dx to be g~', and using this constraint as a definition of the coordinate leads to: 0, el (16) (7a) or (17) Integrating the latter relation in the vertical leads to the following definition of the x coordinate: (X59, 2,0) = wrt ie ol, ¥, 2', tygde", are X,Y, 27, Oe (18a) If zp is chosen at infinity and 7 set to zero, then = simply represents the hydrostatic pressure, that is, the ‘weight ofa unit-area atmospheric column above a point located at a height z. For this reason, this x coordinate could also be called a mass coordinate system. The value of the geopotential may be obtained by inte- grating (17a) in the vertical: $2,945 1.0 = d0— J a(x, 9 x, Ode, bo = OX, ¥, 70,1), (8b) This is the nonhydrostatic analog of (12b). In this equation, @y is the value of the geopotential height at a reference level 7. The x coordinate could rightly be called an isobaric coordinate, owing to the Greek roots of the word; how-200 ever, we will refrain from using this terminology to avoid confusion with the crue pressure coordinate used in the hydrostatic framework, which also commonly bears this name. It should be clear, though, that in the Euler equations the distinction between p and x must be retained. The advantage of the coordinate over the p coordinate is that the former always exhibits a ‘monotonic behavior with altitude; also, the mass con- tinuity equation takes a simpler form in x coordinate than in the p coordinate, With the definition (18a) for the hydrostatic-pressure coordinate system, the standard relations of coordinate transformations (e.g., Kasahara 1974) are as follows: a @ 08 oe (sy (20) ‘The system of Euler equations (1), (2), (3").(4')(5"), (6), and (7) may then be rewritten as follows in hy- drostatic-pressure coordinates: a Ven Vat AVe8) 5 Prognostic equations {Vs avnt 2.6 =F (1) at Pe ag ve dw op) | Gri Pav ay a _ ad @ ad Gd G cy & Gp a + Ce Ds (24) Diagnostic reations on vivetioo (25) (26a) o=d-[ adr’; (26) Definitions jate(2) eviviee oO i= (5), + Vee e (27) a aw Dra, -V + 90-6)-(S) — ne. (28) Equations (21)-(24) form a complete set, in the sense that the number of dependent variables (V, w, 7, ?) equals the number of prognostic equations. Other variables such as (7, «, , Ds) are defined diagnostically from the prognostic variables through the relations (25)-(28) MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW Vouunte 120 Other choices of the dependent variables can be made. For example, the thermodynamic energy (23) and mass continuity (24) equations may be written in the form: (23’) (24) and then the state law (26a) is replaced by RT pa (26c) Alternatively, in lieu of (24) or (24"), mass continuity may also be expressed by the following alternative equation: ga, on and then (26a) and (26b) are replaced by 9% RT a=-F pa 29) Equation (24") is obtained by combining (24"), (25), (26), and (28). Obviously (24”) is merely a statement of the definition of the (true) vertical velocity w = dz/ dt, multiplied by the gravitational acceleration g: this serves to verify the integrity of the different formula- tions. The simplest horizontal boundary conditions that censure mass conservation in the hydrostatic-pressure coordinate system are as follows: #(%)=0 and #x7)=0, 30) where xo and my are two constant x values. A number offfields can then be obtained diagnostically: fora fixed (7), the field of do is obtained from (25) and (26), Wo from the kinematic condition using Vo and go, and wr from (24"). The set of fully compressible equations in * coor- dinate (21), (23), and (25) to (27) are the nonhy- drostatic generalization of the hydrostatic equations in pressure coordinates (9)—(13). Equation (22) and one among the set of (24), (24"), or (24”) additionally ac- count for the nonhydrostatic effects admitted by the Euler equations. By setting y to zero, (22) states that the pressure variable p becomes equal to the indepen- dent coordinate x, Then the (true) vertical velocity w is not required any more; in fact, it appears only in (24), (24"), and (24"). These equations effectively be- come diagnostic relations for w: as p in (24) is known from (22) with y = 0 to be p =, «is known in (24") from (26a), and so is @ in (24”) from (26).Ianvary 1992 5. Terrain-following hydrostatic-pressure coordinate In this section, a terrain-following version of the hy- drostatic-pressure coordinate will be devised in order to incorporate naturally the lower boundary condition in presence of topography. A general hybrid vertical coordinate m may be introduced through the following relation, which is a generalization of the pressure-type hybrid coordinate used in some hydrostatic models such as the ECMWF and the CCC GCM models (€.., Laprise and Girard 1990): mx, 50 