Thermocline oscillation and warming event in the tropical Indian Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an indicator that shows the maximum subsurface temperature anomalies (MSTA) is first defined to represent the thermocline variations through a case analysis of 1997/98. By using the past 46‐year (1955–2000) subsurface temperature data, thermocline oscillation and wave‐signal propagation in the tropical Indian Ocean are revealed. The thermocline oscillation is robust in the tropical Indian Ocean in spite of the coincidence with the strong El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle as well as the anomalous Walker circulation in the tropical Pacific and the anomalous monsoon circulation in the tropical Indian Ocean. Due to the nature of the propagation of subsurface wave signals, the oscillation may be a potential factor for the predictability of climate and for the dynamical study of the air‐sea interaction in the Indian Ocean region. The warming of sea surface temperature in the tropical Indian Ocean is a basin‐wide phenomenon and results from the reflection of the tropical Rossby waves. By defining an MSTA dipole mode index (M‐DMI), some features of the interannual climate anomalies that correspond to the different phases of M‐DMI obviously exist in the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical central‐western Pacific Ocean. In the positive phase of the M‐DMI, strong 850‐hPa easterly winds appear in the equatorial central‐eastern Indian Ocean while strong 850‐hPa westerly winds occur over the equatorial central western Pacific. Also, for the positive M‐DMI, above‐normal precipitation is located in the tropical central‐western Indian Ocean while below‐normal precipitation is situated over the tropical eastern Indian Ocean and the tropical western Pacific Ocean. The reverse is noted for the negative M‐DMI phase. A scenario for the warming event and the MSTA dipole event in the tropical Indian Ocean is also proposed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".