Turbulent Mixing Processes in Atmospheric Bores and Solitary Waves Deduced from Profiling Systems and Numerical Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Families of solitary waves (“solitons”) associated with two atmospheric bores on the same day were observed by an unprecedented number of ground-based and airborne profiling systems during the International H2O Project (IHOP). In addition, a very high-resolution numerical weather prediction model initialized with real data was used with success to simulate one of the bores and the evolving soliton. The predicted wave amplitude, phase speed, wavelength, and structure compared well to these extraordinarily detailed observations. The observations suggest that during the active phase (when turbulent mixing was active, which was prior to bore collapse), the bores and waves vigorously mixed dry air from above a nocturnal boundary layer down to the surface. Refractivity computed from near-surface radar observations showed pronounced decreases due to sudden drying during the passage of the bores in this phase, but refractivity increases appeared during the period of bore collapse. During both phases, the bores wafted aerosol-laden moist air up to the middle troposphere and weakened the capping inversion, thus reducing inhibition to deep convection development. The model results indicate that the refractivity decreases near the surface were due to drying caused by downward turbulent mixing of air by the wave circulations. Turbulent kinetic energy was generated immediately behind the bore head, then advected rearward and downward by the solitary waves. During the dissipation stage, the lifting by the bore head produced adiabatic cooling aloft and distributed the very moist air near the surface upward through the bore depth, but without any drying due to the absence of vigorous mixing. Thus, this study shows that the moist thermodynamic effects caused by atmospheric bores and solitons strongly depend upon the life cycle of these phenomena.
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".