Evaluation of Tropical Cyclone Track and Intensity Forecasts from Artificial Intelligence Weather Prediction (AIWP) Models

Mark DeMaria, James L. Franklin, Galina Chirokova, Jacob Radford, Robert DeMaria, Kate D. Musgrave, Imme Ebert-Uphoff
{"title":"Evaluation of Tropical Cyclone Track and Intensity Forecasts from Artificial Intelligence Weather Prediction (AIWP) Models","authors":"Mark DeMaria, James L. Franklin, Galina Chirokova, Jacob Radford, Robert DeMaria, Kate D. Musgrave, Imme Ebert-Uphoff","doi":"arxiv-2409.06735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In just the past few years multiple data-driven Artificial Intelligence\nWeather Prediction (AIWP) models have been developed, with new versions\nappearing almost monthly. Given this rapid development, the applicability of\nthese models to operational forecasting has yet to be adequately explored and\ndocumented. To assess their utility for operational tropical cyclone (TC)\nforecasting, the NHC verification procedure is used to evaluate seven-day track\nand intensity predictions for northern hemisphere TCs from May-November 2023.\nFour open-source AIWP models are considered (FourCastNetv1,\nFourCastNetv2-small, GraphCast-operational and Pangu-Weather). The AIWP track forecast errors and detection rates are comparable to those\nfrom the best-performing operational forecast models. However, the AIWP\nintensity forecast errors are larger than those of even the simplest intensity\nforecasts based on climatology and persistence. The AIWP models almost always\nreduce the TC intensity, especially within the first 24 h of the forecast,\nresulting in a substantial low bias. The contribution of the AIWP models to the NHC model consensus was also\nevaluated. The consensus track errors are reduced by up to 11% at the longer\ntime periods. The five-day NHC official track forecasts have improved by about\n2% per year since 2001, so this represents more than a five-year gain in\naccuracy. Despite substantial negative intensity biases, the AIWP models have a\nneutral impact on the intensity consensus. These results show that the current\nformulation of the AIWP models have promise for operational TC track forecasts,\nbut improved bias corrections or model reformulations will be needed for\naccurate intensity forecasts.","PeriodicalId":501166,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - PHYS - Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - PHYS - Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.06735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In just the past few years multiple data-driven Artificial Intelligence Weather Prediction (AIWP) models have been developed, with new versions appearing almost monthly. Given this rapid development, the applicability of these models to operational forecasting has yet to be adequately explored and documented. To assess their utility for operational tropical cyclone (TC) forecasting, the NHC verification procedure is used to evaluate seven-day track and intensity predictions for northern hemisphere TCs from May-November 2023. Four open-source AIWP models are considered (FourCastNetv1, FourCastNetv2-small, GraphCast-operational and Pangu-Weather). The AIWP track forecast errors and detection rates are comparable to those from the best-performing operational forecast models. However, the AIWP intensity forecast errors are larger than those of even the simplest intensity forecasts based on climatology and persistence. The AIWP models almost always reduce the TC intensity, especially within the first 24 h of the forecast, resulting in a substantial low bias. The contribution of the AIWP models to the NHC model consensus was also evaluated. The consensus track errors are reduced by up to 11% at the longer time periods. The five-day NHC official track forecasts have improved by about 2% per year since 2001, so this represents more than a five-year gain in accuracy. Despite substantial negative intensity biases, the AIWP models have a neutral impact on the intensity consensus. These results show that the current formulation of the AIWP models have promise for operational TC track forecasts, but improved bias corrections or model reformulations will be needed for accurate intensity forecasts.
评估人工智能天气预报(AIWP)模型的热带气旋路径和强度预报
就在过去几年里,多种数据驱动的人工智能天气预报(AIWP)模型被开发出来,几乎每月都有新版本出现。鉴于发展如此迅速,这些模型在业务预报中的适用性还有待充分探索和记录。为了评估这些模式在热带气旋(TC)业务预报中的实用性,我们使用了 NHC 验证程序来评估 2023 年 5 月至 11 月期间北半球热带气旋的七天路径和强度预测。AIWP 的轨迹预报误差和探测率与表现最好的业务预报模型相当。然而,AIWP 的强度预报误差甚至比基于气候学和持续性的最简单强度预报误差还要大。AIWP 模式几乎总是降低热 带气旋强度,尤其是在预报的头 24 小时内,这导致了很大的低偏差。还评估了 AIWP 模式对 NHC 模式共识的贡献。在较长的时间段内,共识路径误差最多减少了 11%。自 2001 年以来,NHC 的五天官方路径预报每年改进约 2%,因此这意味着误差增加了五年多。尽管强度偏差很大,但 AIWP 模式对强度共识的影响是中性的。这些结果表明,目前的 AIWP 模式预报有望用于热带气旋路径预报,但要获得准确的强度预报,还需要改进偏差修正或重新制定模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信