1) = A(n) + B(n)a(x, 9). G1) In this relation, 7, is the hydrostatic surface pressure, that is, the weight of an entire atmospheric column of unit area above the surface of the earth, In a hydrostatic model, , would be equal to p,, the true surface pres- sure. The functions A and B can be quite general; if, however, the lowest 7 surface is to follow the contours of the topography, 1 must be constant along the surface a= m4; hence, A(n) = 0, B(ns) = 1, (32a) and 7, is constant that can be chosen as unity without any loss in generality. If, in addition, the upper bound- ary is required to correspond to a constant 7 surface = nr; then A and B must also satisfy the conditions: A(ar) = #20, Blin) =0. (326) The terrain-following coordinates in Phillips (1957)is 4 special case of this general hybrid coordinate where A(n)= 0, Bin) =, With ns and 17 constant, itis then a simple matter to implement the kinematic boundary conditions as fol- lows: rr ar= 0. WL) = alr) = 0, 2 (33) Following the rules laid out by Kasahara (1974), the transformation from x coordinate to 7 coordinate is as follows: aL (a on on ar\'a v= 95-0402) 2 “6 oa (34a) a) a From the definition of the 7 coordinate in (31), the following relations are obtained: on dA dB nl, eB 35a in hy dh a V,a = Br,V(Inz,). (35b) It is then straightforward to cast the nonhydrostatie equations (21)=(27) into terrain-following hydrostatic- LAPRISE 201 pressure coordinate; the resulting set of field equations are as follows: dy 4+ RTV, Inp + (eiste0 =F (36) Gta) PR) aoe, a (38) (39) (40) (41) on et [oF a, (42) where 4 ), +V-0,+ ig DsveVt (2) o0v.)-(3*) Again we note the alternative formulations in terms of other dependent variables as de a "eno (39') p= ary a9 (an\~ a+ 26 (98 42! +2(2) 0. (2) ‘We note in passing that in practical use of this set of equations in a numerical model, it would probably be preferable to express the pressure variable in terms of the departure from its hydrostatic component in order to remove large cancelling contributions in some terms as the factor multiplying g in (37). ‘The simplest boundary conditions that at least en- sure conservation of mass and satisfy the kinematic lower boundary condition are the following: in) = 0 and inr) = 0. (44) If, in addition, we choose (nr) = rr, a constant (the effect of the choice of x; will be analyzed in the next section on energetics), then (40) can be integrated in the vertical over the whole domain to yield the follow-202 ing prognostic relation for the total atmospheric col- umn weight per unit area (hydrostatic surface pres- sure): Sint Lv. (45) Equation (45) is the nonhydrosati counterpart of the surface-pressure tendency equation used in hydrostatic ‘models cast in pressure-type terrain-following coordi- nates. Note that such an auxiliary prognostic equation is absent in models formulated in height coordinate, irrespective of whether or not they are hydrostatic. It is noteworthy that (45) is easier to implement in a numerical model than the tendency equation for p, that would ensue from the use of true pressure as in- dependent variable in the Euler equations. The generalized vertical velocity % is obtained by integrating (40) from ny to 7m, and making use of the ‘boundary conditions (44) and the relation for the evo- lution of the hydrostatic surface-pressure equation (45) to yield the diagnostic relation wa Le (vse) Lovee (46) If, on the other hand, (40) is integrated from a level up to the top ny and substituted into the definition of the substantive derivative of x, then the following di- agnostic relation is obtained: “Vx -V (f vin an) ‘This accessory relation has an identical form in the hydrostatic system where p is substituted for x. In the Euler equations, though, * is given by the diagnostic relation (47), whereas dp/dt is obtained prognostically from (39). It should by now be clear that these hydrostatic- pressure terrain-following coordinate Euler equations revert automatically onto the isobaric terrain-following coordinate hydrostatic equations as implemented in large-scale models (e.g., Laprise and Girard 1990) be- cause, when + is set to zero in (37), x = p. The only difference is the distinction between true pressure p) and hydrostatic pressure x in the nonhydrostatic set. Even a cursory analysis of an alternative formulation of Euler equations using true pressure as the indepen dent variable would reveal a greater discrepancy with the isobaric hydrostatic set (especially for the mass continuity equation) than the proposed set using hy- Grostatic pressure as independent variable. Further- more, the true pressure coordinate transformation may become singular in some applications: this would cer- tainly happen whenever pressure is not a monotonic function of height. Thus, we are led to conclude that the hydrostatic-pressure coordinate + can rightfully claim to be the primitive of the isobaric coordinate (a7) MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW Votume 120 widely used to formulate hydrostatic models. The ter- rain-following, hydrostatic-pressure coordinate field equations used in all GCM and NWP models are thus a subset of the nonhydrostatic field equations as cast in the form (36) to (46). 