Impacts of Subgrid Orographic Drag on the Summer Monsoon Circulation and Precipitation in East Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work is an investigation of the impacts of three different components of parameterized subgrid orographic drag (SOD) on the summer monsoon circulation and precipitation in East Asia, that is, flow‐blocking drag (FBD), low‐level gravity wave drag (GWD), and upper‐level GWD. Using the global Weather Research and Forecasting model, a series of numerical experiments are conducted with different configurations of SOD parameterization. In the case of no SOD, the simulated lower tropospheric winds are too strong in an elongated region extending from East China to the east of Japan, accompanied with excessive rainfall. The intensity of the western Pacific subtropical high is overestimated, thus suppressing the precipitation over the subtropical ocean. With the parameterization of SOD, the circulation and precipitation biases are alleviated, depending on the geographical and vertical distribution of SOD. The FBD is very weak and only contributes to the circulation in eastern East Asia. Contrastingly, there is remarkable low‐level GWD in the lower latitudes which helps reduce the low‐level wind biases in South China. The upper‐level GWD only occurs in the midlatitudes, preferentially above the subtropical jet. It can not only decelerate the winds in the midlatitudes but also reduce the southwesterlies in East China through the interaction with the upper‐level jet. Alleviation of precipitation bias over the land of East Asia is primarily due to the low‐level GWD which weakens the water vapor flux. In contrast, the upper‐level GWD has the greatest contribution to the enhancement of precipitation over the subtropical ocean by increasing the low‐level lifting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".