PART I

General Principles

Mesoscale Meteorology in Midlatitudes Paul Markowski and Yvette Richardson

© 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-74213-6
 1
What is the Mesoscale?

1.1 Space and time scales introduced by Ligda (1951) in an article reviewing the use
of weather radar, in order to describe phenomena smaller
Atmospheric motions occur over a broad continuum of than the synoptic scale but larger than the microscale, a term
space and time scales. The mean free path of molecules that was widely used at the time (and still is) in reference
(approximately 0.1 μm) and circumference of the earth to phenomena having a scale of a few kilometers or less.1
(approximately 40 000 km) place lower and upper bounds The upper limit of the mesoscale can therefore be regarded
on the space scales of motions. The timescales of atmo- as being roughly the limit of resolvability of a disturbance
spheric motions range from under a second, in the case by an observing network approximately as dense as that
of small-scale turbulent motions, to as long as weeks in present when the first synoptic charts became available,
the case of planetary-scale Rossby waves. Meteorological that is, of the order of 1000 km.
phenomena having short temporal scales tend to have small At least a dozen different length scale limits for the
spatial scales, and vice versa; the ratio of horizontal space mesoscale have been broached since Ligda’s article. The
to time scales is of roughly the same order of magnitude for most popular bounds are those proposed by Orlanski
most phenomena (∼10 m s−1 ) (Figure 1.1). (1975) and Fujita (1981).2 Orlanski defined the mesoscale
Before defining the mesoscale it may be easiest first to as ranging from 2 to 2000 km, with subclassifications of
define the synoptic scale. Outside of the field of mete- meso-α, meso-β, and meso-γ scales referring to horizontal
orology, the adjective synoptic (derived from the Greek scales of 200–2000 km, 20–200 km, and 2–20 km, respec-
synoptikos) refers to a ‘‘summary or general view of a tively (Figure 1.1). Orlanski defined phenomena having
whole.’’ The adjective has a more restrictive meaning to scales smaller than 2 km as microscale phenomena, and
meteorologists, however, in that it refers to large space those having scales larger than 2000 km as macroscale phe-
scales. The first routinely available weather maps, produced nomena. Fujita (1981) proposed a much narrower range
in the late 19th century, were derived from observations of length scales in his definition of mesoscale, where the
made in European cities having a relatively coarse character- mesoscale ranged from 4 to 400 km, with subclassifica-
istic spacing. These early meteorological analyses, referred tions of meso-α and meso-β scales referring to horizontal
to as synoptic maps, paved the way for the Norwegian scales of 40–400 km and 4–40 km, respectively (Figure 1.1).
cyclone model, which was developed during and shortly
after World War I. Because only extratropical cyclones and 1 According to Ligda (1951), the first radar-detected precipitation area
fronts could be resolved on the early synoptic maps, syn- was a thunderstorm observed using a 10-cm radar in England on
optic ultimately became a term that referred to large-scale 20 February 1941. Organized atmospheric science research using radars
atmospheric disturbances. was delayed until after World War II, however, given the importance
of the relatively new technology to military interests and the secrecy
The debut of weather radars in the 1940s enabled
surrounding radar development.
phenomena to be observed that were much smaller in 2 In addition to Orlanski and Fujita, scale classifications and/or subclas-

scale than the scales of motion represented on synoptic sifications also have been introduced by Petterssen (1956), Byers (1959),
weather maps. The term mesoscale appears to have been Tepper (1959), Ogura (1963), and Agee et al. (1976), among others.

Mesoscale Meteorology in Midlatitudes Paul Markowski and Yvette Richardson

© 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-74213-6
 4 WHAT IS THE MESOSCALE?

“long
1 month waves”

fronts (along- baroclinic

front dimension) waves
hurricanes

1 day mountain & lake

circumference of Earth
disturbances ~2π / f
-1
s convective
timescale

m
0 systems

40 000 km
~1
thunderstorms
e
1 hour op urban effects
sl large
tornadoes
short
dust devils
gravity waves
thermals
tornadoes
~2π / N
1 minute

turbulence

1 second

20 m 200 m 2 km 20 km 200 km 2000 km 10 000 km

micro γ micro β micro α meso γ meso β meso α macro β macro α
Orlanski (1975)
scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale
moso α miso β miso α meso β meso α maso β maso α
Fujita (1981)
scale scale scale scale scale scale scale

horizontal length scale

Figure 1.1 Scale definitions and the characteristic time and horizontal length scales of a variety of atmospheric
phenomena. Orlanski’s (1975) and Fujita’s (1981) classification schemes are also indicated.

Fujita’s overall scheme proposed classifications spanning terms in the governing equations can safely be disregarded
two orders of magnitude each; in addition to the mesoscale, owing to their relative unimportance on that scale, such
Fujita proposed a 4 mm–40 cm musoscale, a 40 cm–40 m as vertical accelerations and advection by the ageostrophic
mososcale, a 40 m–4 km misoscale, and a 400–40 000 km wind. Likewise, on the microscale, different terms in the
masoscale (the vowels A, E, I, O, and U appear in alpha- governing equations can often be neglected, such as the
betical order in each scale name, ranging from large scales Coriolis force and even the horizontal pressure gradient
to small scales). As was the case for Fujita’s mesoscale, force on occasion. On the mesoscale, however, the full com-
each of the other scales in his classification scheme was plexity of the unsimplified governing equations comes into
subdivided into α and β scales spanning one order of play. For example, a long-lived mesoscale convective system
magnitude. typically contains large pressure gradients and horizontal
The specification of the upper and lower limits of and vertical accelerations of air, and regions of substantial
the mesoscale does have some dynamical basis, although latent heating and cooling and associated positive and
perhaps only coincidentally. The mesoscale can be viewed negative buoyancy, with the latent heating and cooling
as an intermediate range of scales on which few, if any, profiles being sensitive to microphysical processes. Yet even
simplifications to the governing equations can be made, at the Coriolis force and radiative transfer effects have been
least not simplifications that can be applied to all mesoscale shown to influence the structure and evolution of these
phenomena.3 For example, on the synoptic scale, several systems.
The mesoscale also can be viewed as the scale on which
motions are driven by a variety of mechanisms rather
3 This is essentially the same point as made by Doswell (1987). than by a single dominant instability, as is the case on
 DYNAMICAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE MESOSCALE AND SYNOPTIC SCALE 5

the synoptic scale in midlatitudes.4 Mesoscale phenomena variables. Figure 1.2 presents one of Fujita’s manual anal-
can be either entirely topographically forced or driven yses (i.e., a hand-drawn, subjective analysis) of sea level
by any one of or a combination of the wide variety of pressure and temperature during an episode of severe
instabilities that operate on the mesoscale, such as thermal thunderstorms.6 Pressure and temperature anomalies are
instability, symmetric instability, barotropic instability, and evident on a range of scales: for example, a synoptic-scale
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, to name a few. The dominant low-pressure center is analyzed, as are smaller-scale highs
instability on a given day depends on the local state of and lows associated with the convective storms. The magni-
the atmosphere on that day (which may be heavily influ- tude of the horizontal pressure and temperature gradients,
enced by synoptic-scale motions). In contrast, midlatitude implied by the spacing of the isobars and isotherms, respec-
synoptic-scale motions are arguably solely driven by baro- tively, varies by an order of magnitude or more within the
clinic instability; extratropical cyclones are the dominant domain shown.
weather system of midlatitudes on the synoptic scale. Baro- The various scales of motion or scales of atmospheric
clinic instability is most likely to be realized by disturbances variability can be made more readily apparent by way of
having a horizontal wavelength roughly three times the filters that preferentially damp select wavelengths while
Rossby radius of deformation, LR , given by LR = NH/f , retaining others. For example, a low-pass filter can be used
where N, H, and f are the Brunt-Väisälä frequency, scale to remove relatively small scales from an analysis (low-pass
height of the atmosphere, and Coriolis parameter, respec- refers to the fact that low-frequency [large-wavelength]
tively.5 Typically, LR is in the range of 1000–1500 km. In features are retained in the analysis). A band-pass filter can
effect, the scale of the extratropical cyclone can be seen as be used to suppress scales that fall outside of an intermediate
defining what synoptic scale means in midlatitudes. range. Thus, a low-pass filter can be used to expose synoptic-
In contrast to the timescales on which extratropical scale motions or variability and a band-pass filter can be
cyclones develop, mesoscale phenomena tend to be shorter used to expose mesoscale motions. (A high-pass filter would
lived and also are associated with shorter Lagrangian be used to suppress all but the shortest wavelengths present
timescales (the amount of time required for an air parcel to in a dataset; such filters are rarely used because the smallest
pass through the phenomenon). The Lagrangian timescales scales are the ones that are most poorly resolved and
of mesoscale phenomena range from the period of a pure contain a large noise component.) The results of such
buoyancy oscillation, equal to 2π/N or roughly 10 minutes filtering operations are shown in Figure 1.3, which serves
on average, to a pendulum day, equal to 2π/f or roughly as an example of how a meteorological field can be viewed
17 hours in midlatitudes. The former timescale could be as having components spanning a range of scales. The total
associated with simple gravity wave motions, whereas the temperature field comprises a synoptic-scale temperature
latter timescale characterizes inertial oscillations, such as field having a southward-directed temperature gradient
the oscillation of the low-level ageostrophic wind com- plus mesoscale temperature perturbations associated with
ponent that gives rise to the low-level wind maximum thunderstorm outflow.
frequently observed near the top of nocturnal boundary
layers.
The aforementioned continuum of scales of atmospheric 1.2 Dynamical distinctions
motions and associated pressure, temperature, and mois-
ture variations is evident in analyses of meteorological
between the mesoscale
and synoptic scale
4 See, for example, Emanuel (1986).
5 In addition to being related to the wavelength that maximizes the 1.2.1 Gradient wind balance
growth rate of baroclinic instability, LR also is important in the problem
of geostrophic adjustment. Geostrophic adjustment is achieved by rela-
On the synoptic scale, phenomena tend to be characterized
tively fast-moving gravity waves. The horizontal scale of the influence of by a near balance of the Coriolis and pressure gradient forces
the gravity waves is dictated by LR , which physically can be thought of (i.e., geostrophic balance) for straight flow, so accelerations
as the distance a gravity wave can propagate under the influence of the of air parcels and ageostrophic motions tend to be very
Coriolis force before the velocity vector is rotated so that it is normal to small. For curved flow, the imbalance between these forces
the pressure gradient, at which point the Coriolis and pressure gradient
on the synoptic scale results in a centripetal acceleration
forces balance each other. For phenomena having a horizontal scale
approximately equal to LR , both the velocity and pressure fields adjust such that the flow remains nearly parallel to the curved
in significant ways to maintain/establish a state of balance between the
momentum and mass fields. On scales much less than (greater than) LR , 6Fujita called these mesoscale meteorological analyses mesoanalyses. The
the pressure (velocity) field adjusts to the velocity (pressure) field during analyses he published over the span of roughly five decades are widely
the geostrophic adjustment process. regarded as masterpieces.
 6 WHAT IS THE MESOSCALE?

