Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Can Artificial Intelligence help build better, smarter climate models?

A computer simulation of carbon dioxide movement in the atmosphere.
The ‘Cloud Brain’ might make it possible to tighten up the uncertainties of how the climate will respond to rising carbon dioxide.
NASA

From e360 by Nicola Jones

Researchers have been frustrated by the variability of computer models in predicting the earth’s climate future.
Now, some scientists are trying to utilize the latest advances in artificial intelligence to focus in on clouds and other factors that may provide a clearer view.

Look at a digital map of the world with pixels that are more than 50 miles on a side and you’ll see a hazy picture: whole cities swallowed up into a single dot; Vancouver Island and the Great Lakes just one pixel wide.
You won’t see farmer’s fields, or patches of forest, or clouds.
Yet this is the view that many climate models have of our planet when trying to see centuries into the future, because that’s all the detail that computers can handle.
Turn up the resolution knob and even massive supercomputers grind to a slow crawl.
“You’d just be waiting for the results for way too long; years probably,” says Michael Pritchard, a next-generation climate modeler at the University of California, Irvine.
“And no one else would get to use the supercomputer.”

Earth recently experienced its largest annual increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in at least 2,000 years.
These exchanges vary from year to year, and scientists are using OCO-2 data to uncover the reasons.
The many and varied uses of OCO-2 data will continue to be essential to understanding the dynamics of carbon dioxide across our planet and will help contribute to improved long-term climate forecasting.
NASA has released a video that explains the study, shows changing level of CO2

The problem isn’t just academic: It means we have a blurry view of the future.
It is hard to know if, importantly, a warmer world will bring more low-lying clouds that shield Earth from the sun, cooling the planet, or fewer of them, warming it up.
For this reason and more, the roughly 20 models run for the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) disagree with each other profoundly: Double the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and one model says we’ll see a 1.5 degree Celsius bump; another says it will be 4.5 degrees C.
“It’s super annoying,” Pritchard says.
That factor of three is huge — it could make all the difference to people living on flooding coastlines or trying to grow crops in semi-arid lands.

Pritchard and a small group of other climate modelers are now trying to address the problem by improving models with artificial intelligence.
(Pritchard and his colleagues affectionately call their AI system the “Cloud Brain.”) Not only is AI smart; it’s efficient.
And that, for climate modelers, might make all the difference.

Computer hardware has gotten exponentially faster and smarter — today’s supercomputers handle about a billion billion operations per second, compared to a thousand billion in the 1990s.
Meanwhile a parallel revolution is going on in computer coding.
For decades, computer scientists and sci-fi writers have been dreaming about artificial intelligence: computer programs that can learn and behave like real people.
Starting around 2010, computer scientists took a huge leap forward with a technique called machine learning, specifically “deep learning,” which mimics the complex network of neurons in the human brain.

Traditional computer programming is great for tasks that follow rules: if x, then y.
But it struggles with more intuitive tasks for which we don’t really have a rule book, like translating languages, understanding the nuances of speech, or describing what’s in an image.
This is where machine learning excels.
The idea is old, but two recent developments finally made it practical — faster computers, and a vast amount of data for machines to learn from.
The internet is now flooded with pre-translated text and user-labelled photographs that are perfect for training a machine-learning program.

Companies like Microsoft and Google jumped on deep learning starting in the early 2010s, and have used it in recent years to power everything from voice recognition on smart phones to image searches on the internet.
Scientists have started to pick up these techniques too.
Medical researchers have used it to find patterns in datasets of proteins and molecules to guess which ones might make good drug candidates, for example.
And now deep learning is starting to stretch into climate science and environmental projects.

Researchers hope incorporating artificial intelligence into climate models will further understanding of how clouds, shown here over Bangladesh, will act in a warmer world.
Typical global climate models have pixel sizes far too large to see individual clouds or storm fronts.
The ‘Cloud Brain’ tends to get confused when given scenarios outside its training, such as a much warmer world.
NASA/International Space Station

Microsoft’s AI for Earth project, for example, is throwing serious money at dozens of ventures that do everything from making homes “smarter” in their use of energy for heating and cooling, to making better maps for precision conservation efforts.
A team at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center in Berkeley is using deep learning to analyze the vast reams of simulated climate data being produced by climate models, drawing lines around features like cyclones the way a human weather forecaster might do.
Claire Monteleoni at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is using AI to help decide which climate models are better than others at certain tasks, so their results can be weighed more heavily.

