MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4383341955 · doi:10.5194/ems2023-552

Evaluation of WRF parameterizations for extreme wind events over the eastern coast of Spain

2023· preprint· en· W4383341955 on OpenAlexaff
Eduardo Utrabo‐Carazo, Miagros Alvarez Imaz, María Eugenia Dillon, Yanina García Skabar, Enric Aguilar, César Azorín-Molina

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeather Research and Forecasting ModelMeteorologyClimatologyWind speedEnvironmental sciencePlanetary boundary layerGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme wind speed events cause more than half of the economic losses associated with natural disasters in Europe, and they are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change. A better understanding of these extreme events is essential to reduce their associated risks. The overall aim of this research is to study the performance of different parametrizations (micro physics and planetary boundary layer) of the WRF model for the simulation of extreme wind speed and gusts events on the eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula (IP), Spain. Two typical extreme wind events are simulated: (i) a cold front passage in winter (January 4th, 2022), and (ii) a downburst in summer (August 15th, 2021). Three 2-way nested domains are defined, the two largest ones (horizontal resolutions of 9- and 3-km) centered on the IP and the third one (1-km) centered on the Valencian region. The simulations are initialized with data from the ERA5 reanalysis and the boundary conditions in the coarser domain are updated hourly. The evaluation of the simulations is assessed by means of observed data provided by the Spanish State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) including automatic station network data, radar and satellite images and atmospheric soundings. The model accurately simulates the passage of the cold front, matching the time and magnitude of the observed wind speed and gusts. However, the WRF model does not reproduce the downburst, at least at the observed location. In general, the simulations are more sensitive to the choice of the boundary layer parameterization than to the microphysics parameterization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.083 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations→French-language works237,207→