Figure 1.2 Sea-level pressure (black contours) and temperature (red contours) analysis at 0200 CST 25 June 1953. A squall
line was in progress in northern Kansas, eastern Nebraska, and Iowa. (From Fujita [1992].)

isobars (i.e., gradient wind balance). Gradient wind balance parameter, Lagrangian time derivative, and viscous effects
is often a poor approximation to the air flow on the acting on u, respectively. We shall neglect Fu for now, but
mesoscale. On the mesoscale, pressure gradients can be we shall find later that effects associated with the Fu term
considerably larger than on the synoptic scale, whereas are often important.
the Coriolis acceleration (proportional to wind velocity) is On the synoptic scale and mesoscale, for O(v) ∼
of similar magnitude to that of the synoptic scale. Thus, 10 m s−1 , the Coriolis acceleration f v is of order
mesoscale systems are often characterized by large wind
accelerations and large ageostrophic motions. O(f v) ∼ (10−4 s−1 ) (10 m s−1 ) ∼ 10−3 m s−2 .
As scales decrease below ∼1000 km the Coriolis accel-
eration becomes decreasingly important compared with On the synoptic scale, the pressure gradient force has a scale
the pressure gradient force, and as scales increase beyond of  
∼1000 km ageostrophic motions become decreasingly sig- 1 ∂p 1 10 mb
O − ∼ −3
∼ 10−3 m s−2 ;
nificant. Let us consider a scale analysis of the horizontal ρ ∂x 1 kg m 1000 km
momentum equation (the x equation, without loss of
generality): thus, the Coriolis and pressure gradient forces are of simi-
du 1 ∂p lar scales and, in the absence of significant flow curvature,
=− + f v + Fu , (1.1) we can infer that accelerations (du/dt) are small. Fur-
dt ρ ∂x
thermore, because v = vg + va and vg = ρf1 ∂p ∂x , where vg
where u, v, ρ, p, f , d/dt, and Fu are the zonal wind and va are the geostrophic and ageostrophic meridional
speed, meridional wind speed, air density, pressure, Coriolis winds, respectively, (1.1) can be written as (ignoring Fu )
 DYNAMICAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE MESOSCALE AND SYNOPTIC SCALE 7