But what Pritchard and a handful of others are doing is more fundamental: inserting machine learning code right into the heart of climate models themselves, so they can capture tiny details in a way that is hundreds of times more efficient than traditional computer programming.
For now they’re focused on clouds — hence the name “Cloud Brain” — though the technique can be used on other small-scale phenomena.
That means it might be possible to tighten up the uncertainties of how the climate will respond to rising carbon dioxide, giving us a clearer picture of how clouds might shift and how temperatures and rainfall might vary — and how lives will likely to be affected from one small place to the next.

So far these attempts to hammer deep learning code into climate models are in the early stages, and it’s unclear if they’ll revolutionize model-making or fall flat.

The problem that the Cloud Brain tackles is a mismatch between what climate scientists understand and what computers can model — particularly with regard to clouds, which play a huge role in determining temperature.

While some aspects of cloud behavior are still hard to capture with algorithms, researchers generally know the physics of how water evaporates, condenses, forms droplets, and rains out.
They’ve written down the equations that describe all that, and can run small-scale, short-term models that show clouds evolving over short time periods with grid boxes just a few miles wide.
Such models can be used to see if clouds will grow wispier, letting in more sunlight, or cool the ground by shielding the sun.
But try to stick that much detail into a global-scale, long-term climate model, and it will go about a million times slower.
The general rule of thumb, says Chris Bretherton at the University of Washington, is if you want to cut your grid box dimensions in half, the computation will take 10 times as long.
“It’s not easy to make a model much more detailed,” he says.

The supercomputers that crunch these models cost somewhere in the realm of $100 million to build, says David Randall, a Colorado State University climate modeler; a month’s-worth of time on such a machine could cost millions.
Those fees don’t actually show up in an invoice for any given researcher; they’re paid by institutions, governments, and grants.
But the financial investment means there’s real competition for computer time.
For this reason, typical global climate models like the ones used thus far in IPCC reports have pixel sizes tens of miles wide — far too large to see individual clouds or even storm fronts.

The trick that Pritchard and others are attempting is to train deep learning systems with data from short-term runs of fine-scale cloud models.
This lets the AI basically develop an intuitive sense for how clouds work.
That AI can then be jimmied into a bigger-pixel global climate model, to shove more realistic cloud behavior into something that’s cheap and fast enough to run.

Pritchard and his two colleagues trained their Cloud Brain on high-resolution cloud model results, and then tested it to see if it would produce the same simulated climates as the slower, high-resolution model.
It did, even getting details like extreme rainfalls right, while running about 20 times faster.

Others — including Bretherton, a former colleague of Pritchard’s, and Paul O’Gorman, a climate researcher at MIT, are doing similar work.
The details of the strategies vary, but the general idea — using machine learning to create a more-efficient programming hack to emulate clouds on a small scale — is the same.
The approach could likewise be used to help large global models incorporate other fine features, like miles-wide eddies in the ocean that bedevil ocean current models, and the features of mountain ranges that create rain shadows.

The scientists face some major hurdles.
The fact that machine learning works almost intuitively, rather than following a rulebook, makes these programs computationally efficient.
But it also means that mankind’s hard-won understanding about the physics of gravitational forces, temperature gradients, and everything else, gets set aside.
That’s philosophically hard to swallow for many scientists, and also means that the resulting model might not be very flexible: Train an AI system on oceanic climates and stick it over the Himalayas and it might give nonsense results.
O’Gorman’s results hint that his AI can adapt to cooler climates but not warmer ones.
And Cloud Brain tends to get confused when given scenarios outside its training, such as a much warmer world.
“The model just blows up,” says Pritchard.
“It’s a little delicate right now.” Another disconcerting issue with deep learning is that it’s not transparent about why it’s doing what it’s doing, or why it comes to the results that it does.
“Basically it’s a black box; you push a bunch of numbers in one end and a bunch of numbers come out the other end,” says Philip Rasch, chief climate scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
“You don’t know why it’s producing the answers it’s producing.”

