On the Generation and Maintenance of the 2012/13 Sudden Stratospheric Warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using a newly developed analysis tool, multiscale window transform (MWT), and the MWT-based localized multiscale energetics analysis, the 2012/13 sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) is diagnosed for an understanding of the underlying dynamics. The fields are first reconstructed onto three scale windows: that is, mean window, sudden warming window or SSW window, and synoptic window. According to the reconstructions, the major warming period may be divided into three stages: namely, the stages of rapid warming, maintenance, and decay, each with different mechanisms. It is found that the explosive growth of temperature in the rapid warming stage (28 December–10 January) results from the collaboration of a strong poleward heat flux and canonical transfers through baroclinic instabilities in the polar region, which extract available potential energy (APE) from the mean-scale reservoir. In the course, a portion of the acquired APE is converted to and stored in the SSW-scale kinetic energy (KE), leading to a reversal of the polar night jet. In the stage of maintenance (11–25 January), the mechanism is completely different: First the previously converted energy stored in the SSW-scale KE is converted back, and, most importantly, in this time a strong barotropic instability happens over Alaska–Canada, which extracts the mean-scale KE to maintain the high temperature, while the mean-scale KE is mostly from the lower atmosphere, in conformity with the classical paradigm of mean flow–wave interaction with the upward-propagating planetary waves. This study provides an example that a warming may be generated in different stages through distinctly different mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".