Impacts of Waves and Sea Spray on Midlatitude Storm Structure and Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A coupled atmosphere–wave–sea spray model system is used to evaluate the combined impacts of spray evaporation and wave drag on midlatitude storms. The focus of this paper is on the role of air–sea fluxes on storm intensity and development, and related impacts on the structure of the atmospheric boundary layer. The composite model system consists of the Canadian Mesoscale Compressible Community atmospheric model coupled to the operational wave model WAVEWATCH III, and a recent bulk parameterization for heat fluxes due to sea spray. The case studies are extratropical Hurricane Earl (in 1998) and two intense winter storms from 2000 and 2002, hereafter denoted “superbomb” and “bomb,” respectively. The results show that sea spray tends to intensify storms, whereas wave-related drag tends to weaken storms. The mechanisms by which spray and wave-related drag can influence storm intensity are quite different. When wind speeds are high and sea surface temperatures warm, spray can significantly increase the surface heat fluxes. By comparison, momentum fluxes related to wave drag are important over regions of the storm where young, newly generated waves are prevalent, for example during the rapid development phase of the storm. These momentum fluxes decrease in areas where the storm waves reach maturity. The collective influence of spray and waves on storm intensity depends on their occurrence in the early stages of a storm’s rapid intensification phase, and their spatial distribution with respect to the storm center. Moreover, for the case of the superbomb, a potential vorticity framework is used to show the relative importance of these surface flux impacts compared with baroclinic processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".