“In the end, we want to predict something that no one has observed,” says Caltech’s Tapio Schneider.
“This is hard for deep learning.”
For all these reasons, Schneider and his team are taking a different approach.
He is sticking to physics-based models, and using a simpler variant of machine learning to help tune the models.
He also plans to use real data about temperature, precipitation, and more as a training dataset.
“That’s more limited information than model data,” he says.
“But hopefully we get something that’s more predictive of reality when the climate changes.” Schneider’s well-funded effort, called the Climate Machine, was announced this summer but hasn’t yet been built.
No one yet knows how the strategy will pan out.

 Using a combination of cloud data, such as this satellite observation of a tropical storm over South America, and "machine learning" could help to fine-tune climate models. 
The ‘Cloud Brain’ tends to get confused when given scenarios outside its training, such as a much warmer world. 
NASA/Goddart Space Flight Center/Scientific Visualization Studio

The utility of these models for predicting the future climate is the biggest uncertainty.
“That’s the elephant in the room,” says Pritchard, who remains optimistic that he can do it, but accepts that we’ll simply have to wait and see.
Randall, who is watching the developments with interest from the sidelines, is also hopeful.
“We’re not there yet,” he says, “but I believe it will be very useful.”

Climate scientist Drew Schindell of Duke University, who isn’t working with machine learning himself, agrees.
“The difficulty with all of these things is we don’t know that the physics that’s important to short-term climate are the same processes important to long-term climate change,” he says.
Train an AI system on short-term data, in other words, and it might not get the long-term forecast right.
“Nevertheless,” he adds, “it’s a good effort, and a good thing to do.
It’s almost certain it will allow us to improve coarse-grid models.”

In all these efforts, deep learning might be a solution for areas of the climate picture for which we don’t understand the physics.
No one has yet devised equations for how microbes in the ocean feed into the carbon cycle and in turn impact climate change, notes Pritchard.
So, since there isn’t a rulebook, AI could be the most promising way forward.
“If you humbly admit it’s beyond the scope of our physics, then deep learning becomes really attractive,” Pritchard says.

Bretherton makes the bullish prediction that in about three years a major climate-modeling center will incorporate machine learning.
If his forecast prevails, global-scale models will be capable of paying better attention to fine details — including the clouds overhead.
And that would mean a far clearer picture of our future climate.

Links :

Monday, December 10, 2018

How ordinary ship traffic could help map the uncharted Arctic Ocean seafloor

A cargo ship sails through multi-year ice in Canada’s the Northwest Passage.
(Timothy Keane / Fednav)

From Arctic Today by Melody Schreiber

Equipping every ship that enters the Arctic with sensors could help fill critical gaps in maritime charts.

Throughout world, the ocean floor’s details remain largely a mystery; less than 10 percent has been mapped using modern sonar technology.
Even in the United States, which has some of the best maritime maps in the world, only one-third of the ocean and coastal waters have been mapped to modern standards.

This map shows unique ship visits to Arctic waters
between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016.

But perhaps the starkest gaps in knowledge are in the Arctic.
Only 4.7 percent of the Arctic has been mapped to modern standards.

“Especially when you get up north, the percentage of charts that are basically based on Royal Navy surveys from the 19th century is terrifying — or should be terrifying,” said David Titley, a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral who directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at the Pennsylvania State University.
Titley spoke alongside several other maritime experts at a recent Woodrow Wilson Center event on marine policy, highlighting the need for improved oceanic maps.

 GeoGarage nautical raster chart coverage with material from international Hydrographic Offices
red : US NOAA / grey : Canada CHS /  black : Denmark Greenland DGA / yellow ; Norway NHS

 GeoGarage nautical raster chart coverage (NGA material)

 Catalogue of charts from
Department of Navigation and Oceanography of the Russian Federation

When he was on active duty in the Navy, Titley said, “we were finding sea mounts that we had no idea were there.
And conversely, we were getting rid of sea mounts on charts that weren’t there.”
The problem, he said, comes down to accumulating — and managing — data. But there could be an intriguing solution: crowdsourcing.
“How does every ship become a sensor?” Titley asks.
Ships outfitted with sensors could provide the very information they need to travel more effectively.

