Realizing Surface-Driven Flows in the Primitive Equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The surface quasigeostrophic (SQG) model describes flows with surface buoyancy perturbations with no interior quasigeostrophic potential vorticity at small Rossby number Ro and O(1) Burger number, where quasigeostrophic dynamics are expected to hold. Numerical simulations of SQG dynamics have shown that vortices are frequently generated at small scales, which may have O(1) Rossby numbers and therefore may be beyond the limits of SQG. This paper examines the dynamics of an initially geostrophically balanced elliptical surface buoyancy perturbation in both the SQG model and the nonhydrostatic Boussinesq primitive equations (PE). In the case of very small Rossby number, it is confirmed that both models agree, as expected. For larger Ro, non-SQG effects emerge and as a result the solution of the PE deviates significantly from that of SQG. In particular, an increase in the Rossby number has the following effects: (i) the buoyancy filaments at the surface are stabilized in that they generate fewer secondary vortices; (ii) the core of the vortex experiences inertial instability, which results in a uniform buoyancy profile in its interior; (iii) the divergent part of the energy spectrum increases in magnitude; (iv) the PE model has significantly more gravity waves that are radiated from the vortex; (v) the magnitude of the vertical velocity increases; and (vi) in the mature stages of evolution, there are gravitational instabilities that develop because of the complicated dynamics inside the vortex. It is demonstrated that significant non-SQG effects are evident when the large-scale Rossby number of the initial flow is about 0.05 and the local Rossby number is O(1).
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".