Wave‐Current Interactions During Hurricanes Earl and Igor in the Northwest Atlantic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interactions between surface waves and ocean currents over the northwest Atlantic during Hurricanes Earl and Igor (2010) are investigated using a coupled wave‐circulation model and observational data. Our results show that the coupled model improves the model performance in simulating the surface waves, sea level, water temperature, and salinity. By including the wave‐current interactions (WCIs), the maximum significant wave heights (SWHs) are reduced by more than 10% along the storm tracks and more than 20% over eddies. In the Gulf of Maine (GoM), the simulated SWHs and peak wave periods are also modulated by strong tidal currents. Surface waves, in turn, reduce the semidiurnal tidal amplitudes (up to ∼9%) and currents (up to ∼40%) in the GoM due mainly to the wave‐enhanced bottom stress. Surface waves also increase the peak storm surge (up to ∼19%) during these hurricanes, which is mostly attributed to the wave‐induced forces through Stokes drift and wave dissipation but slightly compensated by the wave‐enhanced bottom stress. The hurricane‐driven surface currents are modulated by waves toward the clockwise direction with a decrease in current speeds of more than ∼60%. This is attributed to the reduced current shear and density gradient resulting from mixing enhanced by wave breaking, but compensated by wave‐induced forces. Salinity and temperature are also modulated by surface waves, mostly through the wave‐induced forces and enhanced mixing by wave breaking. Overall, the coupled model produces higher surface salinity and stronger surface cooling due to the inclusion of the WCIs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".