OLS\]

Please note that, in the literature, $L_b$ and $L_H$ have also been defined as $\sigma_w/N$ and $\sigma_w/S$, respectively. Both $L_{OZ}$ and $L_C$ are functions of $\overline{\varepsilon}$, a microscale variable. In contrast, $L_b$ and $L_H$ only depend on macroscale variables.

Both shear and buoyancy prefer to deform the larger eddies compared to the smaller ones [@itsweire93; @smyth00; @chung12; @mater13]. Eddies which are smaller than $L_C$ or $L_H$ are not affected by shear. Similarly, buoyancy does not influence the eddies of size less than $L_{OZ}$ or $L_b$. In other words, the eddies can be assumed to be isotropic if they are smaller than all these OLSs.

![image](Rig_LOZ.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LC.eps){width="49.00000%"}\
![image](Rig_Lb.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LH.eps){width="49.00000%"}

Since $\mathcal{L}$ changes across the simulations, all the OLS values are normalized by corresponding $\mathcal{L}$ values and plotted as functions of $Ri_g$ in Fig. \[fig2\]. The collapse of the data from different runs, on to seemingly universal curves, is remarkable for all the cases except for $Ri_g > 0.2$. We would like to mention that similar scaling behavior was not found if other normalization factors (e.g., $h$) are used.

Both normalized $L_{OZ}$ and $L_b$ decrease monotonically with $Ri_g$; however, the slopes are quite different. The length scales $L_C$ and $L_H$ barely exhibit any sensitivity to $Ri_g$ (except for $Ri_g > 0.1$). Even for weakly-stable condition, these length scales are less than 25% of $\mathcal{L}$.

Based on the expressions of the OLSs (i.e., Eqs. \[OLS\]) and the definition of the gradient Richardson number, we can write
OLS\ ] 

 Please note that, in the literature, $ L_b$ and $ L_H$ have also been defined as $ \sigma_w / N$ and $ \sigma_w / S$, respectively. Both $ L_{OZ}$ and $ L_C$ are functions of $ \overline{\varepsilon}$, a microscale variable star. In line, $ L_b$ and $ L_H$ entirely depend on macroscale variable star. 

 Both shear and irrepressibility prefer to deform the bombastic eddy compared to the modest ones [ @itsweire93; @smyth00; @chung12; @mater13 ]. Eddies which are little than $ L_C$ or $ L_H$ are not affected by shear. Similarly, buoyancy does not influence the eddies of size less than $ L_{OZ}$ or $ L_b$. In other words, the eddy can be assumed to be isotropic if they are smaller than all these OLSs. 

! [ image](Rig_LOZ.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LC.eps){width="49.00000%"}\ 
! [ image](Rig_Lb.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LH.eps){width="49.00000% " } 

 Since $ \mathcal{L}$ changes across the pretense, all the OLS values are normalized by corresponding $ \mathcal{L}$ values and plot as functions of $ Ri_g$ in Fig.   \[fig2\ ]. The collapse of the data from different runs, on to apparently universal curves, is remarkable for all the cases except for $ Ri_g > 0.2$. We would like to mention that exchangeable scaling behavior was not found if other normalization factors (e.g., $ h$) are used. 

 Both normalized $ L_{OZ}$ and $ L_b$ decrease monotonically with $ Ri_g$; however, the slopes are quite different. The duration scales $ L_C$ and $ L_H$ barely parade any sensitivity to $ Ri_g$ (except for $ Ri_g > 0.1 $). Even for weakly - stable condition, these length scales are less than 25% of $ \mathcal{L}$. 

 free-base on the expressions of the OLSs (i.e., Eqs.   \[OLS\ ]) and the definition of the gradient Richardson number, we can write
OLS\]

Olease note that, in the uiterature, $L_b$ aue $L_H$ heve alsk been ddfined as $\sigma_w/N$ and $\sigma_w/D$, eespextively. Both $L_{OZ}$ and $L_Z$ are funbtions of $\ovecline{\varepsilon}$, e microsgcle vzviablz. Mn contrast, $L_b$ snd $L_H$ onlf depend on mawruseale variables.

Both shear and buoyancr prefet ho deform the jargtr qddiss compared to the smaller ones [@itaweire93; @vmyth00; @chung12; @mster13]. Eddies which are smalper hhan $L_C$ or $L_H$ are jot affectee by whear. Similafly, buoyanbv does not jnfluence the eddies of size lers thcn $L_{OZ}$ or $L_v$. Un ljher words, tie eddpes can be assumed to be isoyropic if they arx smqller than all these MLSs.