Each ship would collect information on oceans, atmosphere, ecosystems, pollutants and more.
As the ships traverse the ocean, they would help improve existing maps and information about the waters they tread.


Maps are becoming more important as shipping activity increases — both around the world and in the Arctic.

In August, the Russian research ship Akademik Ioffe ran aground in Canada’s Arctic. In 2015, the Finnish icebreaker Fennica ripped a three-foot gash in its hull — while sailing within the relatively better charted waters of Alaska’s Dutch Harbor.

“The traditional way that we have supplied these ships with information — with nautical charts and predicted tides and tide tables, and weather over radio facts — are not anywhere near close to being what’s necessary,” said Rear Admiral Shep Smith, director of NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey.
The “next generation of services” would go much further, predicting the water level, salinity, and other information with more precision and detail.
One of NOAA’s top priorities, Smith said, is “the broad baseline mapping of the ocean — including the hydrography, the depth and form of the sea floor, and oceanography.”
Such maps are necessary to support development, including transportation, offshore energy, fishing and stewardship of natural resources, he said.

 A team of engineers and students from the University of New Hampshire’s Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping recently returned from a voyage that deployed the first autonomous (robotic) surface vessel — the Bathymetric Explorer and Navigator (BEN) — from a NOAA ship far above the Arctic Circle. Credit: Courtesy Christina Belton, NOAA

In NOAA’s records of U.S. waters and coasts, they have at least one piece of information on only 41 percent of the ocean.
“The other 59 percent, there’s potentially a gold mine of economically important information in there,” he continued. “Or environmentally important information.”
NOAA struggles even to model how water moves in the ocean without more information, he said.

They are turning to crowdsourcing, satellite-derived bathymetry — and the idea of turning every ship into a sensor.
Projects like Seabed 2030 — a worldwide effort to map the seabed — will be crucial to these efforts, Smith said.
“It’s hard to map the bottom of the ocean,” said Rear Admiral Jon White, president and CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership.
“It’s like trying to map your backyard with ants, with the ships that we have.”

However, he said, the technology to do so is improving.
“There are great opportunities for the people who understand this technology, to make new ways, better ways to actually map it faster,” White said.
Moving forward, he said, both federal investment and public-private partnerships should focus on “getting every ship to be a sensor in the ocean.”
That effort will be crucial for accomplishing “all the things that we’re trying to do in the maritime environment,” he said.

Links:

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Pearl Harbor WWII maps

On the 77th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor:
Japanese Commander Mitsuo Fuchida’s after-action damage assessment map of the 1941 attack, which was presented to Emperor Hirohito
LOC 

On December 26, 1941, Japanese Vice Admiral Chuichi Nagumo, Commander Mitsuo Fuchida and Lieutenant Commander Shigekazu Shimazaki waited in the hallways of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.
This trio had just returned from one of the defining moments of the Imperial Navy: attacking the base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Nagumo was the commander of the First Air Fleet, the force of six aircraft carriers (Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, and Zuikaku) that had launched the attack. Fuchida had led the first wave of aircraft from his Nakajima B5N2 Type 97 carrier attack plane (later known to Allied forces as a “Kate”) off the aircraft carrier Akagi. and signaled the famous “Tora Tora Tora”. Shimazaki had been the leader of the second wave, flying in a Nakajima B5N2 off the carrier Zuikaku.

Nagumo, Fuchida, Shimazaki and the majority of the Pearl Harbor attack force had returned to the Imperial Navy’s anchorage at Hashirajima, near Kure, on December 23 (The aircraft carriers Sōryūand Hiryū and some supporting warships had been detached to assist in the capture of Wake Island).
At Hashirajima the men were received by host of admirers and congratulators, including Admirals Isoroku Yamamoto (Commander in Chief of the Combined Fleet) and Osami Nagano (Chief of the Naval General Staff).
Amid celebrations aboard the aircraft carrier Akagi, Nagano told Nagumo, Fuchida and Shimazaki that Emperor Hirohito wanted to hear about the attack directly from them. Shimazaki and Fuchida compared their notes with the observations of other pilots and photographs from the attack to create a concise report of damage caused to U.S. installations on Oahu.
Fuchida would brief Emperor Hirohito about the attacks against naval vessels, while Shimazaki would describe attacks on airfields and other installations.

