Dynamical consistency and covariance: Reply to Staniforth and White

2Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

It is argued that the concept of dynamical consistency of approximated equations of motion should be based on their compatibility with the fundamental assumptions underlying Newtonian mechanics. This is achieved by preserving covariance of the approximated equations under synchronous coordinate transformations. A discussion is presented on how this definition of dynamical consistency relates to and differs from White et al.'s.

References Powered by Scopus

Consistent approximate models of the global atmosphere: Shallow, deep, hydrostatic, quasi-hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic

125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Dynamically consistent shallow-atmosphere equations with a complete Coriolis force

34Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Four-dimensional tensor equations for a classical fluid in an external gravitational field

17Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Manifestly invariant Lagrangians for geophysical fluids

5Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

On the triviality of potential vorticity conservation in geophysical fluid dynamics

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Charron, M., Zadra, A., & Girard, C. (2015, October 1). Dynamical consistency and covariance: Reply to Staniforth and White. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2666

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

75%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 2

40%

Physics and Astronomy 1

20%

Mathematics 1

20%

Engineering 1

20%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free