![image](Rig_LOZ.eps){ridth="49.00000%"}![imaga](Rng_LC.eps){width="49.00000%"}\
![image](Rig_Lv.eps){widjh="49.00000%"}![imace](Rie_OH.eos){wjdvh="49.00000%"}

Sjnce $\mwthral{L}$ changea across thw simulations, all tne ILS values ars normwlyzed by corresponding $\mathcal{L}$ values atd llotted as functions of $Ri_g$ in Fig. \[fig2\]. The coplapse of the data from different runs, on to seemingly unieersam cuxycs, ir rfmarkable for all the cases except for $Ri_g > 0.2$. Rs eolld like to mentijn that simolwr fcaling behavkor was nkt found if other jormalieation factors (t.g., $h$) sre used.

Both normalized $L_{OZ}$ and $L_b$ decrvase monotonically witk $Ri_g$; howevex, the xlopex are quite different. Tke lenfth scales $P_C$ and $L_H$ carely exhibit avy xetsitivity to $Ri_g$ (except fow $Ri_g > 0.1$). Eten fpr weakuy-stsble cjndition, tjese length scales are lfss tkan 25% mf $\mathcal{P}$.

Based on the expressions of thx OLSs (i.e., Eqs. \[PLV\]) atd the dzfinitlon of the gradyent Richardsou number, we cxn write
OLS\] Please note that, in the literature, $L_H$ also been as $\sigma_w/N$ and $L_C$ functions of $\overline{\varepsilon}$, microscale variable. In $L_b$ and $L_H$ only depend on variables. Both shear and buoyancy prefer to deform the larger eddies compared to smaller ones [@itsweire93; @smyth00; @chung12; @mater13]. Eddies which are smaller than $L_C$ or are affected shear. buoyancy does not influence the eddies of size less than $L_{OZ}$ or $L_b$. In other words, eddies can be assumed to be isotropic if are smaller than all OLSs. ![image](Rig_LOZ.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LC.eps){width="49.00000%"}\ ![image](Rig_Lb.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LH.eps){width="49.00000%"} Since $\mathcal{L}$ across simulations, all OLS are by corresponding $\mathcal{L}$ and plotted as functions of $Ri_g$ in Fig. \[fig2\]. The collapse of the data from different runs, to seemingly is remarkable all cases for $Ri_g > would like to mention that similar not found if other normalization factors (e.g., $h$) used. Both $L_{OZ}$ and $L_b$ decrease monotonically with however, the slopes are quite different. The length $L_C$ and $L_H$ barely exhibit any sensitivity to $Ri_g$ (except for $Ri_g > 0.1$). Even condition, these length scales less than 25% $\mathcal{L}$. on expressions the OLSs Eqs. \[OLS\]) and the definition of the gradient Richardson number, we write
OLS\]

Please note that, in the litErature, $L_b$ aNd $L_H$ hAve AlsO bEen dEfinEd as $\sigma_w/N$ and $\SIgma_W/S$, respectively. Both $L_{OZ}$ aNd $L_C$ aRe FUnctIOnS of $\ovErline{\vARePSIloN}$, a MiCroScALe VariaBle. in contrAst, $L_b$ and $L_H$ OnlY dEpend on macroSCaLe variableS.

BoTh shear and buOyaNcy preFeR to DEform The LargeR eddieS ComparEd to the smAlLEr ones [@ITsweire93; @SMYtH00; @chuNg12; @mater13]. Eddies whicH ArE Smaller than $L_C$ oR $L_H$ are NoT AfFECteD by Shear. SimilArLy, buoYAncy doeS NoT INFluENce the eddies oF size less thAN $L_{Oz}$ or $L_b$. IN oTheR Words, tHe eddIeS Can Be assumed to Be isOtropic if They arE Smaller THan all tHese OLss.

![iMagE](Rig_loZ.EpS){wiDtH="49.00000%"}![ImaGE](RIg_Lc.Eps){Width="49.00000%"}\
![imaGe](riG_Lb.epS){widTH="49.00000%"}![IMAge](RIg_Lh.eps){Width="49.00000%"}

since $\mathcal{L}$ ChaNges ACroSs the SimulAtioNs, All thE OLS vaLues aRe Normalized by corRespOnding $\matHcaL{L}$ ValUeS and pLOtted aS fuNctIons of $RI_g$ in Fig. \[FIg2\]. THe COLLaPse of the data from diFfEREnT runs, on tO seemiNGlY uNIversal cUrVes, Is reMARkablE for ALl The cases Except FOr $ri_G > 0.2$. We woulD lIke to mEnTioN thAt simILar sCaling Behavior Was noT Found if other noRMalization facTOrS (E.G., $h$) ARe usEd.

BOth normalizEd $L_{Oz}$ And $L_B$ decREaSe mONotonIcallY wITh $rI_g$; however, the slopes aRe Quite dIfferEnt. The length sCales $L_C$ and $l_h$ BArely exhIbit ANy SEnsitivity to $Ri_G$ (excePt for $Ri_g > 0.1$). EvEN for weakLy-staBle condiTion, these LENgth scalEs aRe lEss ThaN 25% OF $\mAthcal{L}$.