This map was drawn by Fuchida himself for the meeting and was later given to renowned Pearl Harbor researcher Gordon Prange (Fuchida also provided the English translations).
The map presents a surprisingly accurate depiction of U.S. ships present at Pearl Harbor during the attack (See [this map] (http://www.navsource.org/Naval/helpers/pearlmap.jpg) for a comparison). Most ships are also identified as belonging to a specific warship class, with also surprisingly accurate results.
Long red arrows represent suspected torpedo hits on ships, red dots represent hits from 800 kilogram bombs and small “x”s mark hits by 250 kilogram bombs.
A key to represent the assumed damage of each ship is also visible at top.
 

A description of the December 26 meeting appears in Gordon Prange’s phenomenal book At Dawn We Slept.
Here are some excerpts:

“Shortly after 1000 on December 26 Fuchida stood face-to-face with the man to whom he had dedicated his life. Later he admitted that leading the Pearl Harbor attack was much easier than telling the Emperor about it. With trembling fingers he spread out the large map of Oahu which he had prepared for the occasion…

His Majesty examined closely the pictures and damage charts with which Fuchida illustrated his briefing.
The Emperor asked a number of pertinent questions: On what basis were the damage estimates compiled?
How accurate did Fuchida consider them?
Were any civilian planes shot down?
Were any hospital ships in the harbor?
What was the initial reaction of the Americans?
Were any Japanese planes shot down because they could not make it back to the carriers?

Fuchida’s replies were equally crisp and to the point.
Both Emperor and airman became so interested that time slipped by until Fuchida’s allotted fifteen minutes had more than doubled.
Shimazaki next took his turn, stammering out a brief description of the damage done to Oahu’s airfields, only too happy to take no more than his scheduled ten minutes.

…Fuchida knew he would never forget this day when he had been under the same roof with his Emperor, heard him speak, and spoken to him—the highest honor to which any Japanese could aspire. Yet a certain strain had hung over the interview.
His Majesty had displayed the interest of a naval man in a great naval operation, the concern on fa decent man for noncombatants, the instinct of a family man to share an experience with his wife.
But he had shown no sign of exultation.”

Japanese map of Pearl Harbor that was found in a captured midget sub after the attack
77 years ago the Empire of Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.





 by Brenda Lewis & Rupert Matthews 
This map and aerial photo show the catastrophic damage to Battleship Row.source : National Geographic


 NOAA map 19366 with the GeoGarage platform

Links :

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Bathymetry in Australia


Flythrough movie of Gifford Marine Park, which is located 600 km east of Brisbane, Australia.
The park is situated about halfway along the Lord Howe Rise seamount chain on the western flank of the Lord Howe Rise. 
Seamounts along this chain formed from Miocene volcanism via a migrating magma source (“hotspot”) after the opening of the Tasman Sea. 
Two large, flat-topped volcanic seamounts dominate the park. 
Their gently sloping summits have accumulated veneers of sediment, which in places have formed fields of bedforms. 
Steep cliffs, debris and large mass movement scars encircle each seamount, and contrast with the lower gradient abyssal plains from which they rise. 
Spanning over 3 km of ocean depths, the seamounts are likely to serve multiple and important roles as breeding locations, resting areas, navigational landmarks or supplementary feeding grounds for some cetaceans (e.g. humpback whales, sperm whales). 
They may also act as important aggregation points for other highly migratory pelagic species. 
The bathymetry shown here was collected on two surveys - the first in 2007 by Geoscience Australia and the second in 2017 by Geoscience Australia in collaboration with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. 
The Gifford Marine Park has also been the focus of a study undertaken by the Marine Biodiversity Hub as part of the National Environmental Science Program.


Flythrough movie of Perth Canyon Marine Park, southwest Western Australia showing seafloor bathymetry and marine life that occurs within the park.
The park encompasses a diversity of geomorphic features, ranging from gently sloping soft sediment plains to near-vertical towering cliffs of exposed bedrock.
This geodiversity extends from the head of Perth Canyon at the shelf break to the slope-confined submarine canyons that dissect the lower continental slope.
Spanning almost 4.5 km of ocean depths, the Perth Canyon has a significant influence on the local ecosystem across the food chain.
The size and location of the canyon is such that it promotes upwelling from the deep ocean, leading to plankton blooms that attract seasonal aggregations of larger pelagic fish, including whales.
Over geological time, the canyon has evolved to provide extensive areas of potential seabed habitat suitable for deep-sea corals and sponges.
The Perth Canyon has been the focus of a study undertaken by the Marine Biodiversity Hub as part of the National Environmental Science Program.

