<p>The subscript <span class="math-container">$p$</span> denotes that it on a pressure surface. It is more or less a formality for a derivation, so it is commonly dropped. It is rooted in the chain rule</p>
<p>Put another way, it eliminates the complexity of this conundrum <span class="math-container">$\Phi=\Phi(x,y,p[x,y])$</span>. By specifically stating that you are working on an isobaric surface, you turn</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}= (\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x})_{p=constant} + \frac{ \partial \Phi}{\partial p} (\frac{\partial p}{\partial x})_{z=constant} $$</span>
into
<span class="math-container">$$\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}= (\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x})_{p} $$</span>.</p>
<p>If you take this concept of chain rule and make it abstract, you could expand it to working on all sorts of surfaces. You could turn the equations from pressure coordinates to PV or temperature coordinates, for example.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-20T20:54:19.940Z
2022-12-20T20:54:19.940Z
BarocliniCplusplus
<p>Currently I hear a series of tutorial videos on atmospheric dynamics as a first starting preparation for reading more detailed material, such as Holton. In particular I refer to this part:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjugCNkLD0k&amp;list=PL_cuIb7hx5lg_zHfUVsUrw6I66U4jq8Dq&amp;index=10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjugCNkLD0k&amp;list=PL_cuIb7hx5lg_zHfUVsUrw6I66U4jq8Dq&amp;index=10</a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4VYH3.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4VYH3.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>I can follow more or less the derivation of what we see here, namely that by using p instead of z for the vertical coordinate the pressure force on an air parcel reduces to gradient of geopotential <span class="math-container">$\Phi$</span>:</p>
<p>Still I have some troubles with regard to the mathematical formalism:</p>
<p>What does <span class="math-container">$\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}\right)_p$</span> mean mathematically? I would have assumed, that <span class="math-container">$\Phi$</span> is a function of <span class="math-container">$x, y, p$</span>: <span class="math-container">$\Phi = \Phi(x,y,p)$</span> and, therefore <span class="math-container">$\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}$</span> means to keep y,p as constant and consider only the change of <span class="math-container">$\Phi$</span> caused by a change in x (this is the definition of partial derivative). Why do we write <span class="math-container">$\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}\right)_p$</span> instead? Once we agree on a special set of coordinates we dont have to specify what other coordinates are held constant for the partial derivative. But if we decide to do it, why is it then not written as <span class="math-container">$\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}\right)_{y,p}$</span> ? Looks a bit confusing.</p>
<p>Because of this notational discrepancy, I'm afraid I haven't quite gotten the &quot;magic behind it&quot; yet, maybe missing the most important point of all, and therefore just think I got it.</p>
<p>Can somebody explain, where I have my missing point?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-17T13:46:37.097Z
You're right, the indices should be $y,p$ instead of just $p$, when following standard notation. Here, they were presumably a) just a bit lazy or b) wanted to keep emphasizing what the other independent coordinate is (y is trivial, but p or z or r needs to be specified). Don't loose sleep over it.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-17T14:43:02.210Z
So I can regard $\Phi$ as a regular multivariable function on x,y,p? The author always talks about "gradient on a surface of constant pressure" and I wonder what this should be in contrast to regular gradient. I see no difference.
MichaelW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-17T14:52:32.100Z
Think of your 'regular' gradient as "gradient on a surface of constant z". Every scalar variable in meteorology is 3-D multivariate, $f=f(x_i, x_j, x_k)$, but clever vertical coordinates can be used, like $x_k=p$ in order to simplify the equations of motion.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
<meteorology><atmosphere><atmosphere-modelling><barometric-pressure>
What does the index "p" mean in the gradient of geopotential in pressure coordinates?
MichaelW
# What does the index "p" mean in the gradient of geopotential in pressure coordinates?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-17)

Currently I hear a series of tutorial videos on atmospheric dynamics as a first starting preparation for reading more detailed material, such as Holton. In particular I refer to this part:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjugCNkLD0k&list=PL_cuIb7hx5lg_zHfUVsUrw6I66U4jq8Dq&index=10>

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/4VYH3.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/4VYH3.png)

I can follow more or less the derivation of what we see here, namely that by using p instead of z for the vertical coordinate the pressure force on an air parcel reduces to gradient of geopotential $\Phi$:

Still I have some troubles with regard to the mathematical formalism:

What does $\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}\right)\_p$ mean mathematically? I would have assumed, that $\Phi$ is a function of $x, y, p$: $\Phi = \Phi(x,y,p)$ and, therefore $\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}$ means to keep y,p as constant and consider only the change of $\Phi$ caused by a change in x (this is the definition of partial derivative). Why do we write $\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}\right)\_p$ instead? Once we agree on a special set of coordinates we dont have to specify what other coordinates are held constant for the partial derivative. But if we decide to do it, why is it then not written as $\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}\right)\_{y,p}$ ? Looks a bit confusing.

Because of this notational discrepancy, I'm afraid I haven't quite gotten the "magic behind it" yet, maybe missing the most important point of all, and therefore just think I got it.

Can somebody explain, where I have my missing point?

**Tags:** meteorology, atmosphere, atmosphere-modelling, barometric-pressure

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You're right, the indices should be $y,p$ instead of just $p$, when following standard notation. Here, they were presumably a) just a bit lazy or b) wanted to keep emphasizing what the other independent coordinate is (y is trivial, but p or z or r needs to be specified). Don't loose sleep over it.  
> **username_0**: So I can regard $\Phi$ as a regular multivariable function on x,y,p? The author always talks about "gradient on a surface of constant pressure" and I wonder what this should be in contrast to regular gradient. I see no difference.  
> **username_1**: Think of your 'regular' gradient as "gradient on a surface of constant z". Every scalar variable in meteorology is 3-D multivariate, $f=f(x_i, x_j, x_k)$, but clever vertical coordinates can be used, like $x_k=p$ in order to simplify the equations of motion.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-12-20. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

The subscript $p$ denotes that it on a pressure surface. It is more or less a formality for a derivation, so it is commonly dropped. It is rooted in the chain rule

Put another way, it eliminates the complexity of this conundrum $\Phi=\Phi(x,y,p[x,y])$. By specifically stating that you are working on an isobaric surface, you turn

$$\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}= (\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x})\_{p=constant} + \frac{ \partial \Phi}{\partial p} (\frac{\partial p}{\partial x})\_{z=constant} $$
into
$$\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}= (\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x})\_{p} $$.

If you take this concept of chain rule and make it abstract, you could expand it to working on all sorts of surfaces. You could turn the equations from pressure coordinates to PV or temperature coordinates, for example.


---

