A New Surface Model for Cyclone–Anticyclone Asymmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cyclonic vortices on the tropopause are characterized by compact structure and larger pressure, wind, and temperature perturbations when compared to broader and weaker anticyclones. Neither the origin of these vortices nor the reasons for the preferred asymmetries are completely understood; quasigeostrophic dynamics, in particular, have cyclone–anticyclone symmetry. In order to explore these and related problems, a novel small Rossby number approximation is introduced to the primitive equations applied to a simple model of the tropopause in continuously stratified fluid. This model resolves dynamics that give rise to vortical asymmetries, while retaining both the conceptual simplicity of quasigeostrophic dynamics and the computational economy of two-dimensional flows. The model contains no depth-independent (barotropic) flow, and thus may provide a useful comparison to two-dimensional flows dominated by this flow component. Solutions for random initial conditions (i.e., freely decaying turbulence) exhibit vortical asymmetries typical of tropopause observations, with strong localized cyclones, and weaker diffuse anticyclones. Cyclones cluster around a distinct length scale at a given time, whereas anticyclones do not. These results differ significantly from previous studies of cyclone–anticyclone asymmetry in the shallow-water primitive equations and the periodic balance equations. An important source of asymmetry in the present solutions is divergent flow associated with frontogenesis and the forward cascade of tropopause potential temperature variance. This thermally direct flow changes the mean potential temperature of the tropopause, selectively maintains anticyclonic filaments relative to cyclonic filaments, and appears to promote the merger of anticyclones relative to cyclones.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".