Impact of numerical grid spacing and time step size on vortex Rossby waves in secondary eyewall formation in a simulation of hurricane Wilma (2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the impact of numerical grid spacing and time step size on vortex Rossby waves in hurricanes going through an eyewall replacement cycle, multiple simulations with identical parameterization but with different numerics were carried out using the WRF model on hurricane Wilma (2005).The method of Empirical Normal Modes was then applied on the dataset in order to find radially outward propagating vortex Rossby waves (VRWs).It was found that for varying grid lengths, using high resolution can resolve these VRWs while a mixture of gravity and vortex Rossby waves was propagating from the eyewall using coarse resolution.An examination of the divergence of the Eliassen-Palm flux showed that high resolution is required to form a secondary eyewall.In terms of varying the time step size, differences were noted in the eyewall replacement cycles as well as the final shape of the eyewall, implying that non-converging numerical errors can impact strongly the vortex Rossby waves and therefore the dynamics of the hurricane.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".