Resolution Dependence and Subfilter-Scale Motions in Idealized Squall-Line Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, the sensitivity of idealized squall-line simulations to horizontal resolution, subgrid turbulence mixing scheme, and subfilter-scale motion is discussed. Inconsistent results from numerical simulations of convective systems have suggested that there are issues with the behavior of the subgrid turbulent mixing parameterizations with increasing resolution that still need to be understood. WRF is used to perform large-eddy simulation of an idealized squall line with horizontal grid spacings of 4 km, 2 km, 1 km, 500 m, and 250 m. While 4 km grid spacing is able to produce the general structure of the squall line, higher-resolution simulations produce more detailed structures. Individual convective cell size decreases, the maximum cloud top height increases, and the subgrid turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) ratio decreases as resolution increases. As found in past studies, 4 km grid spacing is not recommended as it contains an unreasonable amount of subgrid TKE, is not sufficient to resolve the large energy-containing eddies, and may even suppress propagation of the squall line. While horizontal resolution of 1 km can produce a squall line, there are several discrepancies between the 1 km case and higher resolutions, including trailing banded structures and inhibited three-dimensionalization. These issues at 1 km resolution are investigated by examining the subfilter energy transfer for the highest-resolution simulation filtered to a horizontal scale of 1 km. The subfilter energy transfer rate at a scale of 1 km is dominated by the streamwise and shear components. While dissipation dominates the transfer, a significant amount of backscatter also exists, which is not represented by most subgrid models.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".