Atmospheric circulation of tidally locked exoplanets: a suite of benchmark tests for dynamical solvers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid pace of extrasolar planet discovery and characterization is legitimizing the study of their atmospheres via three-dimensional numerical simulations. The complexity of atmospheric modelling and its inherent non-linearity, together with the limited amount of data available, motivate model intercomparisons and benchmark tests. In the geophysical community, the Held-Suarez test is a standard benchmark for comparing dynamical core simulations of the Earth's atmosphere with different solvers, based on statistically averaged flow quantities. In the present study, we perform analogues of the Held-Suarez test for tidally locked exoplanets with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Princeton Flexible Modelling System (fms) by subjecting both the spectral and finite difference dynamical cores to a suite of tests, including the standard benchmark for the Earth, a hypothetical tidally locked Earth, a 'shallow' hot Jupiter model and a 'deep' model of HD 209458b. We find qualitative and quantitative agreement between the solvers for the Earth, tidally locked Earth and shallow hot Jupiter benchmarks, but the agreement is less than satisfactory for the deep model of HD 209458b. Further investigation reveals that closer agreement may be attained by arbitrarily adjusting the values of the horizontal dissipation parameters in the two solvers, but it remains the case that the magnitude of the horizontal dissipation is not easily specified from first principles. Irrespective of radiative transfer or chemical composition considerations, our study points to limitations in our ability to accurately model hot Jupiter atmospheres with meteorological solvers at the level of 10 per cent for the temperature field and several tens of per cent for the velocity field. Direct wind measurements should thus be particularly constraining for the models. Our suite of benchmark tests also provides a reference point for researchers wishing to adapt their codes to study the atmospheric circulation regimes of tidally locked Earths/Neptunes/Jupiters. © 2011 The Authors Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society © 2011 RAS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".