2100 UTC 24 April 1975

(a) manual analysis (c) synoptic temperature field
68 66
72 70 64 64 62 60
64 68
67 58
70 59 60 52 60
29 72 63 69 57 62
72 53 56 68
65
44 55 73 71 70 66 70
56 60 62
70
70 70 70
64 70 54
33 56 72
52 66
72 70 59 72
73
72 57 71 72
74 53
58 68 55 74 74
75 78 76 74
75 71 66
60 78
49 72 70 59 80 76
53 77 77
74 61 76
70
54
62
L 67
80 73
60
78
63 75 78

74 73 81
87
52
63 H 80
56 88 73
65 80
76 66 80 62
78 80
78 65 64 82
79 80 86 90
32 63 75
86 62 82
46 86 84
82 85 84 67 82 82
89
84 40 63 83 67
84
86 32 87 67 86
88 66 66
88 86
65
90 85
84
88 68 87
66
90
89 0 100 200 300 km
88 66
86 86

(b) objectively analyzed temperature field (d) mesoscale temperature perturbations

66 64
66 68 68 -4 -2 0 2 2 0 -2 -4

64 -4
66
68 -2
66 70 0
72
68 -4
70 74
-4
76
-6 -2
72 78
-4
74 80 -6
76
78 -4
80 90 -2
82 8
82 0
84 88 2 6 2
86 0
84 4
4
88

4
88
86 2 2

Figure 1.3 (a) Manual surface analysis for 2100 UTC 24 April 1975. Isotherms are drawn at 2 ◦ F intervals and fronts and
pressure centers are also shown. A thunderstorm outflow boundary is indicated using a blue dashed line with double dots.
The brown boundary with open scallops denotes a dryline. (The symbology used to indicate outflow boundaries and drylines
has varied from analyst to analyst; different symbols for outflow boundaries and drylines appear in other locations within
this book.) (b) Computer-generated (‘objective’) analysis of the total temperature field, i.e., the sum of the synoptic-scale
temperature field and the mesoscale temperature perturbations. The objectively analyzed total temperature field is fairly
similar to the manually produced temperature analysis in (a), although some small differences can be seen. (c) The
synoptic-scale temperature field (◦ F). This was obtained using a low-pass filter that significantly damped wavelengths
smaller than approximately 1500 km. (d) Mesoscale temperature perturbation field (◦ F). This was obtained using a band-pass
filter that had its maximum response for wavelengths of 500 km, and damped wavelengths much longer and much shorter
than 500 km. (Adapted from Maddox [1980].)
 8 WHAT IS THE MESOSCALE?

f va = − ρ1 ∂p Pa/103 m ∼ 10 m s−2 . We neglect Fw in this simple analysis,

∂x + f v. Therefore, ageostrophic motions are
also small on the synoptic scale (particularly for fairly although Fw can be important, particularly near the edges
straight flow), owing to the approximate balance between of clouds and in rising thermals. Moreover, the vertical
the Coriolis and pressure gradient forces, referred to as component of the Coriolis force, 2u cos φ, can be shown
quasigeostrophic balance. to be negligible compared with the size of the gravitational
On the mesoscale, the horizontal pressure gradient, acceleration and the vertical pressure gradient, with a scale
∂p/∂x, can range from 5 mb/500 km (e.g., in quiescent of 10−3 m s−2 . Thus, we neglect this term as well, which
conditions) to 5 mb/5 km (e.g., beneath a thunderstorm). gives us
At the small end of this range, the Coriolis and pressure dw 1 ∂p
=− − g. (1.4)
gradient forces may be approximately in balance, but at dt ρ ∂z
the large end of this range, the pressure gradient force is If dw/dt is negligible, then (1.4) becomes the so-called
two orders of magnitude larger than on the synoptic scale hydrostatic approximation,
(i.e., 10−1 m s−2 versus 10−3 m s−2 ). On these occasions,
the pressure gradient force dominates, the Coriolis force is ∂p
= −ρg. (1.5)
relatively unimportant, and accelerations and ageostrophic ∂z
motions are large. In which types of phenomenon can we assume that
A dimensionless number, called the Rossby number, dw/dt is negligible compared with | − ρ1 ∂p ∂z | and g? In other
assesses the relative importance of the Coriolis force and air words, what determines whether a phenomenon is regarded
parcel accelerations (the magnitude of the acceleration is as a hydrostatic or nonhydrostatic phenomenon?
directly related to the magnitude of the ageostrophic wind). It turns out we cannot simply scale the terms in (1.4)
The Rossby number can be used to distinguish synoptic- to determine which are significant, because the two terms
scale weather systems from subsynoptic-scale phenomena on the rhs are nearly equal in magnitude but opposite in
and is defined as sign, and thus we must compare dw/dt with their residual.
O(dv/dt) V/T V 2 /L V (Note that even small values of dw/dt [in comparison to g]
Ro = ∼ ∼ ∼ , (1.2) can lead to vertical velocities of significance to mesoscale
O(−f k × v) fV fV fL
weather.) We do this by defining a base state (e.g., an
where k is the unit vector in the positive z direction, T is average over a large horizontal area) density and a base
a timescale (generally the advective timescale), V is the state pressure, defined to be in hydrostatic balance with
magnitude of a characteristic wind velocity, v, and L is a it. We then express the total pressure and density as the
characteristic horizontal length scale. On the synoptic scale, sum of the base state value (p and ρ, respectively) and a
where the quasigeostrophic approximation usually can be perturbation (p and ρ  , respectively), that is,
 
