Let us consider the case when the oceanic vorticity is constant, \(F\equiv \gamma \) with \(\gamma \in \mathbb {R}\). Therefore, (2)–(3) takes the form:
$$\begin{aligned} u''_k(x)= & {} k^2u_k,\quad k\ne 0 \end{aligned}$$
(6)
$$\begin{aligned} u''_{0}(x)= & {} \frac{\gamma }{\cosh ^2(x)}+2\omega \frac{\sinh (x)}{\cosh ^3(x)} \end{aligned}$$
(7)
with boundary conditions
$$\begin{aligned} u_k(x_0)= & {} \alpha _{k},\quad k\ne 0\nonumber \\ u_0(x_0)= & {} \alpha _0,\quad k=0 \end{aligned}$$
(8)
The general solution to (6) is
$$\begin{aligned} u_k(x)=c_1(k)e^{kx}+c_2(k) e^{-kx},\quad k\ne 0. \end{aligned}$$
(9)
Since (5) yields
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{x\rightarrow -\infty }u_k(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\int _{0}^{2\pi }\lim _{x\rightarrow -\infty }u(x,y)e^{-iky}dy=0, \end{aligned}$$
(10)
we must have
$$\begin{aligned} u_k(x)= & {} c_1(k)e^{kx},\quad k>0,\nonumber \\ u_k(x)= & {} c_2(k)e^{kx},\quad k<0. \end{aligned}$$
(11)
Theorem 1
If \(u(x_0,y)=\psi _0\) for all \(y\in [0,2\pi )\), then \(u_k\equiv 0\) for \(k\ne 0\).
Proof
We note that \(u(x_0,y)=\sum _{k\in {\mathbb {Z}}}u_k(x_0)e^{iky}\) for \(k\ne 0\) is only equal to some constant for all \(y\in [0,2\pi )\) when \(u_k(x_0)=0\) for all \(k\ne 0\). Because of (11), this means \(u_k\equiv 0\) for all \(k\ne 0\). \(\square \)
We are now ready to state and prove our main result.
Theorem 2
Assume the boundary is not a streamline, i.e. \(u_0(y)\) is not a constant. If \(\alpha _1=\alpha _{-1}=0\), then for a given \(\gamma \in {\mathbb {R}}\),
$$\begin{aligned} u(x,y)&=\sum _{k\in {\mathbb {Z}},k\le -2}\alpha _k e^{iky}e^{k(x_0-x)}+\sum _{k\in {\mathbb {Z}},k\ge 2} \alpha _k e^{iky}e^{k(x-x_0)}\\ \\&\quad +\gamma [x+\ln (2\cosh (x))] -\omega [1+\tanh (x)] \end{aligned}$$
is the general solution of (2)–(3) with \(F=\gamma \), satisfying the asymptotic conditions (5) and the boundary condition (4), provided \(\alpha _0=\gamma [x_0+\ln (2\cosh (x_0))] -\omega [1+\tanh (x_0)]\). There are no solutions for \(\alpha _1\ne 0\) or for \(\alpha _{-1}\ne 0\), the modes \(k=\pm 1\) being resonant.
Proof
We begin by looking at the case \({k=0}\). We have:
$$\begin{aligned} u_0''(x)=\frac{\gamma }{\cosh ^2(x)}+2\omega \frac{\sinh (x)}{\cosh ^3(x)},\quad x\le x_o \end{aligned}$$
(12)
It can be easily verified that
$$\begin{aligned} u_P(x)=\gamma \ln (\cosh (x))-\omega \tanh (x)\quad x\le x_0 \end{aligned}$$
is a particular solution of (12) and therefore, the general solution can be written in the form:
$$\begin{aligned} u(x)=\delta x+\beta +\gamma \ln (\cosh (x))-\omega \tanh (x),\quad x\le x_0,\quad \delta ,\beta \in \mathbb {R} \end{aligned}$$
(13)
We claim that for \(\delta =\gamma \) and \(\beta =-\omega +\gamma \ln (2)\), (13) satisfies the asymptotic conditions (5). Indeed, setting \(\delta =\gamma \), we get:
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{x\rightarrow -\infty }\{u'(x)\cosh (x)\}=\lim _{x\rightarrow -\infty }\left\{ \gamma e^x-\frac{\omega }{\cosh (x)}\right\} =0 \end{aligned}$$
For the first condition in (5), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{x\rightarrow -\infty }\{u(x)\}&=\lim _{x\rightarrow -\infty }\{\gamma [\ln (1+e^x)-\ln (2)]+\beta -\omega \tanh (x)\}\\&=-\gamma \ln (2)+\beta +\omega \end{aligned}$$
which vanishes when \(\beta =\gamma \ln (2)-\omega \). Note that these values of \(\delta \) and \(\beta \) are the only ones that come in question.
From the boundary condition (4), we get that
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha _0=\gamma [x_0+\ln (2\cosh (x_0))] -\omega [1+\tanh (x_0)] \end{aligned}$$
We now look at the case \(k=1\) and \(k=-1\). In order for \(u_1(x)=c_1e^x+c_2e^{-x}\) to satisfy (5), we need to set \(c_1=c_2=0\). Therefore, for \(k=\pm 1\), \(u_k\equiv 0\). Consequently, from the boundary condition (4) we can deduce that for \(\alpha _1\ne 0\) or \(\alpha _{-1}\ne 0\), we have no physically relevant solution.
From (11), we can see that (5) is satisfied for all \(|k|\ge 2\). In addition, using the boundary condition (4), we have
$$\begin{aligned} u(x_0,y)=\sum _{k\in {\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha _ke^{iky} \end{aligned}$$
from which we get
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{array}{ll} c_1(k)=\alpha _ke^{-kx_0},&{}\quad k\ge 2\\ c_2(k)=\alpha _ke^{kx_0},&{}\quad k\le -2. \end{array} \end{aligned}$$
\(\square \)
Remark 1
The problem with no y-dependence was considered in [3]. The result in [3] corresponds to the setting \(u_k\equiv 0\) for \(k\ne 0\).
Concerning the physical relevance of the above considerations, the basic sources of oceanic vorticity are wind force and the gravitational forces due to the relative motions of the Moon, the Sun and the Earth in the form of the flood and ebb tidal currents (see the discussions in [6, 16]). Both oceanic vorticities can be realisticallly regarded as non-zero constants (see [11, 14]), with the sign depending on the prevalent wind direction, and, respectively, on whether the flow is of ebb or flood type. Let us note that wave-current interactions in flows with vorticity are a topic of great current interest (see the discussions in [6, 11, 13, 15]), at the large scales that are relevant for gyre flows the presence of surface waves is not relevant.