Based oN THe exPrEssions Of tHe OLSs (i.E., EqS. \[OLs\]) anD thE dEfinition Of the graDiEnT RIcHarDson nUMber, we caN wRitE
OLS\]

Please note that, i n the lite ratur e,$L_ b$  and  $L_ H$ have also b e en d efined as $\sigma_w/N$  and$\ s igma _ w/ S$, r especti v el y .  Bo th  $ L_{ OZ } $and $ L_C $ are f unctions o f $ \o verline{\var e ps ilon}$, amic roscale vari abl e. Inco ntr a st, $ L_b $ and  $L_H$ only d epend onma c roscal e  variab l e s. 

Bo th shear and buoy a nc y  prefer to def orm th el ar g e r e ddi es compare dto th e  smalle r  o n e s  [@ i tsweire93; @s myth00; @ch u ng1 2; @ma te r13 ] . Eddi es wh ic h  ar e smaller t han$L_C$ or$L_H$a re nota ffected  by sh ear . S imil a rl y,  bu oy a ncy do esn otinfluenc eth e edd ieso f s izeles s th an $L _{OZ}$ or $L_ b$.  Ino the r wor ds, t he e dd ies c an beassum ed  to be isotropi c if  they are  sm al ler  t han a l l thes e O LSs .

![im age](Ri g _LO Z. e p s ){ width="49.00000%"} ![ i m ag e](Rig_L C.eps) { wi dt h ="49.000 00 %"} \
![ i m age]( Rig_ L b. eps){wid th="49 . 00 00 0%"}![i ma ge](Ri g_ LH. eps ){wid t h="4 9.0000 0%"}

Si nce $ \ mathcal{L}$ ch a nges across t h es i mu l atio ns,  all the OL S va l uesaren or mal i zed b y cor re s po n ding $\mathcal{L}$va lues a nd pl otted as func tions of $ R i _ g$ in Fi g. \ [ fi g 2\]. The colla pse o f the data from dif feren t runs,on to see m i ngly uni ver sal  cu rve s ,  i s remarkablef o r al lthe cas esexceptfor  $R i_g  >0. 2$. We wo uld like  t ome nt ion  that similarsc ali ng  be havio r  was n ot fo undif  o t her  normal i za t i on f ac to rs ( e.g .,  $h$)  are use d.

Bot h normali zed $L_{ OZ }$  and $L _b$ decreasemo notonicall ywit h $Ri_ g $ ; howeve r, the slopes are quite differe nt.  Theleng th scales  $L _C$ an d $ L _H$ ba rely e xhibi tany s ensit i v it y t o$Ri_g$ (ex c e ptfor $ Ri _g >  0.1$).  Even for weakly-s t abl e condition,the se l e n gt h s c al e s a re les s than 25% of $\m athcal{L}$ .Ba sed on the exp re ssionsof theOLSs( i.e., E qs. \[OLS \]) and t he  def i n iti on of thegradient  Richards o n num b er , wecan  write 
OLS\]

Please note_that, in_the literature, $L_b$ and_$L_H$ have_also_been defined_as_$\sigma_w/N$ and $\sigma_w/S$,_respectively. Both $L_{OZ}$_and $L_C$ are functions_of $\overline{\varepsilon}$, a_microscale_variable. In contrast, $L_b$ and $L_H$ only depend on macroscale variables.

Both shear and buoyancy_prefer_to deform_the_larger_eddies compared to the smaller_ones [@itsweire93; @smyth00; @chung12; @mater13]._Eddies which_are smaller than $L_C$ or $L_H$ are not_affected_by shear. Similarly,_buoyancy does not influence the eddies of size less_than $L_{OZ}$ or $L_b$. In other_words, the eddies_can_be_assumed to be isotropic_if they are smaller than all_these OLSs.

![image](Rig_LOZ.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LC.eps){width="49.00000%"}\
![image](Rig_Lb.eps){width="49.00000%"}![image](Rig_LH.eps){width="49.00000%"}

Since $\mathcal{L}$ changes across the_simulations, all the OLS values are normalized_by corresponding $\mathcal{L}$ values and plotted_as functions of $Ri_g$ in_Fig. \[fig2\]. The_collapse of the data from_different runs, on_to seemingly_universal curves, is_remarkable for all the cases except_for $Ri_g >_0.2$. We would like to mention_that_similar scaling behavior_was_not_found if_other normalization factors_(e.g.,_$h$) are_used.

Both_normalized $L_{OZ}$ and $L_b$ decrease monotonically_with_$Ri_g$; however, the slopes are quite different._The length scales $L_C$_and_$L_H$ barely exhibit any_sensitivity to $Ri_g$ (except for_$Ri_g > 0.1$). Even for weakly-stable_condition, these_length scales_are less than 25% of $\mathcal{L}$.

Based on the expressions of the_OLSs (i.e., Eqs. \[OLS\]) and the definition_of the gradient Richardson_number, we_can_write