Flythrough movie of Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve, southwest Western Australia showing bathymetry of Bremer Canyon, Hood Canyon, Henry Canyon and Knob Canyon.
These canyons are part of the Albany Group of 81 canyons that extend along the continental margin of southwest Australia reaching to water depths of 4000 m.
The Bremer Canyon is one of the few canyons in the group that have incised into the continental shelf, providing a pathway for upwelling of nutrient rich waters to the shelf.
This upwelling is thought to form the basis for aggregations of marine life around the Bremer and adjacent canyons, including orca whales and giant squid.
The Bremer offshore region has been the focus of a study undertaken in 2017 by the Marine Biodiversity Hub as part of the National Environmental Science Program.

Friday, December 7, 2018

The new American weather model shone during Hurricane Lane

Satellite view of Hurricane Lane on Aug. 21.
(Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies)

From WashingtonPost by Jason Samenow

It’s well established that the European weather model, on average, produces the most accurate weather forecasts in the world.
For years, the American model, run by the National Weather Service, has ranked third-best.

The also-ran status of the American model, known as the Global Forecast System (GFS), has caught the attention of Congress, which has appropriated money to the Weather Service to improve our nation’s weather modeling on multiple occasions.
In addition, the Trump administration has stated that building the best prediction model in the world is a “top priority.”
[Trump administration official says it’s a ‘top priority’ to improve U.S. weather forecasting model]

A new analysis of model performance during Hurricane Lane, which unloaded historic amounts of rain on Hawaii’s Big Island, shows that the Weather Service may be making progress.

The Weather Service has developed a new version of the GFS, known as the FV3 (which stands for Finite Volume Cubed-Sphere dynamical core), which it touts as “its next-generation global prediction system.”
While still considered experimental, the FV3 produced the most consistently accurate forecasts of Lane’s track.

 Second only to Katrina in damage cost, Harvey hit the Texas coast as expected.
It stalled for four days, dumped over 60 inches of rain and caused severe flooding

Despite warnings that Maria would hit Puerto Rico, emergency responders were not prepared.
The entire island lost power, clean water and cell service
Five days before hitting Florida, models showed Irma going east.
As it veered west, so too did evacuation orders.
All told, a third of Floridians were mandated to leave 

We obtained a Weather Service chart displaying the track errors for each of the models at different points in time.
Track errors tend to be large for forecasts of the storm’s position several days into the future but grow smaller with time.

(National Weather Service)


NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Research Team leader, Shian-Jiann Lin, Ph.D, is behind the new FV3-powered GFDL model.
The GFDL model is designed to improve the global weather forecast model by enhancing short-term forecasts and long-term climate prediction.
For more information about the GFDL model and how it will improve the Global Forecast System
(NOAA)

The FV3 produced the most accurate forecasts (or smallest track errors) made four (96 hours) and five (120 hours) days into the future, and was neck and neck with the European model and National Hurricane Center forecasts within 72 hours.

The European model, which is run by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, United Kingdom, had large errors in its forecasts four and five days out but exhibited the skill it is known for within 72 hours as the top performer.

The U.K. Met model, which is the second-most-accurate model in the world and is run by the U.K. Met Office in Exeter, trailed the performance of the European, Hurricane Center and FV3 model forecasts at all times.

 National Weather Service

The current, operational version of the American GFS model had just about the worst forecast performance at every step.
The related American HWRF model, which is a specialized model for hurricanes, also performed poorly, ranking second to last.
Some of its input data come from the GFS, which explains why both models performed comparably poor.

Although the FV3’s results were very promising for Hurricane Lane, they reflect just one very limited case.
To be convinced that this new modeling system might close the gap with the European model, we will need to see such performance repeated storm after storm and in everyday weather situations, from the tropics to the poles.

The target date for the FV3 to become operational is late 2019.

Links :