Impact of Gravity Waves From Tropospheric and Non‐Tropospheric Sources on the Middle and Upper Atmosphere and Comparison With ICON/MIGHTI Winds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We study the dynamical and thermal roles of internal gravity waves generated in the troposphere and above using the Coupled Middle Atmosphere Thermosphere‐2 General Circulation Model. This model incorporates the whole atmosphere nonlinear spectral gravity wave parameterization and its extension to include non‐tropospheric sources. We conducted model experiments for northern summer solstice conditions, first including only tropospheric sources, then including sources localized at 50 and 90 km, and uniformly distributed over all heights. The simulated differences in mean temperature and horizontal winds demonstrate that gravity waves produce the greatest dynamical and thermal changes in the latter case compared to the localized sources. While the gravity wave drag is longitudinally uniform in the lower thermosphere, it is more localized in the upper thermosphere in all the simulations. Waves from uniformly distributed sources increase the longitudinal variability of zonal winds in the thermosphere up to 150 km. Gravity wave effects exhibit different local time variations in the lower thermosphere (100–140 km) than in the upper thermosphere. In the upper thermosphere, gravity wave effects are stronger during the day than at night. In contrast, nighttime gravity wave effects are stronger than the daytime ones in the lower thermosphere. Finally, a comparison with ICON‐MIGHTI observations shows that the model reproduces the basic structure of thermospheric winds, performing better with zonal winds than with meridional winds. Adding non‐tropospheric wave sources modifies wind structures in wave‐breaking regions, but does not improve the global statistical comparison.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".