Kelvin and Rossby‐gravity wave packets in the lower stratosphere of some high‐top CMIP5 models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the stratospheric Kelvin and Rossby‐gravity wave packets with periods of a few days in nine high‐top (i.e., with stratosphere) models of the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). These models simulate realistic aspects of these waves and represent them better than the tropospheric convectively coupled waves analyzed in previous studies. There is nevertheless a large spread among the models, and those with a quasi‐biennial oscillation (QBO) produce larger amplitude waves than the models without a QBO. For the Rossby‐gravity waves this is explained by the fact that models without a QBO never have positive zonal mean zonal winds in the lower stratosphere, a situation that is favorable to the propagation of Rossby‐gravity waves. For the Kelvin waves, larger amplitudes in the presence of a QBO is counter intuitive because Kelvin waves are expected to have larger amplitude when the zonal mean zonal wind is negative, and this is always satisfied in models without a QBO. We attribute the larger amplitude to the fact that models tuned to have a QBO require finer vertical resolution in the stratosphere. We also find that models with large precipitation variability tend to produce larger amplitude waves. However, the effect is not as pronounced as was found in previous studies. In fact, even models with weak precipitation variability still have quite realistic stratospheric waves, indicating either that (i) other sources can be significant or that (ii) the dynamical filtering mitigates the differences in the sources between models.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".