Evaluation of Surface Conditions from Operational Forecasts Using in situ Saildrone Observations in the Pacific Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations from uncrewed surface vehicles (saildrones) in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas during June – September 2019 were used to evaluate initial conditions and forecasts with lead times up to 10 days produced by eight operational numerical weather prediction centers. Prediction error behaviors in pressure and wind are found to be different from those in temperature and humidity. For example, errors in surface pressure were small in short-range (<6 days) forecasts, but they grew rapidly with increasing lead time beyond 6 days. Non-weighted multi-model means outperformed all individual models approaching a 10-day forecast lead time. In contrast, errors in surface air temperature and relative humidity could be large in initial conditions and remained large through 10-day forecasts without much growth, and non-weighted multi-model means did not outperform all individual models. These results following the tracks of the mobile platforms are consistent with those at a fixed location. Large errors in initial condition of sea surface temperature (SST) resulted in part from the unusual Arctic surface warming in 2019 not captured by data assimilation systems used for model initialization. These errors in SST led to large initial and prediction errors in surface air temperature. Our results suggest that improving predictions of surface conditions over the Arctic Ocean requires enhanced in situ observations and better data assimilation capability for more accurate initial conditions as well as better model physics. Numerical predictions of Arctic atmospheric conditions may continue to suffer from large errors if they do not fully capture the large SST anomalies related to Arctic warming.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".