Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extratropical storms dominate midlatitude climate and weather and are known to grow baroclinically and decay barotropically. Traditionally, quantitative climatic measures of storm activity have been mostly based on Eulerian measures, taking into account the mean state of the atmosphere and how those affect Eulerian eddy activity, but they do not consider the Lagrangian growth of the storms themselves. Here, using ERA‐5 reanalysis data and tracking all extratropical storms (cyclones and anticyclones) from 83 years of data, we examine the actual growth of the storms and compare it to the Eulerian characteristics of the background state as the storms develop. In the limit of weak baroclinicity, we find that baroclinicity provides a good measure for storm maximum intensity. However, this monotonic relationship breaks for high baroclinicity levels. We show that although the actual growth rate of individual storms monotonically increases with baroclinicity, the reduction in maximum intensity at high baroclinicity is caused by a decrease in storm growth time. Based on the Lagrangian analysis, we suggest a nonlinear correction to the traditional linear connection between baroclinicity and storms' activity. Then, we show that a simplified model of storm growth, incorporating the baroclinicity effect on the vertical tilt of anomalies, reproduces the observed nonlinear relationship. Expanding the analysis to include the mean flow's barotropic properties highlights their marginal effect on storm growth rate, but the crucial impact on growth time. Our results emphasize the potential of Lagrangianly studying storm dynamics to advance understanding of the midlatitude climate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".