Revisiting the Ocean’s Nonisostatic Response to 5-Day Atmospheric Loading: New Results Based on Global Bottom Pressure Records and Numerical Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We use bottom pressure records from 59 sites of the global tsunami warning system to examine the nonisostatic response of the World Ocean to surface air pressure forcing within the 4–6-day band. It is within this narrow “5-day” band that sea level fluctuations strongly depart from the isostatic inverted barometer response. Numerical simulations of the observed bottom pressures were conducted using a two-dimensional Princeton Ocean Model forced at the upper boundary by two versions of the air pressure loading: (i) an analytical version having the form of the westward propagating, 5-day Rossby–Haurwitz air pressure mode; and (ii) an observational version based on a 16-yr record of global-scale atmospheric reanalysis data with a spatial resolution of 2.5°. Simulations from the two models—consisting of barotropic standing waves of millibar amplitudes and near uniform phases in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans—are in close agreement and closely reproduce the observed bottom pressures. The marked similarity of the outputs from the two models and the ability of both models to accurately reproduce the seafloor pressure records indicate a pronounced dynamic response of the World Ocean to nonstationary air pressure fields resembling the theoretical Rossby–Haurwitz air pressure mode.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".