6. Energetics In this section we will analyze the criteria that boundary conditions must satisfy in order to retain certain invariants of the flow when the Euler equations are cast in terrain-following hydrostatic-pressure 9 co- ordinate. ‘An energy equation may be formed by operating the equations as follows: (e ‘V+ (36) + w(37) + C,(38) =) ( im ((¥ *), op + (1 579g) 90+ +9 + (K+ CT + $)(40) > where Kis the specific kinetic energy: K = (V2 + yw?)/ 2. After cancellation of identical terms and some rear- rangement, the following relation ensues: ty, faror+ ove] an a . Or +2[ararsond| 4 28 (@) _ 9 (28 on \ar), an \ ae J, = (V-F + yw Making use of Carnot’s law, the gas state law, and the definition of the hydrostatic-pressure coordinate, we obtain, after some rearrangements, the following re- lation: a on (f[a+er+o $l] +r fee ror+ove on [ocrareon%|-2 fol) ] = (V-F 4+ wk, +) (48) on ‘When integrated over a periodic domain (such as the whole globe) and from the ground (where the local rate of change of @ is zero) up to the top of the at-January 1992 mosphere (where p = 0), (48) becomes a statement of conservation of total energy defined as t ii f° (K+ GT +9) a dla cospdedy (49) in the absence of external forcing. For total energy to be conserved, it is necessary that certain criteria be satisfied by the horizontal boundary conditions. In this, terrain-following mass coordinate, total energy will be conserved if the following conditions apply: (7) =0 and nr =0)=0 with r= pr=0. (50) One of these conditions corresponds to the kinematic lower boundary condition for flow over topography, while the other is an artificial upper boundary condition corresponding to a “free surface” of the type applied in most numerical models: such an upper boundary condition is commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as a “rigid lid.” A is to be expected, the definition of “energy” in (49) reverts to its hydrostatic counterpart when +y = 0 because then xa = pa = RT and, making use of Mar- ules’ relation [Lorenz 1967, Eq. (97)], or 6 at nro =o Conservation of “total energy” then yields: EL Lt (+ GTS aha cosededd. (49°) In some numerical applications it is advantageous toapply the upper boundary at some finite height (e.g., Laprise and Girard 1990). Such models, in general, will preserve a modified version of the true invariants. Equation (48) may be rearranged into the following, alternative form: [Slerorso 2] value Gr ove] Es + Flue ar+ond| “ale ola) ala) ] =(V-F + WF +Q)%. (51) on In the absence of surface topography (¢, a constant), the contribution of the penultimate and last terms on the lei-hand side of (51) may be made to vanish upon LAPRISE 203 integration over the whole globe and in the vertical from the surface up to wy > 0 and by choosing pr = rp, a constant. Then the invariant that is preserved becomes t fore [UC wvert xa) x 8 dra cosededy (49") upon application of the boundary conditions Hn) = 0 and a(ar>0)=0 with r= pr20 (50') in (51). In the nonhydrostatic system, the quantity C.F + ma plays the same role that enthalpy C,T does in the hydrostatic system: see, for example, (2.12) in Laprise and Girard (1990) for the hydrostatic coun- terpart of (49°). Again, in the hydrostatic limit p = x, so that (49°) becomes identical to (49"), except for possibly different limits of integrations. 7. Summary Up until now, fully compressible models of the at- mosphere have invariably been formulated in terms of height-type vertical coordinate systems. The compli- cated form of the metric terms introduced in the gen- eralized vertical velocity equation, or the complexity of implementing the semi-implicit marching scheme when true vertical velocity is retained, in nonhydro- static models in which topography is incorporated through a rescaling of the vertical coordinate, isa cogent reason for seeking alternative formulations for these models. By comparison, hydrostatic models are gen- crally cast in isobaric coordinates, and this choice ap- pears to ease the incorporation of topography through 2 terrain-following coordinate transformation. This is an important consideration for the implementation of a semi-implicit marching scheme. An alternative vertical coordinate system has been developed here. This system