A High-Resolution coupled riverine flow, tide, wind, wind wave, and storm surge model for southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Part II: Synoptic description and analysis of hurricanes Katrina and Rita

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were powerful storms that impacted southern Louisiana and Mississippi during the 2005 hurricane season. In Part I, the authors describe and validate a high-resolution coupled riverine flow, tide, wind, wave, and storm surge model for this region. Herein, the model is used to examine the evolution of these hurricanes in more detail. Synoptic histories show how storm tracks, winds, and waves interacted with the topography, the protruding Mississippi River delta, east-west shorelines, manmade structures, and low-lying marshes to develop and propagate storm surge. Perturbations of the model, in which the waves are not included, show the proportional importance of the wave radiation stress gradient induced setup

A high-resolution coupled riverine flow, tide, wind, wind wave, and storm surge model for southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Part I: Model development and validation

A coupled system of wind, wind wave, and coastal circulation models has been implemented for southern Louisiana and Mississippi to simulate riverine flows, tides, wind waves, and hurricane storm surge in the region.The system combines the NOAA Hurricane Research Division Wind Analysis System (H*WIND) and the Interactive Objective Kinematic Analysis (IOKA) kinematic wind analyses, the Wave Model (WAM) offshore and Steady-State Irregular Wave (STWAVE) nearshore wind wave models, and the Advanced Circulation (ADCIRC) basin to channel-scale unstructured grid circulation model. The system emphasizes a high-resolution (down to 50 m) representation of the geometry, bathymetry, and topography; nonlinear coupling of all processes including wind wave radiation stress-induced set up; and objective specification of frictional parameters based on land-cover databases and commonly used parameters. Riverine flows and tides are validated for no storm conditions, while winds, wind waves, hydrographs, and high water marks are validated for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied