A Possible Three-Dimensional Mechanism for Oscillating Wobbles in Tropical Cyclone–Like Vortices with Concentric Eyewalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is known that concentric eyewalls can influence tropical cyclone (TC) intensity. However, they can also influence TC track. Observations indicate that TCs with concentric eyewalls are often accompanied by wobbling of the inner eyewall, a motion that gives rise to cycloidal tracks. Currently, there is no general consensus of what might constitute the dominant triggering mechanism of these wobbles. In this paper we revisit the fundamentals. The control case constitutes a TC with symmetric concentric eyewalls embedded in a quiescent environment. Two sets of experiments are conducted: one using a two-dimensional nondivergent nonlinear model and the other using a three-dimensional nonlinear model. It is found that when the system is two-dimensional, no wobbling of the inner eyewall is triggered. On the other hand, when the third dimension is introduced, an amplifying wobble is evident. This result contradicts the previous suggestion that wobbles occur only in asymmetric concentric eyewalls. It also contradicts the suggestion that environmental wind shear can be the main trigger. Examination of the dynamics along with complementary linear eigenmode analysis revealed the triggering mechanism to be the excitation of a three-dimensional exponentially growing azimuthal wavenumber-1 instability. This instability is induced by the coupling of two baroclinic vortex Rossby waves across the moat region. Additional sensitivity analyses involving reasonable modifications to vortex shape parameters, perturbation vertical length scale, and Rossby number reveal that this instability can be systematically the most excited. The growth rates are shown to peak for perturbations characterized by realistic vertical length scales, suggesting that this mechanism can be potentially relevant to actual TCs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".