the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Revealing horizontal gravity force in geopotential coordinates via metric tensors
Abstract. Earth gravity force g is represented by geopotential Φ, g =∇Φ , with the three-dimensional gradient operator. True gravity g has horizontal component. Oceanographic and meteorological communities use two approaches to eliminate horizontal gravity force. The first one is to replace Φ by geopotential for uniform Earth mass density (Φuniform) representing no horizontal gravity force, such as spherical, spheroidal, or recently developed Realistic, Ellipsoidal, Analytically Tractable (GREAT) ΦGREAT on the base of |Φ - Φuniform | <<| Φuniform |, however, it is not sufficient to justify because we still need to compare ∇(Φ - Φuniform) to other forces such as Coriolis force and pressure gradient force. The second approach is to use Φ to establish geopotential coordinates. Consider local Cartesian coordinates (ξ, η, ζ) with unit vectors (ξ^, η^, ζ^). The geopotential coordinates (x, y, Z) and corresponding unit vectors (x̂, ŷ, Ẑ) are defined by x = Z = -Φ/g0, g0= 9.81 m/s2. From such a relationship, metric tensors between (ξ, η, ζ) and (x, y, Z), and in turn the horizontal gradient operator are obtained. The pressure gradient is ∇C p = (∂ξp)ξ^ + (∂ηp)η^ + (∂ζp)ζ^ in the local Cartesian coordinates, and ∇G p = (∂xp + ∂xN∂zp)x̂ + (∂yp + ∂yN∂zp)ŷ + (∂Zp)Ẑ in the geopotential coordinates with N the geoidal undulation. The horizontal gravity force exists in horizontal momentum equation with the geopotential coordinates. Importance of the horizontal gravity force is verified using two publicly available datasets. Five concerns with PNAS-e2416636121 are presented in Appendix. The major equation in PNAS-e2416636121, ∇p = (∂ξp)ξ^ + (∂ηp)η^ + (∂ζp)ζ^ = (∂xp)x̂ + (∂yp)ŷ +(|∇Z|∂Zp)Ẑ, is valid only for the gravity with no horizontal component, i.e., for the geopotential coordinates coincident with the local Cartesian coordinates.
- Preprint
(1902 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Jun 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2010', Chris Hughes, 23 Apr 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Poulin, 28 Apr 2026
reply
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 29 April 2026 since the comment was posted by mistake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2010-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Poulin, 28 Apr 2026
reply
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2010', Baylor Fox-Kemper, 28 Apr 2026
reply
One can define a "vertical", or really quasi-vertical, direction in such a way that the geopotential direction is not aligned with it. However, this is an unnecessarily complex and computationally costly choice:
1) The natural way to define the vertical is the direction where a plumb bob hangs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumb_bob). Carpenters have been using this trick to build strong homes for millennia. This combines all forces experienced by a body which is in static location relative to the surface of the earth, i.e., the vector sum of gravity and centrifugal forces.
2) If one insists on having "horizontal" components of gravity, then the hydrostatic balance becomes a partial differential equation rather than an ordinary differential equation, as now geopotential gradient has derivatives in both the "horizontal", latitude-like direction, as well as the "vertical". This engenders a spurious waste of computation.
3) In a coordinate-agnostic framework (see Joel Feske's recently defended PhD thesis and soon-to-be-submitted paper), the geopotential gradient direction can be implemented as vertical even in coordinate systems where no vertical coordinate exists (e.g., tracer coordinates: https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2012.638) by a simple projection operator (ki kj) where ki = ∇i (gravitational potential + centrifugal potential).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2010-CC1 -
CC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2010', Francis Poulin, 28 Apr 2026
reply
This manuscript has a lot mathematics where the author rewrites the equations of motion using covariant and contravariant metric tensors. I have not gone through the details of the mathematics but I am concerned more about the fundamental assumptions that go into this model. The focus is to look at the horizontal component of gravity and how that affects the dynamics, which the author seems to have studied previously. I don't believe this is appropriate for the oceans or atmosphere. It's true that the Earth's surface is not a geoid, but the oceans and atmosphere will naturally align themselves so that gravity is acting orthogonal to these thin fluids (at large scales). Rather than simply defining two non-dimensional numbers, I think there should be more evidence to support that this horizontal component of gravity contributes to the large scale flows before this is seriously considered for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2010-CC3 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2010', John Thuburn, 28 Apr 2026
reply
Please see attached file.
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2010', Anonymous Referee #3, 02 May 2026
reply
Publisher’s note: the supplement to this comment was edited on 6 May 2026. The adjustments were minor without effect on the scientific meaning.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC3', Peter Chu, 07 May 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2010/egusphere-2026-2010-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC3', Peter Chu, 07 May 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 152 | 54 | 17 | 223 | 6 | 8 |
- HTML: 152
- PDF: 54
- XML: 17
- Total: 223
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See attached pdf