made, Ro  1. For mesoscale systems, Ro  1. p = p (z) + p x, y, z, t (1.6)

 
ρ = ρ (z) + ρ x, y, z, t , (1.7)
1.2.2 Hydrostatic balance
and we require
In many atmospheric applications (e.g., synoptic meteorol- ∂p
0=− − ρg. (1.8)
ogy, large-scale dynamics) we assume that the atmosphere ∂z
is in hydrostatic balance, that is, the vertical pressure gra-
Multiplying (1.4) by ρ, subtracting (1.8), dividing by ρ,
dient force per unit mass and gravitational acceleration are
and incorporating the definitions of p and ρ yields
nearly balanced, resulting in negligible vertical accelera-
tions. The vertical momentum equation can be written as dw 1 ∂p ρg
=− − . (1.9)
dt ρ ∂z ρ
dw 1 ∂p
=− + 2u cos φ − g + Fw , (1.3)
dt ρ ∂z 1 ∂p
The relative importance of dw/dt compared with | − ρ ∂z |
ρg
where w, g, , φ, and Fw are the vertical velocity, grav- (and | |) is
ρ  
itational acceleration, angular rotation rate of the earth, dw
O
latitude, and viscous effects acting on w, respectively. dt
 . (1.10)
The scale of g is 10 m s−2 and the scale of | − ρ1 ∂p∂z | is 1 ∂p
O −
also ∼(1 kg m−3 )−1 · 100 mb/1000 m ∼ (1 kg m−3 )−1 · 104 ρ ∂z
 DYNAMICAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE MESOSCALE AND SYNOPTIC SCALE 9

The scale of w can be obtained from scaling the continuity of the phenomenon to the horizontal length scale (or
equation (the two-dimensional Boussinesq approximation width) of the phenomenon. When a phenomenon is much
is used for simplicity; see Chapter 2 for a review), wider than it is deep (D/L  1), dw/dt is relatively small
    compared with the vertical perturbation pressure gradient
∂w ∂u
O ∼O ; (1.11) force and the phenomenon can be considered a hydro-
∂z ∂x static phenomenon; that is, the hydrostatic approximation
thus, is justified. When a phenomenon is approximately as
VD wide as it is deep (D/L ∼ 1), dw/dt is similar in mag-
O(w) ∼ , (1.12)
L nitude to the vertical perturbation pressure gradient force,
where O(w) is the scale of w, and V, D, and L are the and the phenomenon is considered a nonhydrostatic phe-
characteristic horizontal velocity scale, depth scale, and nomenon; that is, the hydrostatic approximation should
horizontal length scale of the phenomenon, respectively. not be made (Figure 1.4). Note that we have assumed
From (1.12) the scale of dw/dt is therefore equivalent timescales for the horizontal and vertical accel-
  erations (i.e., T is equivalent in (1.13) and (1.17)). This
dw VD assumption is equivalent to (1.11), which dictates that
O ∼ , (1.13)
dt LT D/W (the vertical advective timescale) is equal to L/V
(the horizontal advective timescale). There may be cases
where T is the characteristic timescale for accelerations
in which ∂u/∂x is balanced by ∂v/∂y such that the
within the phenomenon.
 scaling in (1.11) is not appropriate. In that case, even
The scale of | − ρ1 ∂p
∂z | may be written as phenomena with a large aspect ratio may be nearly hydro-
 
