MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086335458 · doi:10.1175/2010mwr3456.1

Global Ensemble Predictions of 2009’s Tropical Cyclones Initialized with an Ensemble Kalman Filter

2010· article· en· W2086335458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas M. Hamill, Jeffrey S. Whitaker, Michael Fiorino, Stanley G. Benjamin

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Weather Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsData assimilationEnsemble Kalman filterGlobal Forecast SystemMeteorologyTropical cycloneEnvironmental scienceNumerical weather predictionClimatologyEnsemble forecastingAtlantic hurricaneNorthern HemisphereKalman filterComputer scienceGeologyGeographyExtended Kalman filterArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Verification was performed on ensemble forecasts of 2009 Northern Hemisphere summer tropical cyclones (TCs) from two experimental global numerical weather prediction ensemble prediction systems (EPSs). The first model was a high-resolution version (T382L64) of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Global Forecast System (GFS). The second model was a 30-km version of the experimental NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory’s Flow-following finite-volume Icosahedral Model (FIM). Both models were initialized with the first 20 members of a 60-member ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) using the T382L64 GFS. The GFS–EnKF assimilated the full observational data stream that was normally assimilated into the NCEP operational Global Statistical Interpolation (GSI) data assimilation, plus human-synthesized “observations” of tropical cyclone central pressure and position produced at the National Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. The forecasts from the two experimental ensembles were compared against four operational EPSs from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), NCEP, the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC), and the Met Office (UKMO). The errors of GFS–EnKF ensemble track forecasts were competitive with those from the ECMWF ensemble system, and the overall spread of the ensemble tracks was consistent in magnitude with the track error. Both experimental EPSs had much lower errors than the operational NCEP, UKMO, and CMC EPSs, but the FIM–EnKF tracks were somewhat less accurate than the GFS–EnKF. The ensemble forecasts were often stretched in particular directions, and not necessarily along or across track. The better-performing EPSs provided useful information on potential track error anisotropy. While the GFS–EnKF initialized relatively deep vortices by assimilating the TC central pressure estimate, the model storms filled during the subsequent 24 h. Other forecast models also systematically underestimated TC intensity (e.g., maximum forecast surface wind speed). The higher-resolution models generally had less bias. Analyses were conducted to try to understand whether the additional central pressure observation, the EnKF, or the extra resolution was most responsible for the decrease in track error of the experimental Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS)–EnKF over the operational NCEP. The assimilation of the additional TC observations produced only a small change in deterministic track forecasts initialized with the GSI. The T382L64 GFS–EnKF ensemble was used to initialize a T126L28 ensemble forecast to facilitate a comparison with the operational NCEP system. The T126L28 GFS–EnKF EPS track forecasts were dramatically better than the NCEP operational, suggesting the positive impact of the EnKF, perhaps through improved steering flow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations192
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Weather ReviewSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207