MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179028631 · doi:10.1175/mwr-d-15-0010.1

Examining the Predictability of the Stratospheric Sudden Warming of January 2013 Using Multiple NWP Systems

2015· article· en· W2179028631 on OpenAlexaff
Om Prakash Tripathi, Mark Baldwin, Andrew Charlton‐Perez, Martin Charron, Jacob C. H. Cheung, Stephen D. Eckermann, Edwin P. Gerber, D. R. Jackson, Yuhji Kuroda, Andrea L. Lang, Justin McLay, Ryo Mizuta, Carolyn A. Reynolds, Greg Roff, Michael Sigmond, Seok-Woo Son, Tim Stockdale

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsWavenumberPredictabilityStratosphereTroposphereClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesSudden stratospheric warmingEnvironmental sciencePolar vortexJet streamAnomaly (physics)Forecast skillGeologyPhysicsJet (fluid)Mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first multimodel study to estimate the predictability of a boreal sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) is performed using five NWP systems. During the 2012/13 boreal winter, anomalous upward propagating planetary wave activity was observed toward the end of December, which was followed by a rapid deceleration of the westerly circulation around 2 January 2013, and on 7 January 2013 the zonal-mean zonal wind at 60°N and 10 hPa reversed to easterly. This stratospheric dynamical activity was followed by an equatorward shift of the tropospheric jet stream and by a high pressure anomaly over the North Atlantic, which resulted in severe cold conditions in the United Kingdom and northern Europe. In most of the five models, the SSW event was predicted 10 days in advance. However, only some ensemble members in most of the models predicted weakening of westerly wind when the models were initialized 15 days in advance of the SSW. Further dynamical analysis of the SSW shows that this event was characterized by the anomalous planetary wavenumber-1 amplification followed by the anomalous wavenumber-2 amplification in the stratosphere, which resulted in a split vortex occurring between 6 and 8 January 2013. The models have some success in reproducing wavenumber-1 activity when initialized 15 days in advance, but they generally failed to produce the wavenumber-2 activity during the final days of the event. Detailed analysis shows that models have reasonably good skill in forecasting tropospheric blocking features that stimulate wavenumber-2 amplification in the troposphere, but they have limited skill in reproducing wavenumber-2 amplification in the stratosphere.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207