1 ∂p δp static. For convective motions, (1.11) is considered a good
O − ∼ , (1.14) assumption.
ρ ∂z ρD
On the synoptic scale, D/L ∼ 10 km/1000 km ∼
where δp is the characteristic pressure perturbation within 1/100  1. On the mesoscale, D/L can be ∼1 or 1,
the phenomenon. We want to eliminate δp and ρ in favor depending on the phenomenon. For example, in a
of the characteristic scales of the phenomenon (e.g., V, D, L, thunderstorm updraft, D/L ∼ 10 km/10 km ∼ 1 (i.e., the
and T). We do this by scaling the horizontal momentum thunderstorm updraft can be considered to be a nonhydro-
equation as follows: static phenomenon). However, for the rain-cooled outflow
du 1 ∂p that the thunderstorm produces, D/L ∼ 1 km/10 km ∼
≈− (1.15) 1/10  1 (i.e., the outflow can be considered to be an
dt ρ ∂x
    approximately hydrostatic phenomenon).
du 1 ∂p In a hydrostatic atmosphere, pressure can be viewed
O ∼O − (1.16)
dt ρ ∂x essentially as being proportional to the weight of the
V δp atmosphere above a given point. Pressure changes in a
∼ (1.17) hydrostatic atmosphere arise from changes in the den-
T ρL
sity of air vertically integrated over a column extending
VL δp from the location in question to z = ∞ (p = 0). This
∼ ; (1.18)
T ρ interpretation of pressure will be useful for some mesoscale
phenomena. For a nonhydrostatic phenomenon, we cannot
therefore, using (1.14),
  relate pressure fluctuations solely to changes in the weight
1 ∂p VL of the overlying atmosphere. Instead, significant dynamic
O − ∼ . (1.19)
ρ ∂z TD effects may contribute to pressure perturbations. Examples
include the low pressure found in the core of a tornado
Using (1.13) and (1.19), (1.10) becomes and above the wing of an airplane in flight, and the high
 
dw VD pressure found beneath an intense downburst and on the
O  2
dt LT D upwind side of an obstacle. The relationship between the
  ∼ = . (1.20) pressure field and wind field is discussed in much greater
1 ∂p VL L
O − depth in Section 2.5.
ρ ∂z TD
In the next chapter we review some of the basic equations
The quantity D/L is known as the aspect ratio of the and tools that will be relied upon in the rest of the book. The
phenomenon—the ratio of the characteristic depth scale experienced reader may wish to skip ahead to Chapter 3.
 10 WHAT IS THE MESOSCALE?

nonhydrostatic isolated convective

regime thunderstorm systems hurricanes baroclinic waves
10 km “long waves”
extratropical
highs and lows

tornado fronts
1 km thermals sea breeze (along-front
(along-front dimension)
depth scale

dimension)

100 m dust devils

1
=

hydrostatic
/L

regime
D

10 m

10 m 100 m 1 km 10 km 100 km 1 000 km 10 000 km

horizontal length scale

Figure 1.4 We can infer that a phenomenon is hydrostatic when its horizontal length scale is significantly larger than its
vertical depth scale. Shown above are some examples of nonhydrostatic and approximately hydrostatic phenomena plotted
as a function of depth versus horizontal length (i.e., width) scale.

Further reading Maddox (1980).

Orlanski (1975).
Emanuel (1986). Tepper, M., 1959: Mesometeorology—the link between
Fujita, T. T., 1963: Analytical mesometeorology: A review. macroscale atmospheric motions and local weather. Bull.
Severe Local Storms, Meteor. Monogr., No. 27, 77–125. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 40, 56–72.
Fujita (1981). Thunis, P., and R. Bornstein, 1996: Hierarchy of mesoscale
Fujita, T. T., 1986: Mesoscale classifications: Their history flow assumptions and equations. J. Atmos. Sci., 53,
and their application to forecasting. Mesoscale Meteorol- 380–397.
ogy and Forecasting, P. S., Ray, Ed., Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vinnichenko, N. K., 1970: Kinetic energy spectrum in the
18–35. free atmosphere—one second to five years. Tellus, 22,
Lilly, D. K., 1983: Stratified turbulence and mesoscale 158–166.
variability of the atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 40, 749–761.