consists of employing hy- drostatic pressure, that is, the weight of a unit-area at- mospheric column above a point, as the independent variable. The field equations expressed in this inde- pendent variable exhibit a number of properties that make this coordinate an interesting alternative for nonhydrostatic models based on the Euler equations. This hydrostatic-pressure or mass coordinate system has the interesting property of automatically reverting conto the isobaric coordinate system when nonhydro- static effects are neglected. In fact, the Euler field equa tions expressed in the terrain-following version of this hydrostatic-pressure coordinate system take a form that parallels very closely the hydrostatic equations in pres- sure coordinate. The differences between the fully compressible and hydrostatic equations then consist of the distinction made in the former between true pres-204 sure and hydrostatic pressure, a distinction that is ab- sent in the latter case. Also, two additional prognostic equations in the unapproximated set account for non- hydrostatic and elasticity effects. ‘An analysis of the energetics of the Euler equations in this hydrostatic-pressure coordinate system has shown that invariants of the exact equations in an un- bounded atmosphere can be retained in some modified form under the application of a free-surface upper boundary condition: this feature is of some importance for applications in numerical models. Finally, a linear analysis of small-amplitude pertur- bations performed in hydrostatic-pressure coordinate (in appendix A) has returned the conventional struc- ture relationship that is obtained in height coordinates: this serves as further proof of the integrity of the pro- posed vertical coordinate system. In appendix B, it is shown that the proposed hydrostatic-pressure coordi- nate can be used not only for exact and hydrostatic equations of motion, but also for the anelastic field equations. Acknowledgments. The author would like to express his gratitude to his colleague, Professor André Robert, for suggesting the idea of using (true) pressure as in- dependent variable for the Euler equations: it is this idea that, in due time, led to the formulation in terms of hydrostatic pressure. The author also benefited greatly from numerous discussions with Drs, Claude Girard, who in fact contributed to the section on energy conservation, and Bernard Dugas, both with the Di- vision de Recherche en Prévision Numérique in Dor- val. Dr. Roger Daley, chief scientist at the Canadian Climate Centre, made several useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper; he suggested the use of the name /ydrostatic pressure for the * coordinate. This research was sponsored by NSERC Grant OGP0042544, FCAR Grant NC0488, and AES grant. APPENDIX A, A Linear Analysis of Perturbations in Hydrostatic- Pressure Coordinate System In this appendix, the structure of infinitesimal per- turbations superimposed upon a resting, isothermal basic state will be analyzed in the proposed hydrostatic- pressure coordinate system. For simplicity we will mit, the analysis to the nonrotating case. Denoting back- ground variables by an asterisk and exploiting the fact, that a resting atmosphere is hydrostatic, and hence p* = f, itis straightforward to show that the linearized version of (21)=(27) appropriate for small-amplitude perturbations, denoted by primed variables, are as fol- lows: Vi+Ve + RT*VG'=0 (Al) a MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW Vouume 120 aT’ RT* Aq’ _ RTH (A2) (a3) (aay (Asa) (ASb) (A6) where D=v-v and g’ = (Inpy’. As previously noted, (ASa) and (ASb) are not inde- pendent prognostic relations, being related by the def- inition of the hydrostatic-pressure coordinate, mass continuity (A3), and the state law (A6). ‘The above set of linear, coupled, partial differential equations may be combined to eliminate all but one variable to yield the desired structure equation. The order of the elimination process is immaterial and does not influence the outcome of the reduction with the continuous equations. In the following analysis, a spe- Cific order will be followed to establish clearly the par- allel between nonhydrostatic equations in hydrostatic- pressure coordinate and hydrostatic equations in iso- baric coordinate. To this end, it will prove convenient to introduced auxiliary variables defined as follows: (a1) Pag + RIG (as) Because no rotation effects are included in this analysis, (AL) may be replaced by a scalar equation by applying, the horizontal divergence operator onto it to yield Sorscigs RTegs0, 48) In terms of the geopotential & and temperature T' variables, the equations take the following form: (alo) (aly (al2) (ab)